A riot is generally not something you easily mistake for an orderly protest. And illegal assembly is defined by law.
The summary substitutes "protest" for the bills actual wording. (Its slash dot after all).
TFA says:
[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,
Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada? Does Harper's opinion change the definition of an indictable offence?
Is smashing storefronts, and burning police cars based on the outcome of a hockey game a peaceful protest?
Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot? Isn't Canada a long way from Syria, both geographically and socially?
This site died long ago, and the paid astroturfing you are complaining about is the reason why. Time to put 127.0.0.1 in the hosts table again for slashdot.org.
Efficiency and navigatability, plus, as opposed to London, most American cities have several thousand years worth of city road building experience built right in.
I suspect you mean thousands of years of road building experience built RIGHT OUT.
Instead of having to make all those mistakes that you must accept forever, (because the cost to undo them is too high) cities developed later tend to be developed better. Learning from the mistakes of the past.
But in any event, I fail to see how this issue affects driverless cars. After all, its all in the maps. Narrow twisting one way streets would be avoided, just like any good GPS Nav unit avoids them now, unless your destination is one such a street. Route preference can be built into the maps as well. I don't see old-city design issues being a major impediment. Speeds are slower in these places, and the guidance system has time to react.
Italian drivers are another issue.
What worries me is the increasing incidence of big-rig drivers to run GPS Jammers just so their cargo can't track its own route. I've had my GPS jump two states away just because an 18 wheeler pulled up behind me. I whipped out my phone only to find it couldn't get a fix either. 10 miles this went on, then the trucker tuned onto a different highway, and everything went back to normal.
Can the Google cars handle this?
Do they have inertial nav, or dead reckoning built in for GPS failures, or do they just rely on following a lane to its destination? See-vehicle - Avoid vehicle, See Lane - Stay in Lane? Do they hit the pot hole at 50mph that the car in front drifted slightly left to avoid?
I agree. College students email with term paper for hire attachments, and pirated songs and protest organization mail, and drunk shots of the girl in 301 West Tower, and the going rate for a dime bag are all valuable forensic data.
Actually, your question is already answered, or being answered today in Syria, with government snipers on the roof tops and tanks firing into neighborhoods. No, the world will just let it go on, and then feign horror when a US bomb lands near Muammar Gaddafi tent.
Its not just a problem with Americans not wanting to step in and stop something that is universally condemned as wrong. Europe is far more susceptible to this fog of excuses for in-action. And of course Russia and China see absolutely nothing wrong with what Syria is doing, because they have and would again take actions far more brutal.
Look at the excuses in the post you replied to. Excuse after excuse after excuse. Platitude after failed platitude of repeated dogma. These pale in comparison to the typical Euro mindset, which is something akin to that of an apartment dweller in a New York City housing development in a rough neighborhood. Nothing that stays outside your door is anything you should take an interest in. Just let it slide.
Further, Grimes falls headlong into the punch-bowl of the "Its popular, therefore, its attacked" Koolaid that Microsoft has been serving up for years now. With a few thousand more eyes on that source code its quite possible it could be much more secure than it is now, especially since Grimes himself points out it was originally designed with security in mind. But as long as vendors and bloggers can claim that popular platforms fall to attack simply because they are popular, we will never see much pressure for improvement.
Some popular things, like Gold Ingots, are just harder to steal because Fort Knox has better security. Even with a map, a tour, and three corrupt ex-guards on your payroll you aren't going to succeed.
The idea that we will ship code, vetted by nobody in particular, for execution on some remote machine, and then expect a software sandbox to contain that code successfully, forever, with zero maintenance is just begging for trouble. To do so without publicly vetting the platform in all of its details is foolish.
Good luck with that, we humans have entire criminal justice systems which are supposed to bring accountability... pretty sure you know where I'm going with this one.
