If you do the virtual desktop correctly, they have basically the same delays as being there in person, the screen refresh and human ability to notice and interpret. They will be able to record the screen/session so could technically still copy the code but it would require a lot of work, but a NDA should help. The locked down desktop should provide them all the access they need. You can decide if you want to allow them to print or not.
Just image that they are using Xwindows and exporting their displays back to their own computers.
No, it can not. The problem is science long ago became a buzzword and has since been used for many things which is not science at all. The entire scientific process is about observations and experimentation and developing repeatable and predictable experiments which can be used to prove or disprove theories which are used to explain the behavior. If you can't create a repeatable and predictable experiment then it's not really science.
This isn't to say that theories can not be used to potentially explain past events and much of science is done trying to do just that, but as soon as you make a claim that some past event *MUST* have been caused by some previous event you have left the realm of science. It may be the best theory and there may not be any other understood cause but unless you have a reliable observation you can never be certain. Therefore much of science is also based on assumptions which is fine as long as you understand that they are just that... they are unproven assumptions.
It gets more complicated when theories build on each other because while it can be very helpful it is often easy to lose sight of the base assumptions or worse get into cases where your basis of support is a circular argument that theory A proves Theory B which proves theory A though almost never as simple as two theories.
My idea has always been to just make sure that the cost of the visa to the company includes the cost of sending 3 Current Residents to though an educational program to enable them to qualify for the position. When faces with paying college tuition for 3 others, plus the cost of the person they hired... the difference between in cost is unlikely to favor using the visas for cheap labor.
I have had progressive glasses for more years than I care to think about. But I am near sighted so can read without them. My first glasses had small bifocals in the inside bottom corner and that worked when everything you needed to see was either near (reading distance) or far away. The problem is a computer screen is in between and what progressive lens do is give a smooth transition between near and far, so for any distance you can look though some part of your glasses and have it in focus.
If you only need reading glasses and can see the monitor without your glasses then maybe you can skip them when using the computer, but if you need them to view the monitor but not distances greater then talk with your optometrist and get a prescription that uses the top part for a monitor and then decide if you want a lower corner for reading or not.
Yes and No. Java may automate memory management but it can't read your mind and if you don't understand memory management it can't help you. I have seen java code and programmers who merrily go on allocating object after object and then run out of memory and complain that java isn't doing its job. Java and most of your GC code will going a very good job of taking care of the details but you still better have some idea of memory management. Even standard C will automatically manage your memory if you stick with automatic variables which get put on the stack.
If you don't know if that object you created still needs to be around, then how do you expect Java or any GC to know if it should be kept or discarded. The GCs use algorithms to determine if an object can still be reached but while they may be getting better they are limited. So, while Java may take care of the details, you had better know about memory management.
The problem I see is that no matter what key(s) are used. If they are known then they are known and there is nothing to stop someone from using them early. How many people set the time on their systems ahead of the actual time to test something, what would stop them from doing it to break a code? Every wonder why the night sky would look like in 1 million years... if someone calculated the values for the key then knowing that the key was a starry sky a millions years from the future, then someone could look up the same for the key.
The idea that no one ( living ) knows the exact nature of the key, ie... the lock will for some time after 60 years would have another issue in that the code would need to check checked each second ( or 1/10 of a second, etc... ) and if something happens that a the key is skipped then it will be lost forever. The best idea so far is to generate a key which requires X out of Y samples to solve and then hope that at least X survive to the desired time and that no more than X-1 get released early.
There is a basic point missing in that expected grade distribution is very much dependent upon if you are trying to teach a subject to mastery or teach a subject the students limits of understanding. Ie. what is your philosophy of education?
If you are teaching a class covering a subject which can be mastered, then there is no reason everyone should not master the material and get an 100% baring lazyness.
An example would be written test for a drivers license, is there really any reason everyone who takes it should not get 100%?
