Maybe I'm missing something here, but given the Full Faith and Credit clause,
and the Ninth Amendment which clearly gives States the upper hand on ambiguous
powers, how could the Federal government possibly refuse to accept an ID issued
by a state?
It could probably withhold all highways funds for not issuing acceptable IDs,
but I still think it would have to accept that state's IDs.
No this would not even be allowed with a warrant. A warrant is looking for specific evidence, not blanket collecting data that might be used to satisfy a question that has not even been asked yet.
If no record was kept when there was no hit this might be tolerable under the theory that a cop could have spotted a listed plate by eye, this is merely doing a better job of it.
The catch-22 here is that if you actually did count your cash immediately,
and found that the machine had given you fives instead of twenties, that
the bank probably would not take your word for it.
That is especially true if you did not catch it immediately
Now obviously someone who goes to that machine after hearing
about the malfunction is stealing. But I don't think it's in their
interest to imply that customers who simply grab the cash and
trust the machine are being criminally negligent.
The fundamental flaw here is assuming that the benefits of holding a patent are easily measured.
Patents are sought as much to prevent copying and defensively to ensure your right to sell your product
as to seek royalties from others. Any real evaluation would have to guestimate those values, and it would
be very inexact.
In my crude estimation, many or most companies overinvest in patent protection versus other forms
of protection such as pre-emptive public disclosure. But even looking at a single invention it is hard
to determine the probable value of each form of protection. The fact that these determinations are
frequently made by patent lawyers may slightly bias this process.
But those are all complex micro-economic tradeoffs. They are really irrelevant to public policy
discussions. If many homeowners overspend on home alarm systems it certainly would not mean
that we should legalize home invasions.
The case for patent reform is when it blocks usage of valid algorithms that were so obvious that
they should not have belonged to anyone. The degree to which a patent holder can force their
competitors to re-invent the obvious is actually one of the unmeasured "benefits' of holding
a patent that they forgot to measure. Of course that just shows that what needs to be measured
here is a lot more complex than was done. It's the macro-benefit of encouraging R&D spending
that is the promised benefit of a patent system. The arbitrary nature of what can obtain a patent
is the biggest drain on that potential. That calls for reform, not abolishment.
And if so, does the course mention the concept of "public figure"?
Surely the Principal qualifies as a public figure within the
relevant community. That means he should expect sophmoric
riddicule. As long as they aren't publishing anything that a
reasonable person would think is an actual profile then as an
educator he should have welcomed the students' exercise of their
free speach rights.
And if all of the other students flock to the page, well at
least they're reading something.
According to their definition, watermarks are supposed to insert identifying information in the video that the human eye cannot detect.
The goal of MPEG or any video compression is to save space by removing information that the human eye cannot detect.
So existing legitimate tools to do real-time MPEG compression will without special effort remove all artifacts of watermarking
as part of doing their legitimate function.
There doesn't seem to be much of a real solution here that would impair anyone who truly intended to steal content,
just potential privacy invasion of customers who had no intent to steal.
To the best of my knowledge there is no constitutional requirement that Congress behave rationally.
Therefore it is totally constitutional for one law to explicitly forbid the best method of
achieving an objective cited in a later law. They need to talk to Congress, not the courts.
I don't see how the credit reporting/monitoring companies can fix this.
To me the problem is very simple. If I lose my keys,
I don't put a "key watch" on my door to see if someone attempts to use the lost keys.
I change the locks on the door and get new keys.
If the confidentiality of my social security number is lost then I need
to get a new social security number.
DRM and Open Platform are separate issues
on
DRM and Democracy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The issue of subsidized players is quite distinct from DRM.
A very strong argument can be made that devices that deliver
content MUST be open to playing non-DRM-constrained
content from ANY source.
In fact I believe the FCC mandated this for radios and
TVs. Basically a TV or radio station was not allowed to
distribute players that would receive only their frequency.
It would be an excellent idea that anyone who creates
a DRM would be required to allow anyone who publishes
content to make use of that DRM. Publishing someone else's
material would of course be illegal, just as stamping DVDs
without someone else's material is.