The criminal justice system, and the police are scaled just big enough to keep people from murdering each other and running off with with other people's property on any grand scale. It was never intended that this level of policing should be 100% fool proof. Even in those countries where there is totalitarian control, petty crime is rampant and tolerated simply because you can't lock up everybody.
I doubt you or the author of TFA would want to live in a society so tightly monitored that it was impossible to commit ID theft or internet crime (he seems to equate the two).
There was an opportunity, and actually some proposals for a non anonymous internet once upon a time. Also for absolutely verifiable Email senders. That path wasn't chosen, and would likely have been impossible anyway, with the side effect of turning a lot of petty internet activity into internet crimes, merely because you posted without a license, or made a name up.
The litany of failed approaches is long and sordid.
Fawning praise doesn't work Strongly worded State Department tough talk doesn't work. Sanctions don't work. UN tough talk doesn't work. UN Observers don't work.
All of the above are excuses for doing nothing, either because those who impose them don't want to, can't afford to, believe the situation will take care of itself, can't agree which side should prevail, are held back by those insisting its none of anyone else's business, or that we should "give peace a chance".
In the mean time Syria goes on killing, an estimated 12,000 of its own citizens to-date. Libya with a more competent army. So we tighten the sanctions.
If we can collectively decide (by doing nothing) that its "ok" for a government to kill 12K citizens so that one man can remain in power in the name of "giving peace a chance", why can't we collectively decide in the UN (or elsewhere) that targeted attacks on despot leaders is justified in the name of "giving life a chance"?
You build the weapons you need in the quantity you need. We have drones to do the super dangerous missions, and tons of F16s FA-18s, F-15s to rule the roost once the the F22s sweep the skys. Please don't assume because you have a computer and an internet connection that you are qualified to design force levels for a theater you can only guess at. Production has been purposely held back so that the country can be bankrupted paying for healthcare.
Having an aircraft designed, tested, and an assembly line in place, these very small aircraft can be built in great numbers very fast as soon as cost become not a constraint.
The F22 was not designed for a cold war. It was deigned for air to air combat.
It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.
And I will point out that the reason there has never been a question of Air Superiority is precisely because the US was always looking at the Soviets as the next potential combatant, and developing high-tech planes for that eventuality. Now they are looking at the Chinese, or their client states, as well as places like Iran or Syria that have something like 50 times the anti-air missile technology that Iraq had.
You can't seriously be suggesting that we wait till there is a superior opponent kicking our asses before we start development can you? It sure sounds like you are.
The money was all spent here, and the aircraft will server for 30 years.
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
That's pretty evident. His statement:
'There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft,
shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.
My question is, how? How do they store the energy in batteries? We're talking about algae, not solar cells. What are they using, magic?
The algae produce carbohydrate energy for themselves as well as oxygen as a waste product.
Left out of the summary was the step where the carbohydrate gets converted to electricity and stored in batteries. Following the link in the summary to TFA, and then to the source, and even watching the video, I was still unable to find anything about this step.
The video showed that the Algae were in the outer cylinder of two concentric cylinders, and the inner won was apparently a light source of some kind.
Not true. You can put anything on your Google Drive and mark it as public. Further, this is far easier than hiring a hosting company, learning html, uploading, etc.
Its linkable. You can mark it as totally public, and delete it at will.
This capability is also available from several other online cloud storage providers.
If anything, this trend makes it far easier for the average person to get their manifesto on the Internet.
You already gave the answer: MESSY. An Imac configured to use voice commands STILL needs a mouse and an Keyboard. Milk in the keyboard is no fun.
Its way easier to whip a tablet down than it its to clean a keyboard. And the Tablet does voice commands too, and video calls, an TV, and every other thing you would need done in the kitchen, including bar code scanning the packaging you are about to toss in the trash to add that item back onto your grocery list.
But it does allow people to start planning service stations with some confidence that they will be able to service the bulk of the fleet, instead of needing charge stations for each car.
The 15 to 20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time as well. By the time you refill your coffee, pump the bilge, buy the snack, your car would be ready.