If you are teaching to a scale, then you don't really care how much absolute material is transferred and your tests are designed to not to measure the material taught in the class as much as then general subject matter which the class covers, and they are designed to test the level of understanding of the subject as a whole with an emphasis on trying to prevent anyone from mastering the test.
Since encryption can use either private keys or public keys, the only reason to ask for a public key is because you aren't in direct communications with someone in order to securely exchange a private key. Public keys are used for more than just encrypting data, so if you have a public key you want it as public as possible. Since there is also a secret key behind the public key, it's either set up as a fully automatic process that would decrypt your data as soon as it was received or it is saved in encrypted form and only a small group can decrypt it.
So, where a company feels like they need secure encryption they may often have multiple public keys, sometimes tied to a department or even an individual, but in all cases if they have a public key they publish it. If you don't see one listed then they don't have a public key in place for at least that group. Check for the group that handles security concerns and they may have a public key, but unless that is where you want your data to do,,, I wouldn't use it,.
You do all recall that all the Romance languages are based on Roman, but they were once all dialects of Roman. Welcome to America, we we have all kinds of regional and local dialects.
But he doesn't seem to realize (at least not stating) what of the original data provided was intended to be encrypted and what of the original data was just along for the ride.
Ie. Is his credit card number being sent in e-mail or only his name and address ( which will be posted on the outside of any package he receives from them via any postal system, and read by everyone from the order fillers to the person that drops it off at his residence )
Maybe he has a 'secure' phone number, what information is being sent in plain text via e-mail that he thinks should be secured better? On the Other hand, he only needs to provide 'valid' data for which they need to fulfill their business transaction. So, if they don't need to physically send him anything, get a PO Box and use some alias at the PO. Box. Get a 'burner phone', between P.O. Box and non-attached phone number, they shouldn't have any real information to leak, unless they go thought a court somewhere.
Ignoring everything except "As long as the wealth is created in a free market, that wealth is a reflection of merit"
I have to ask 2 questions: 1) What merit is reflected into ones birth that causes the reflection of wealth there?
2) What is the reflection of merit when the increase in wealth before expenses would be the same percentage but due to the starting point of rich over poor. The Rich's expenses are well under that percentage and his wealth grows, but the Poor's expenses vary around that percentage and while occasionally the wealth grows, it also often shrinks. Bonus points if you don't fall back on living within one's means and extol the virtues of living as a pauper or working 24x7 so as to avoid needing to have a place to sleep.
I seriously doubt any people will actually quit... the memo actually states that your managers are already aware of the next steps, so it going to be dependent on managers...
If I was affected I would just continue the status quo while looking for a new job on the side.... once they cut my access and closed done my office and layed me off... I would file unemployment...
Clearly the judge formed the thought that the man was going to name the king... in that context and given the crime if 'insulting the king' isn't it pretty insulting to the king for the judge to immediately assume that the king would have been mentioned?
The 'commercial' part is going to come back to haunt them. The rules for commercial use are so different than for non-commercial use. They will shut down the commercial aspect the first time one of the following happens:
1) A user takes a picture of a person who did not consent to commercial use of their likeness. (something that is not needed for the original individual to post for non-commercial use)
2) A photographer gives an individual a photograph without license for commercial use and that someone posts the photograph with consent for non-commercial purposes and it's used a third-party for commercial purposes.
In each of the above cases the up-loader was within their rights and the commercial publisher can't get an appropriate license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate permissions.
The commercial publisher is going to be the target of the law suits and they won't be able to use the defense of any license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate license to transfer. They can try and sue Instagram to recover damages and Instagram may try to sue the original up-loader, but I can't see that getting very far. (not for lack of trying as much as for lack of money and original usage not violating the usage.