But to imply that DRMs are incompatible with free speach
is simply stretching things a bit too far. Ensuring that
all players will continue to play non-DRM material is
all that is required to preserve the essence of public
discourse. Letting small publishers use the Big Boy's
DRMs would be nice, but certainly not essential.
It wouldn't be a 64-bit test versus a 32-bit test. It would be a C test compiled on
a 64-bit system versus the same test compiled on a 32-bit system.
How a 64-bit system and a 32-bit system would compare would depend heavily on the
type of application. A pointer-heavy Java application could indeed perform worse
on a system with 64-bit pointers (assuming you didn't need more than 4GB).
And I wouldn't have had a problem if the article had said "we're running the
type of 32-bit applications that most people use". Rather it ran 32-bit versions
of some of the very applications that could benefit from larger integer sizes
without commenting on the fact that their choice of OS had forced the AMD
processors to run in 32-bit mode.
Like I said, that's a dubious test. That doesn't mean the conclusion is
necessarily wrong, just that this test is misdesigned and/or mis-represented.
Personally, when I detect either I discount the results of the 'test'.
As near as I can determine from reading the article, it proves that a Core Duo *slightly*
outperforms an Athlon 64 XP2 when doing heavy number crunching with a 32-bit Windows
application.
Comparing the same application build for 64-bit on Linux vs. 32-bit on Linux (or BSD)
would have been a far more meaningful comparison.
Open Source code is not sufficient because there is no realistic way to ensure
that the code published is the actual code run on each machine.
A paper trail can be validated ex post facto. This is best done just as QA
is done on a production line -- always validate a portion of the product
even when there is no reason to expect that there is a problem.
That way, no matter what code they are running, if it tries to steal
votes to any signifigant degree it will show up in the validation sample.
And then a full recount can originate all the funny tabulations.
There is also the very real potential for influencing the outcome of
an election using purely electronic voting by simply causing a power
outage in the areas where the population is not likely to vote the
way that you want.
Requiring honest labeling of products and services is far from being inconsistent with a "free market", rather it is a fundamental service that government must provide to enable a free marketplace.
Just as you cannot sell 9 lbs of ground pork and call it 10 lbs of ground round, you cannot sell "internet service" that is biased towards certain providers and blocks services that aren't bundled from the same provider.
I have no objection to anyone who wants to offer "server subsidized limited internet access", just as long as they don't advertise it as "internet access".
Reading the article I am struck by the fact that in tables it repeatedly shows that the BSD-derived licenses are not infectious, but never references this in any discussions of the problems or the solutions. Given that government agencies may wish to share software developed with other agencies, concern for the infectious provisions of GPL are a valid concern. A law enforcement agency may be willing to share its added code with other law enforcement agencies, but not with the general public. Since a different state's law enforcement agency is not the same entity this is a valid concern. But doing customization from a proprietary base
is not going to be any more accomodating.
Nobody can reasonably expect Craigslist to pre-filter free ads.
The only way I could see them being liable is if they somehow promoted
their service as a way to evade censorship by newspaper classifieds, or
if they were unwilling to remove clearly abusive ads when they were
pointed out to them.
Once they charge, it would be reasonable to apply the same standards
that newspapers must meet for their classifieds.
IMHO there is abundant evidence of global warming, and I think
that it is important issue that must be addressed. But could
we at least stick with rationale arguments?
By itself, the fact the 20th century is the warmest since
the 9th century merely means that it places 1st out of
a sequence of 11 selective ex post facto.
The chances of a randomly selected century placing first
out of eleven is one out of eleven. That is hardly a
credible threshold for statistical signifigance.
Using multiple languages for a given purpose just creates more of a legacy liability.
If you do your performance critical software in C, C++ and Assembler then you need to
maintain a staff that knows C, C++ and Assembler.
But that is not a reason to try to write web applications in C. Or even test scripts.
Those areas need their own standard tools, and using the tools standardized for
another area will not make it easier to recruit and maintain staff. It will mean that
you'll have to recruit web developers who use different tools than what all the rest
of the web developers are using.
Ditto for test tools, which is actually where you see the greatest tendency to
just let each project decide how they are going to write their test scripts.
If the problem is not uniform, then the toolset shouldn't be either.