This also allows restaurants and coffee shops on major highways to start installing charge stations in their lots. They sell you the juice while you are having your lunch. We could see gas stations disappear in our life time. (Well, maybe in your life time).
Standardization of basic infrastructure like this is a key hurdle for EVs to gain market share. But the typical (and optimistic) 100 mile range of a Battery Electric Vehicle is still a killer for anything but around town driving.
Except every security blog and even router documentation recommends against upnp. I believe it ships in the OFF state on most new routers for this very reason.
The problem is that Rand Paul isn't suggesting that the groping stop. He's suggesting that it be *privatized*, with no government oversight or accountability at all (even less than there already is). So the only thing that will change is that the person grabbing your balls will wear a different logo on his shirt--and answer only to a private company.
No government oversight or accountability? Are you purposely twisting things, or simply ignorant?
Its precisely the government oversight that got us into this mess!
Once you remove grope-enabling legislation, and ridiculous search laws, the grope falls under existing laws, and accountability will be under assault or sexual molestation laws. Airlines and airports and private security firms are a whole lot easier to sue and control than an untouchable government agency with a national budget.
> they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.
Currently that is not the case as is even stated in the fricking summary which you obviously did not bother reading.
Currently is rather temporary. (By definition).
The problem is there are so few machines that meet the criteria for being a supernode that the network can't handle the number of connections it needs because of a shortage of supernodes. It used to be that skype enthusiasts would create inward routes through their firewalls specifically to allow (some of) their machines to be supernodes. When big money stepped in, lots of folks stopped doing that. When suspect big money (Microsoft) stepped in, even fewer were willing to do this. (Like one in 100 skype users even know how to do this anyway).
Everybody is firewalled these days. There are fewer volunteers. ISPs are imposing bandwidth caps. And Microsoft would likely rather have control, especially if they want to monitize this thing.
The article claims that regular users can no longer be promoted to supernodes. I would call that a switch.
Regular users haven't been promoted to supernodes for a long time. You needed an inward route thru your firewall (or a direct connection) for this to work. The sale to Microsoft left a bad enough taste in many people's mouth that they just dropped their inward routes and thereby eliminated any possibility of them being a supernode.
But even prior to the sale, (under Ebay) skype had started paring back client side supernodes, because of security concerns. I don't actually think they were using end-user machines for supernodes for a long time. I used to have a machine that frequently became a supernode, and could see a lot of connections on my router when skype was idling. I haven't seen that for several years.
In the early days of Skype, any machine with a direct connection to the internet could find itself being a supernode (which really handled setting up connections for firewalled machines, not all of the traffic for those machines).
Later Skype decided to create farms of supernodes for this and stop using end-user machines for this purpose. (Mostly because it was getting harder and harder to find non-firewalled machines). They haven't used individual desktops for supernodes for a long time.
So other than the scale of the deployment, the fact that Microsoft deliberately chose to avoid windows for this purpose is significant.
Except there may well be legal reason for being detained.
Police have the power for Investigatory stops or detentions, especially at a crime scene. If you are detained at the scene of a crime, resisting this detention is foolish. In some cases, resisting a lawful detention instantly changes the situation into a de facto arrest.
Investigatory stops or detentions must be limited and temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining when an investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring the flexibility and discretion of police officers by placing artificial time limitations on the fluid and dynamic nature of their investigations. Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention.
Slashdot Mirror
A riot is generally not something you easily mistake for an orderly protest.
And illegal assembly is defined by law.
The summary substitutes "protest" for the bills actual wording. (Its slash dot after all).
TFA says:
[existing Canadian law] Section 351 already makes it illegal for anyone to wear a disguise to commit an indictable offence,
Is a peaceful protest and indictable offense in Canada? Does Harper's opinion change the definition of an indictable offence?
Is smashing storefronts, and burning police cars based on the outcome of a hockey game a peaceful protest?