Examples of case one.. I was in Story Land a few years back, and this young woman had a frown on her face, I can only image she wanted to be somewhere else.. anyway, I took a picture of her on one of the rides with this huge frown and arms folded across her chest. (not that anyone would want to use her photo as a advertisement for the story land, but I think it falls under editorial if not artistic use... but I have no right to use her image for commercial purposes, so can't give that right to anyone else)
Example for case two, both of my kids school pictures included a small sized digital image which was explicitly licensed for non-commercial usage. So I was within my rights to use it non-commercial. posting it so relatives could see them. ( as I didn't get a commercial right I can't transfer one)
Even if I used Instagram (which I don't), even if I am agreeing that by uploading an image I transfer all rights, I can't transfer what I don't own. Commercial publisher sues, Instagram, Instagram sues me.... I doubt it, and the Commercial Publisher has no relationship with me, so they can't sue me. Even if I was sued, I can't believe any judge would find against me as I didn't attempt any commercial usage and even if they did.... They would likely spend more on the legals fees than they would ever see from me.
I would normally say, no 'legit' commercial publisher is going to purchase and use a photograph for commercial use without a firm release signed, etc.... but there this case not that long ago.. and many similar ones since then....
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between “off the wall” surveillance and “through the wall” surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a “firm but also bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the “‘entrance to the house’”.[1] This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was “unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment”[2] because according to Scalia’s previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined.......
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html... YLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.......
(b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6—7.......
## ## Not disagreeing, but surely you can see my confusion as both of the above refer to "...technology in question is not in general public use..." ##
The key component is "plain view', thermal enhanced imaging is not plain view, and trained dogs are not plain smell. If the officer can smell your pot without a dog, you will still have issues.
My memory of that ruling is a little fuzzy but I believe (but could be wrong) that the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required.. ie, if they used a common telescope or binoculars and saw something it could be used, but at the time thermal imaging or low flying photos (or observation) from helicopter or plane was considered a governmental (as in only they could do it due to the resources) search and therefore required a warrant.
That (if my memory is correct) was the test that allowed the police to claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine when they happened to smell or see something that was really in 'plain view' while preventing the police from claiming plain view for every new search that could be performed remotely.
Wow... someone else with common sense,,, I find it funny that our existence doesn't prove anything. To the Atheist it lends proof to evolution because they assume there is nothing that exists that could have designed or controlled things to cause us to be here. To the Theologists its supporting evidence of Gods grand design.
If you find logs stacked in two parallel rows with two other parallel rows at 90 degrees forming a rectangular enclosure with a few breaks that can be used to enter or exit and enclosure, does it prove that eventually the absurd odds of trees just randomly falling will build a log cabin or does it prove that even if you have no other proof that some intelligence built it, that there is some intelligence that €you just haven't found yet.
Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory.......
How would I dis-prove gravity... would be the question...
I would take a mass and drop it in a vacuum and watch it not fall... and rule out any other forces. The theory of gravity predicts that it would fall towards the earth ( assuming that we are in fact conducting such experiment on earth). If it didn't fall then our current theory of gravity is wrong.
The question wasn't what test WILL , but what test WOULD.... If you can't think of a test that would prove your theory wrong then it's not provable...
Einstein proved that newtons laws were wrong... or incorrect and limited if you want to be PC about it...
Science works by the simple principle that only a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory... please review your science... a theory covers a range of ideas...which is what makes it different than an observation... an observation says that in this particular instance this is what was observed... a theory says that in all these cases (sometimes more limited than others) something will be observed. So, only a single counter example breaks the theory.
Slashdot Mirror
If you do the virtual desktop correctly, they have basically the same delays as being there in person, the screen refresh and human ability to notice and interpret. They will be able to record the screen/session so could technically still copy the code but it would require a lot of work, but a NDA should help.
The locked down desktop should provide them all the access they need. You can decide if you want to allow them to print or not.
Just image that they are using Xwindows and exporting their displays back to their own computers.
No, it can not. The problem is science long ago became a buzzword and has since been used for many things which is not science at all. The entire scientific process is about observations and experimentation and developing repeatable and predictable experiments which can be used to prove or disprove theories which are used to explain the behavior. If you can't create a repeatable and predictable experiment then it's not really science.