But that doesn't mean you should just casually select the toolset for
each project without recognizing the cost of maintaining competence
with each new toolset added.
The key to robust programming occurs long before coding.
You need a solid design that breaks the system down into
objects. Those objects need well defined states, actions
and messages. The messages can be implemented as messages
or as calls.
If you have that type of rigorous base the scope
of error that you can make in any programming language
is very small and very easily diagnosed.
The article indicated that the technique successfully detected 28 out of 31 lies.
Given that the lies were not rehearsed, were not coming from actual suspects,
and were from volunteers sufficiently low in claustrophobia to volunteer, that
isn't very impressive.
I suspect that there are detectives who are at least that good, and I'm not
willing to send anyone to prison on their hunches alone either.
Come back to me when you've done 10,000 or so in a double-blind test.
Dual-booting between MacOS X and Linux already exists for PPC Macs. So dual-booting isn't really all that exciting. What will be exciting is being able to have MacOS X, Linux and Windows running under Xen at the same time.
So the real race is whether Xen/x86 will be supported on Intel Macs before Xen/PPC is supported on PPC Macs.
That's why you also need a write-only audit trail produced before the voter leaves the booth. A second paper copy is certainly one form of a write-only audit trail.
Keep in mind that paper-ballots were far from perfect. Counters could and did vote for people who neglected to fill in for some contests, and/or create extraneous marks on the ballot to make it retroactively ambiguous.
A print-out with full candidate names is a lot harder to alter than a pre-printed form with Xs inside of boxes.
It's just that it's expandable via 1394
and USB 2.0. There are several companion
boxes designed to go below it now as hubs/
external hard disks.
The graphics are fixed, and you can only
fit so much memory. But it is a bargain
machine.
My old G4 has a wonderful case that opens
easily. It's far easier to install a new
card, more memory or an extra hard drive.
I wish the PCs I have used had such an
easy case to open. Those cases I
have to open. On the other hand I only
had to open my G4 case twice in
over three years.
Slashdot Mirror
Is curl. It's use is well documented and pre-dates their limitation of access to "standard browsers".
Maybe I'm missing something here, but given the Full Faith and Credit clause, and the Ninth Amendment which clearly gives States the upper hand on ambiguous powers, how could the Federal government possibly refuse to accept an ID issued by a state?
It could probably withhold all highways funds for not issuing acceptable IDs, but I still think it would have to accept that state's IDs.
Such as Novell would have to prove that anyone actually ever believed anything SCO claimed.
No this would not even be allowed with a warrant. A warrant is looking for specific evidence, not blanket collecting data that might be used to satisfy a question that has not even been asked yet. If no record was kept when there was no hit this might be tolerable under the theory that a cop could have spotted a listed plate by eye, this is merely doing a better job of it.
The catch-22 here is that if you actually did count your cash immediately, and found that the machine had given you fives instead of twenties, that the bank probably would not take your word for it.
That is especially true if you did not catch it immediately
Now obviously someone who goes to that machine after hearing about the malfunction is stealing. But I don't think it's in their interest to imply that customers who simply grab the cash and trust the machine are being criminally negligent.
The fundamental flaw here is assuming that the benefits of holding a patent are easily measured.
Patents are sought as much to prevent copying and defensively to ensure your right to sell your product as to seek royalties from others. Any real evaluation would have to guestimate those values, and it would be very inexact.
In my crude estimation, many or most companies overinvest in patent protection versus other forms of protection such as pre-emptive public disclosure. But even looking at a single invention it is hard to determine the probable value of each form of protection. The fact that these determinations are frequently made by patent lawyers may slightly bias this process.
But those are all complex micro-economic tradeoffs. They are really irrelevant to public policy discussions. If many homeowners overspend on home alarm systems it certainly would not mean that we should legalize home invasions.
The case for patent reform is when it blocks usage of valid algorithms that were so obvious that they should not have belonged to anyone. The degree to which a patent holder can force their competitors to re-invent the obvious is actually one of the unmeasured "benefits' of holding a patent that they forgot to measure. Of course that just shows that what needs to be measured here is a lot more complex than was done. It's the macro-benefit of encouraging R&D spending that is the promised benefit of a patent system. The arbitrary nature of what can obtain a patent is the biggest drain on that potential. That calls for reform, not abolishment.