Isn't the whole point of a peaceful protest to stand up as a citizen for or against some idea? Doesn't hiding behind a mask make that moot?
Isn't Canada a long way from Syria, both geographically and socially?
We were promised Flying Cars to solve all the same problems.
This site died long ago, and the paid astroturfing you are complaining about is the reason why. Time to put 127.0.0.1 in the hosts table again for slashdot.org.
And yet you post.....?!
The mind boggles.
Efficiency and navigatability, plus, as opposed to London, most American cities have several thousand years worth of city road building experience built right in.
I suspect you mean thousands of years of road building experience built RIGHT OUT.
Instead of having to make all those mistakes that you must accept forever, (because the cost to undo them is too high) cities developed later tend to be developed better. Learning from the mistakes of the past.
But in any event, I fail to see how this issue affects driverless cars. After all, its all in the maps.
Narrow twisting one way streets would be avoided, just like any good GPS Nav unit avoids them now, unless your destination is one such a street. Route preference can be built into the maps as well. I don't see old-city design issues being a major impediment. Speeds are slower in these places, and the guidance system has time to react.
Italian drivers are another issue.
What worries me is the increasing incidence of big-rig drivers to run GPS Jammers just so their cargo can't track its own route. I've had my GPS jump two states away just because an 18 wheeler pulled up behind me. I whipped out my phone only to find it couldn't get a fix either. 10 miles this went on, then the trucker tuned onto a different highway, and everything went back to normal.
Can the Google cars handle this?
Do they have inertial nav, or dead reckoning built in for GPS failures, or do they just rely on following a lane to its destination?
See-vehicle - Avoid vehicle, See Lane - Stay in Lane?
Do they hit the pot hole at 50mph that the car in front drifted slightly left to avoid?
I agree. College students email with term paper for hire attachments, and pirated songs and protest organization mail, and drunk shots of the girl in 301 West Tower, and the going rate for a dime bag are all valuable forensic data.
Actually, your question is already answered, or being answered today in Syria, with government snipers on the roof tops and tanks firing into neighborhoods. No, the world will just let it go on, and then feign horror when a US bomb lands near Muammar Gaddafi tent.
Its not just a problem with Americans not wanting to step in and stop something that is universally condemned as wrong.
Europe is far more susceptible to this fog of excuses for in-action. And of course Russia and China see absolutely nothing wrong with what Syria is doing, because they have and would again take actions far more brutal.
Look at the excuses in the post you replied to. Excuse after excuse after excuse. Platitude after failed platitude of repeated dogma. These pale in comparison to the typical Euro mindset, which is something akin to that of an apartment dweller in a New York City housing development in a rough neighborhood. Nothing that stays outside your door is anything you should take an interest in. Just let it slide.
You are right of course.
Further, Grimes falls headlong into the punch-bowl of the "Its popular, therefore, its attacked" Koolaid that Microsoft has been serving up for years now. With a few thousand more eyes on that source code its quite possible it could be much more secure than it is now, especially since Grimes himself points out it was originally designed with security in mind. But as long as vendors and bloggers can claim that popular platforms fall to attack simply because they are popular, we will never see much pressure for improvement.
Some popular things, like Gold Ingots, are just harder to steal because Fort Knox has better security. Even with a map, a tour, and three corrupt ex-guards on your payroll you aren't going to succeed.
The idea that we will ship code, vetted by nobody in particular, for execution on some remote machine, and then expect a software sandbox to contain that code successfully, forever, with zero maintenance is just begging for trouble. To do so without publicly vetting the platform in all of its details is foolish.
Good luck with that, we humans have entire criminal justice systems which are supposed to bring accountability... pretty sure you know where I'm going with this one.
The criminal justice system, and the police are scaled just big enough to keep people from murdering each other and running off with with other people's property on any grand scale. It was never intended that this level of policing should be 100% fool proof. Even in those countries where there is totalitarian control, petty crime is rampant and tolerated simply because you can't lock up everybody.