This isn't to say that theories can not be used to potentially explain past events and much of science is done trying to do just that, but as soon as you make a claim that some past event *MUST* have been caused by some previous event you have left the realm of science. It may be the best theory and there may not be any other understood cause but unless you have a reliable observation you can never be certain. Therefore much of science is also based on assumptions which is fine as long as you understand that they are just that... they are unproven assumptions.
It gets more complicated when theories build on each other because while it can be very helpful it is often easy to lose sight of the base assumptions or worse get into cases where your basis of support is a circular argument that theory A proves Theory B which proves theory A though almost never as simple as two theories.
My idea has always been to just make sure that the cost of the visa to the company includes the cost of sending 3 Current Residents to though an educational program to enable them to qualify for the position. When faces with paying college tuition for 3 others, plus the cost of the person they hired... the difference between in cost is unlikely to favor using the visas for cheap labor.
I have had progressive glasses for more years than I care to think about. But I am near sighted so can read without them. My first glasses had small bifocals in the inside bottom corner and that worked when everything you needed to see was either near (reading distance) or far away. The problem is a computer screen is in between and what progressive lens do is give a smooth transition between near and far, so for any distance you can look though some part of your glasses and have it in focus.
If you only need reading glasses and can see the monitor without your glasses then maybe you can skip them when using the computer, but if you need them to view the monitor but not distances greater then talk with your optometrist and get a prescription that uses the top part for a monitor and then decide if you want a lower corner for reading or not.
Yes and No. Java may automate memory management but it can't read your mind and if you don't understand memory management it can't help you. I have seen java code and programmers who merrily go on allocating object after object and then run out of memory and complain that java isn't doing its job. Java and most of your GC code will going a very good job of taking care of the details but you still better have some idea of memory management. Even standard C will automatically manage your memory if you stick with automatic variables which get put on the stack.
If you don't know if that object you created still needs to be around, then how do you expect Java or any GC to know if it should be kept or discarded. The GCs use algorithms to determine if an object can still be reached but while they may be getting better they are limited. So, while Java may take care of the details, you had better know about memory management.
The problem I see is that no matter what key(s) are used. If they are known then they are known and there is nothing to stop someone from using them early. How many people set the time on their systems ahead of the actual time to test something, what would stop them from doing it to break a code? Every wonder why the night sky would look like in 1 million years... if someone calculated the values for the key then knowing that the key was a starry sky a millions years from the future, then someone could look up the same for the key.
The idea that no one ( living ) knows the exact nature of the key, ie... the lock will for some time after 60 years would have another issue in that the code would need to check checked each second ( or 1/10 of a second, etc... ) and if something happens that a the key is skipped then it will be lost forever. The best idea so far is to generate a key which requires X out of Y samples to solve and then hope that at least X survive to the desired time and that no more than X-1 get released early.
There is a basic point missing in that expected grade distribution is very much dependent upon if you are trying to teach a subject to mastery or teach a subject the students limits of understanding. Ie. what is your philosophy of education?
If you are teaching a class covering a subject which can be mastered, then there is no reason everyone should not master the material and get an 100% baring lazyness.
An example would be written test for a drivers license, is there really any reason everyone who takes it should not get 100%?
If you are teaching to a scale, then you don't really care how much absolute material is transferred and your tests are designed to not to measure the material taught in the class as much as then general subject matter which the class covers, and they are designed to test the level of understanding of the subject as a whole with an emphasis on trying to prevent anyone from mastering the test.
Most of your Engineering classes.
Since encryption can use either private keys or public keys, the only reason to ask for a public key is because you aren't in direct communications with someone in order to securely exchange a private key. Public keys are used for more than just encrypting data, so if you have a public key you want it as public as possible. Since there is also a secret key behind the public key, it's either set up as a fully automatic process that would decrypt your data as soon as it was received or it is saved in encrypted form and only a small group can decrypt it.