And if so, does the course mention the concept of "public figure"?
Surely the Principal qualifies as a public figure within the relevant community. That means he should expect sophmoric riddicule. As long as they aren't publishing anything that a reasonable person would think is an actual profile then as an educator he should have welcomed the students' exercise of their free speach rights.
And if all of the other students flock to the page, well at least they're reading something.
According to their definition, watermarks are supposed to insert identifying information in the video that the human eye cannot detect.
The goal of MPEG or any video compression is to save space by removing information that the human eye cannot detect.
So existing legitimate tools to do real-time MPEG compression will without special effort remove all artifacts of watermarking as part of doing their legitimate function.
There doesn't seem to be much of a real solution here that would impair anyone who truly intended to steal content, just potential privacy invasion of customers who had no intent to steal.
To the best of my knowledge there is no constitutional requirement that Congress behave rationally.
Therefore it is totally constitutional for one law to explicitly forbid the best method of achieving an objective cited in a later law. They need to talk to Congress, not the courts.
I don't see how the credit reporting/monitoring companies can fix this.
To me the problem is very simple. If I lose my keys, I don't put a "key watch" on my door to see if someone attempts to use the lost keys. I change the locks on the door and get new keys.
If the confidentiality of my social security number is lost then I need to get a new social security number.
The issue of subsidized players is quite distinct from DRM.
A very strong argument can be made that devices that deliver content MUST be open to playing non-DRM-constrained content from ANY source.
In fact I believe the FCC mandated this for radios and TVs. Basically a TV or radio station was not allowed to distribute players that would receive only their frequency.
It would be an excellent idea that anyone who creates a DRM would be required to allow anyone who publishes content to make use of that DRM. Publishing someone else's material would of course be illegal, just as stamping DVDs without someone else's material is.
But to imply that DRMs are incompatible with free speach is simply stretching things a bit too far. Ensuring that all players will continue to play non-DRM material is all that is required to preserve the essence of public discourse. Letting small publishers use the Big Boy's DRMs would be nice, but certainly not essential.
It wouldn't be a 64-bit test versus a 32-bit test. It would be a C test compiled on a 64-bit system versus the same test compiled on a 32-bit system.
How a 64-bit system and a 32-bit system would compare would depend heavily on the type of application. A pointer-heavy Java application could indeed perform worse on a system with 64-bit pointers (assuming you didn't need more than 4GB).
And I wouldn't have had a problem if the article had said "we're running the type of 32-bit applications that most people use". Rather it ran 32-bit versions of some of the very applications that could benefit from larger integer sizes without commenting on the fact that their choice of OS had forced the AMD processors to run in 32-bit mode.
Like I said, that's a dubious test. That doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong, just that this test is misdesigned and/or mis-represented. Personally, when I detect either I discount the results of the 'test'.
As near as I can determine from reading the article, it proves that a Core Duo *slightly* outperforms an Athlon 64 XP2 when doing heavy number crunching with a 32-bit Windows application.
Comparing the same application build for 64-bit on Linux vs. 32-bit on Linux (or BSD) would have been a far more meaningful comparison.
Open Source code is not sufficient because there is no realistic way to ensure that the code published is the actual code run on each machine.
A paper trail can be validated ex post facto. This is best done just as QA is done on a production line -- always validate a portion of the product even when there is no reason to expect that there is a problem.
That way, no matter what code they are running, if it tries to steal votes to any signifigant degree it will show up in the validation sample. And then a full recount can originate all the funny tabulations.
There is also the very real potential for influencing the outcome of an election using purely electronic voting by simply causing a power outage in the areas where the population is not likely to vote the way that you want.
I agree fully.
Requiring honest labeling of products and services is far from
being inconsistent with a "free market", rather it is a
fundamental service that government must provide to enable
a free marketplace.
Just as you cannot sell 9 lbs of ground pork and call
it 10 lbs of ground round, you cannot sell "internet
service" that is biased towards certain providers and
blocks services that aren't bundled from the same provider.