I doubt you or the author of TFA would want to live in a society so tightly monitored that it was impossible to commit ID theft or internet crime (he seems to equate the two).
There was an opportunity, and actually some proposals for a non anonymous internet once upon a time. Also for absolutely verifiable Email senders. That path wasn't chosen, and would likely have been impossible anyway, with the side effect of turning a lot of petty internet activity into internet crimes, merely because you posted without a license, or made a name up.
Occupation seems to be another failed strategy.
Its about time to take out the bad actors like Sadam, then just leave, like in labia.
The litany of failed approaches is long and sordid.
Fawning praise doesn't work
Strongly worded State Department tough talk doesn't work.
Sanctions don't work.
UN tough talk doesn't work.
UN Observers don't work.
All of the above are excuses for doing nothing, either because those who impose them don't
want to, can't afford to, believe the situation will take care of itself, can't agree which
side should prevail, are held back by those insisting its none of anyone else's business, or that
we should "give peace a chance".
In the mean time Syria goes on killing, an estimated 12,000 of its own citizens to-date.
Libya with a more competent army.
So we tighten the sanctions.
If we can collectively decide (by doing nothing) that its "ok" for a government to kill 12K citizens so that
one man can remain in power in the name of "giving peace a chance", why can't we collectively decide
in the UN (or elsewhere) that targeted attacks on despot leaders is justified in the name of "giving life a chance"?
200 is plenty.
You build the weapons you need in the quantity you need. We have drones to do the super dangerous missions, and tons of F16s FA-18s, F-15s to rule the roost once the the F22s sweep the skys. Please don't assume because you have a computer and an internet connection that you are qualified to design force levels for a theater you can only guess at. Production has been purposely held back so that the country can be bankrupted paying for healthcare.
Having an aircraft designed, tested, and an assembly line in place, these very small aircraft can be built in great numbers very fast as soon as cost become not a constraint.
The F22 was not designed for a cold war. It was deigned for air to air combat.
It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.
And I will point out that the reason there has never been a question of Air Superiority is precisely because the US was always looking at the Soviets as the next potential combatant, and developing high-tech planes for that eventuality. Now they are looking at the Chinese, or their client states, as well as places like Iran or Syria that have something like 50 times the anti-air missile technology that Iraq had.
You can't seriously be suggesting that we wait till there is a superior opponent kicking our asses before we start development can you? It sure sounds like you are.
The money was all spent here, and the aircraft will server for 30 years.
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
That's pretty evident. His statement:
'There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft,
shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.
My question is, how? How do they store the energy in batteries? We're talking about algae, not solar cells. What are they using, magic?
The algae produce carbohydrate energy for themselves as well as oxygen as a waste product.
Left out of the summary was the step where the carbohydrate gets converted to electricity and stored in batteries. Following the link in the summary to TFA, and then to the source, and even watching the video, I was still unable to find anything about this step.
The video showed that the Algae were in the outer cylinder of two concentric cylinders, and the inner won was apparently a light source of some kind.
Unsearchable and unlinkable?
Not true. You can put anything on your Google Drive and mark it as public. Further, this is far easier than hiring a hosting company, learning html, uploading, etc.
Its linkable. You can mark it as totally public, and delete it at will.
This capability is also available from several other online cloud storage providers.
If anything, this trend makes it far easier for the average person to get their manifesto on the Internet.
Why not consider using an iMac
You already gave the answer: MESSY.
An Imac configured to use voice commands STILL needs a mouse and an Keyboard. Milk in the keyboard is no fun.
Its way easier to whip a tablet down than it its to clean a keyboard. And the Tablet does voice commands too, and video calls, an TV, and every other thing you would need done in the kitchen, including bar code scanning the packaging you are about to toss in the trash to add that item back onto your grocery list.
But it does allow people to start planning service stations with some confidence that they will be able to service the bulk of the fleet, instead of needing charge stations for each car.