So, where a company feels like they need secure encryption they may often have multiple public keys, sometimes tied to a department or even an individual, but in all cases if they have a public key they publish it. If you don't see one listed then they don't have a public key in place for at least that group. Check for the group that handles security concerns and they may have a public key, but unless that is where you want your data to do,,, I wouldn't use it,.
-Robert
Please See: http://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6
You do all recall that all the Romance languages are based on Roman, but they were once all dialects of Roman. Welcome to America, we we have all kinds of regional and local dialects.
But he doesn't seem to realize (at least not stating) what of the original data provided was intended to be encrypted and what of the original data was just along for the ride.
Ie. Is his credit card number being sent in e-mail or only his name and address ( which will be posted on the outside of any package he receives from them via any postal system, and read by everyone from the order fillers to the person that drops it off at his residence )
Maybe he has a 'secure' phone number, what information is being sent in plain text via e-mail that he thinks should be secured better? On the Other hand, he only needs to provide 'valid' data for which they need to fulfill their business transaction. So, if they don't need to physically send him anything, get a PO Box and use some alias at the PO. Box. Get a 'burner phone', between P.O. Box and non-attached phone number, they shouldn't have any real information to leak, unless they go thought a court somewhere.
Yes, this is Slashdot!
Ignoring everything except "As long as the wealth is created in a free market, that wealth is a reflection of merit"
I have to ask 2 questions:
1) What merit is reflected into ones birth that causes the reflection of wealth there?
2) What is the reflection of merit when the increase in wealth before expenses would be the same percentage but due to the starting point of rich over poor. The Rich's expenses are well under that percentage and his wealth grows, but the Poor's expenses vary around that percentage and while occasionally the wealth grows, it also often shrinks. Bonus points if you don't fall back on living within one's means and extol the virtues of living as a pauper or working 24x7 so as to avoid needing to have a place to sleep.
I seriously doubt any people will actually quit... the memo actually states that your managers are already aware of the next steps, so it going to be dependent on managers...
If I was affected I would just continue the status quo while looking for a new job on the side....
once they cut my access and closed done my office and layed me off... I would file unemployment...
Clearly the judge formed the thought that the man was going to name the king... in that context and given the crime if 'insulting the king' isn't it pretty insulting to the king for the judge to immediately assume that the king would have been mentioned?
No, they won't want anyone who has access to schools to have weapons... Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster you can't trust anyone.
The 'commercial' part is going to come back to haunt them. The rules for commercial use are so different than for non-commercial use. They will shut down the commercial aspect the first time one of the following happens:
1) A user takes a picture of a person who did not consent to commercial use of their likeness. (something that is not needed for the original individual to post for non-commercial use)
2) A photographer gives an individual a photograph without license for commercial use and that someone posts the photograph with consent for non-commercial purposes and it's used a third-party for commercial purposes.
In each of the above cases the up-loader was within their rights and the commercial publisher can't get an appropriate license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate permissions.
The commercial publisher is going to be the target of the law suits and they won't be able to use the defense of any license because the up-loader didn't have the appropriate license to transfer. They can try and sue Instagram to recover damages and Instagram may try to sue the original up-loader, but I can't see that getting very far. (not for lack of trying as much as for lack of money and original usage not violating the usage.
Examples of case one.. I was in Story Land a few years back, and this young woman had a frown on her face, I can only image she wanted to be somewhere else.. anyway, I took a picture of her on one of the rides with this huge frown and arms folded across her chest. (not that anyone would want to use her photo as a advertisement for the story land, but I think it falls under editorial if not artistic use... but I have no right to use her image for commercial purposes, so can't give that right to anyone else)
Example for case two, both of my kids school pictures included a small sized digital image which was explicitly licensed for non-commercial usage. So I was within my rights to use it non-commercial. posting it so relatives could see them. ( as I didn't get a commercial right I can't transfer one)
Even if I used Instagram (which I don't), even if I am agreeing that by uploading an image I transfer all rights, I can't transfer what I don't own. Commercial publisher sues, Instagram, Instagram sues me .... I doubt it, and the Commercial Publisher has no relationship with me, so they can't sue me. Even if I was sued, I can't believe any judge would find against me as I didn't attempt any commercial usage and even if they did.... They would likely spend more on the legals fees than they would ever see from me.