I have no objection to anyone who wants to offer "server
subsidized limited internet access", just as long as they
don't advertise it as "internet access".
Reading the article I am struck by the fact that in tables it repeatedly shows that the BSD-derived licenses are not infectious, but never references this in any discussions of the problems or the solutions. Given that government agencies may wish to share software developed with other agencies, concern for the infectious provisions of GPL are a valid concern. A law enforcement agency may be willing to share its added code with other law enforcement agencies, but not with the general public. Since a different state's law enforcement agency is not the same entity this is a valid concern. But doing customization from a proprietary base is not going to be any more accomodating.
A very relevant question.
Nobody can reasonably expect Craigslist to pre-filter free ads. The only way I could see them being liable is if they somehow promoted their service as a way to evade censorship by newspaper classifieds, or if they were unwilling to remove clearly abusive ads when they were pointed out to them.
Once they charge, it would be reasonable to apply the same standards that newspapers must meet for their classifieds.
IMHO there is abundant evidence of global warming, and I think that it is important issue that must be addressed. But could we at least stick with rationale arguments?
By itself, the fact the 20th century is the warmest since the 9th century merely means that it places 1st out of a sequence of 11 selective ex post facto.
The chances of a randomly selected century placing first out of eleven is one out of eleven. That is hardly a credible threshold for statistical signifigance.
I totally agree.
Using multiple languages for a given purpose just creates more of a legacy liability. If you do your performance critical software in C, C++ and Assembler then you need to maintain a staff that knows C, C++ and Assembler.
But that is not a reason to try to write web applications in C. Or even test scripts. Those areas need their own standard tools, and using the tools standardized for another area will not make it easier to recruit and maintain staff. It will mean that you'll have to recruit web developers who use different tools than what all the rest of the web developers are using.
Ditto for test tools, which is actually where you see the greatest tendency to just let each project decide how they are going to write their test scripts.
If the problem is not uniform, then the toolset shouldn't be either. But that doesn't mean you should just casually select the toolset for each project without recognizing the cost of maintaining competence with each new toolset added.
The key to robust programming occurs long before coding.
You need a solid design that breaks the system down into objects. Those objects need well defined states, actions and messages. The messages can be implemented as messages or as calls.
If you have that type of rigorous base the scope of error that you can make in any programming language is very small and very easily diagnosed.
The article indicated that the technique successfully detected 28 out of 31 lies. Given that the lies were not rehearsed, were not coming from actual suspects, and were from volunteers sufficiently low in claustrophobia to volunteer, that isn't very impressive. I suspect that there are detectives who are at least that good, and I'm not willing to send anyone to prison on their hunches alone either. Come back to me when you've done 10,000 or so in a double-blind test.
Dual-booting between MacOS X and Linux already exists for PPC Macs.
So dual-booting isn't really all that exciting. What will be exciting
is being able to have MacOS X, Linux and Windows running under Xen
at the same time.
So the real race is whether Xen/x86 will be supported on Intel Macs
before Xen/PPC is supported on PPC Macs.
That's why you also need a write-only audit trail produced
before the voter leaves the booth. A second paper copy is
certainly one form of a write-only audit trail.
Keep in mind that paper-ballots were far from perfect.
Counters could and did vote for people who neglected
to fill in for some contests, and/or create extraneous
marks on the ballot to make it retroactively ambiguous.
A print-out with full candidate names is a lot harder
to alter than a pre-printed form with Xs inside of boxes.
The Mac Mini is quite expandable.
It's just that it's expandable via 1394 and USB 2.0. There are several companion boxes designed to go below it now as hubs/ external hard disks.
The graphics are fixed, and you can only fit so much memory. But it is a bargain machine.
My old G4 has a wonderful case that opens easily. It's far easier to install a new card, more memory or an extra hard drive. I wish the PCs I have used had such an easy case to open. Those cases I have to open. On the other hand I only had to open my G4 case twice in over three years.
Typesetting already has well established prior art of having a special optimized representation for a sequence of characters.
It's called a ligature. "To" is an example of a sequence that is frequently optimized with an alternate image (that moves the 'o' closer to the 'T').