The 15 to 20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time as well. By the time you refill your coffee, pump the bilge, buy the snack, your car would be ready.
This also allows restaurants and coffee shops on major highways to start installing charge stations in their lots. They sell you the juice while you are having your lunch. We could see gas stations disappear in our life time. (Well, maybe in your life time).
Standardization of basic infrastructure like this is a key hurdle for EVs to gain market share. But the typical (and optimistic) 100 mile range of a Battery Electric Vehicle is still a killer for anything but around town driving.
Except every security blog and even router documentation recommends against upnp.
I believe it ships in the OFF state on most new routers for this very reason.
The problem is that Rand Paul isn't suggesting that the groping stop. He's suggesting that it be *privatized*, with no government oversight or accountability at all (even less than there already is). So the only thing that will change is that the person grabbing your balls will wear a different logo on his shirt--and answer only to a private company.
No government oversight or accountability? Are you purposely twisting things, or simply ignorant?
Its precisely the government oversight that got us into this mess!
Once you remove grope-enabling legislation, and ridiculous search laws, the grope falls under existing laws, and accountability will be under assault or sexual molestation laws. Airlines and airports and private security firms are a whole lot easier to sue and control than an untouchable government agency with a national budget.
> they are positioning Skype to transition to a system where everybody's data goes through Microsoft servers rather than direct person to person.
Currently that is not the case as is even stated in the fricking summary which you obviously did not bother reading.
Currently is rather temporary. (By definition).
The problem is there are so few machines that meet the criteria for being a supernode that the network can't handle the number of connections it needs because of a shortage of supernodes. It used to be that skype enthusiasts would create inward routes through their firewalls specifically to allow (some of) their machines to be supernodes. When big money stepped in, lots of folks stopped doing that. When suspect big money (Microsoft) stepped in, even fewer were willing to do this. (Like one in 100 skype users even know how to do this anyway).
Everybody is firewalled these days. There are fewer volunteers. ISPs are imposing bandwidth caps. And Microsoft would likely rather have control, especially if they want to monitize this thing.
Problem is, its getting hard to find machines with inward routes. If you are using a supernode, (because you are firewalled) you can't BE one.
Supernodes handle connections for firewalled machines, to assist in firewall piercing and advertising.
The article claims that regular users can no longer be promoted to supernodes. I would call that a switch.
Regular users haven't been promoted to supernodes for a long time. You needed an inward route thru your firewall (or a direct connection) for this to work. The sale to Microsoft left a bad enough taste in many people's mouth that they just dropped their inward routes and thereby eliminated any possibility of them being a supernode.
But even prior to the sale, (under Ebay) skype had started paring back client side supernodes, because of security concerns. I don't actually think they were using end-user machines for supernodes for a long time. I used to have a machine that frequently became a supernode, and could see a lot of connections on my router when skype was idling. I haven't seen that for several years.
Correct.
In the early days of Skype, any machine with a direct connection to the internet could find itself being a supernode (which really handled setting up connections for firewalled machines, not all of the traffic for those machines).
Later Skype decided to create farms of supernodes for this and stop using end-user machines for this purpose. (Mostly because it was getting harder and harder to find non-firewalled machines). They haven't used individual desktops for supernodes for a long time.
So other than the scale of the deployment, the fact that Microsoft deliberately chose to avoid windows for this purpose is significant.
Except there may well be legal reason for being detained.
Police have the power for Investigatory stops or detentions, especially at a crime scene. If you are detained at the scene of a crime, resisting this detention is foolish. In some cases, resisting a lawful detention instantly changes the situation into a de facto arrest.
Investigatory stops or detentions must be limited and temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining when an investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring the flexibility and discretion of police officers by placing artificial time limitations on the fluid and dynamic nature of their investigations. Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention.
Lesson 1, page 2.
That bit I wrote on page 1 has proven false. Some how, the NSA clicked a mouse, the lights dimmed, and a computer spit out my passphrase.
I go now. Bye.