I would normally say, no 'legit' commercial publisher is going to purchase and use a photograph for commercial use without a firm release signed, etc.... but there this case not that long ago.. and many similar ones since then....
http://www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157600541608353/
Most survivalist will be dead in 4 weeks, the preppers will likely last about 6 months, then the farmers will get what's left.
ah, sorry I wasn't thinking... states can have their own set of rules which vary, state to state
It has not been challenged again.... it would be interesting to see if it was challenged again ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States ... ...
Opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home. Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment. As a result, Justice Scalia asserted that the difference between “off the wall” surveillance and “through the wall” surveillance was non-existent because both methods physically intruded upon the privacy of the home. Scalia created a “firm but also bright” line drawn by the Fourth Amendment at the “‘entrance to the house’”.[1] This line is meant to protect the home from all types of warrantless surveillance and is an interpretation of what he called “the long view” of the Fourth Amendment. The dissent thought this line was “unnecessary, unwise, and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment”[2] because according to Scalia’s previous logic, this firm but bright line would be defunct as soon as the surveillance technology used went into general public use, which was still undefined. ... ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html ... ... ... ... ...
YLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001) 190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.
(b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home’s interior–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home’s interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 6—7.
##
## Not disagreeing, but surely you can see my confusion as both of the above refer to "...technology in question is not in general public use..."
##
The key component is "plain view', thermal enhanced imaging is not plain view, and trained dogs are not plain smell. If the officer can smell your pot without a dog, you will still have issues.
My memory of that ruling is a little fuzzy but I believe (but could be wrong) that the ruling was basically if the police using something (equipment) which is something the ordinary people have ready access to then no warrant was required.. ie, if they used a common telescope or binoculars and saw something it could be used, but at the time thermal imaging or low flying photos (or observation) from helicopter or plane was considered a governmental (as in only they could do it due to the resources) search and therefore required a warrant.
That (if my memory is correct) was the test that allowed the police to claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine when they happened to smell or see something that was really in 'plain view' while preventing the police from claiming plain view for every new search that could be performed remotely.
Wow... someone else with common sense,,, I find it funny that our existence doesn't prove anything. To the Atheist it lends proof to evolution because they assume there is nothing that exists that could have designed or controlled things to cause us to be here. To the Theologists its supporting evidence of Gods grand design.
If you find logs stacked in two parallel rows with two other parallel rows at 90 degrees forming a rectangular enclosure with a few breaks that can be used to enter or exit and enclosure, does it prove that eventually the absurd odds of trees just randomly falling will build a log cabin or does it prove that even if you have no other proof that some intelligence built it, that there is some intelligence that €you just haven't found yet.
Can you please provide a written definition for your use of theory, because even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory ... ...
The term theoretical
Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested, if it is already supported by sufficiently strong evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical." These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision or rejection of the theory. ... ...
How would I dis-prove gravity... would be the question...
I would take a mass and drop it in a vacuum and watch it not fall ... and rule out any other forces. The theory of gravity predicts that it would fall towards the earth ( assuming that we are in fact conducting such experiment on earth). If it didn't fall then our current theory of gravity is wrong.
The question wasn't what test WILL , but what test WOULD .... If you can't think of a test that would prove your theory wrong then it's not provable...
Einstein proved that newtons laws were wrong... or incorrect and limited if you want to be PC about it...
Science works by the simple principle that only a single counter example is enough to disprove a theory... please review your science... a theory covers a range of ideas...which is what makes it different than an observation... an observation says that in this particular instance this is what was observed... a theory says that in all these cases (sometimes more limited than others) something will be observed. So, only a single counter example breaks the theory.