Not only is this privacy fight not winnable on many levels, but this actually makes it harder--once a technology is in use with the general public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment is much harder to apply. (It is much harder to argue there has been an unreasonable search). You might still be able to argue data retention past a certain point is not permissible under a mosaic theory (i.e. enough information lets police put together a mosaic that should be barred without a warrant), and the Supreme Court has started to talk about that idea, but we don't have evolved law on that point yet.
Remember, if you care about privacy rights, you should be strongly supporting prisoner defense NGOs and lobbying for better support for your public defenders' offices. Seriously, write your state representatives a letter asking them to increase funding for criminal defense.
He might have, but even if he did an LLC is no where near an impenetrable shield. Especially with small businesses. You want a shield? Get big enough to afford a lobbyist or 10.
If you really piss off the wrong federal judge, lobbyists won't help you. They all have to be political enough to get elected, but only about half are political animals, strong figures in local party, etc...; they other half are really smart people with experience as a judge who have basically settled into the single most secure job in the world.
All of them tend to follow the law, but the law can be pretty flexible and go against you if you piss them off too much.
I guess the privacy laws are much more lax in Canada. Here in Norway you can't even say publicly who is a customer.
In the United States we don't even have a privacy commissioner. In Canada they had the federal one and state commissioners.
There are only a few reasons we have any privacy at all. For example, companies not wanting to risk losing business. Also, any time a big company has a data breach, a few lawyers sue them in a class action.
It turns out neither of these has consequences serious enough to be especially helpful to the average consumer.
This kind of holding is somewhat more important than usual because it is coming from the 2nd Circuit, which is one of the most respected appeals courts in the country. It will give it a little extra weight if the question is examined by either another circuit court or the Supreme Court in the future.
As a general rule, nobody wants to be in state courts if they can help it. There are exceptions, and there are some good state courts, but you still would almost always rather be in federal court. If they could figure out a way to put all trade secrets cases in the commercial division in New York, for a counterexample of a good state court system, they might do it. But depending on the patchwork of inconsistent quality and law in state courts, if you're a big company in particular you'd rather just deal with federal courts.
So what? We only need one exoplanet capable of supporting life. And we will not even need that for decades, more likely centuries, possibly millenia.
Our first co-location effort is far more likely to be a world (or moon) in our solar system where humans live in a contained environment while terraforming the rest of the world. The transit time and complexity in getting seeding life forms there is literally astronomically less than trying to do that on a world in another solar system.
The only exceptions I could see where we might need to try the interstellar travel earlier would be if the exoplanet turned out to be so suited to our needs that we could just show up, or if it already had intelligent life and we established communication.
But realize that right now, we haven't sent so much as a rock even a sizable fraction of the way from here to Proxima Centauri, much less to a world with an exoplanet.
Actually, no--again, you're thinking of the old Roverfeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. They deliberately designed the Gates Foundation not to be one of those immortal traditional foundations that get mired in their own bureaucracy. They've set it to spend all their money within 20 years of their death, with Buffet's contribution to be spent within ten years of his estate settlement. (His estate settlement could be dragged out absurdly, of course, but given the kind of people he trusts enough to be an executor it's unlikely that would happen without a damn good reason).
The IRS knows they are untouchable now. They can willfully destroy any private group at will, as they did with conservative groups, without punishment - who cares if at the same time they are listening on cell phone conversations of taxpayers? They say it's only the enforcement arm, but since any taxpayer is potentially lying about taxes, the enforcement arm would cover everyone in the U.S....
Their funding got cut, which actually hurts the whole country.
No damages, though. A federal court can make them stop, but it can't order them to pay up (unless there is a federal law directly relevant).
Not true, or at least there is federal law for constitutional violations generally and has been for a long time. Damages in 1983 actions are common; otherwise people would be much less likely to enforce their constitutional rights.
I think people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give away their money to charities that buy products from the companies they own (such as Monsanto, Microsoft, drug companies, etc.) which pay them dividends and probably make them richer than before while making them look good at the same time. I think Zuckerberg is doing the same. For example, make investments in Internet infrastructure to get a billion or two more people on the Internet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Facebook, and profit from the ad revenue.
Um, no.
Well, YES, but no. Certainly, the misuse of charitable organizations is a thing, and a thing with a lot of tax advantages.
But you don't give away $44 billion dollars to charity as a way to hide an investment in your own company.
And you don't know anything about Warren Buffet, at all, if you believe this. He's a good guy. There isn't a trick to it, he just happens to be really good at allocating capital. He doesn't need to go searching for loopholes--he already thinks his taxes are too low.
I see. It sounds like you have driven down one of these streets. You are probably reacting out of fear because you know you are guilty, and soon your wife will too.
I feel quite confident in making this judgment of you given solely the evidence provided in your post, as will anyone who finds out you have received such a letter from the police.
Actually, no. I know the anti-human trafficking community quite well and have an understanding of the harm these places do to millions of women around the world every year, many of them underage. In the United States, tens of thousands of people are trafficked every year. Lots of kids. Lots of girls who run away and find a pimp to exploit them and make them feel loved. Lots of stupid guys who have no fucking idea are out on the street paying to rape those kids. The people who teach "John School" find they get a mix--the johns who just don't care what they're doing, and the ones who had no clue.
But that doesn't make it right to send letters that risk breaking up marriages just because someone drives down the wrong block. At the very least, such a letter would need to be incredibly carefully worded, with a tact not many people can command. And even then, it may cause great harm to perfectly innocent people. Not to mention the expanded database of blackmail material that starts turning up in political opposition research.
No, it doesn't indicate a problem. If you think it does, name it, but make sure that it also explains why most car salesmen being male is a problem, and most realtors being female. Be sure that the suggested cure is also applied to remove the gender imbalance in teaching and nursing (mostly female), and in auto repair and roofing (mostly male).
The problem is all-male summer camp. Put a bunch of guys together and their guyism can become exaggerated. This, in turn, can make girls feel or actually be excluded.
Clear boundaries with clear consequences (and proportional responses to boundary violations) are the solution, but in real life people are messy. Some are afraid of reporting boundary violations because of the risk of retaliation, others are stupid enough to retaliate, the lack of discussing simple boundary violations leads to more egregious ones as people don't learn where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are.
Are the police insane? So if someone drives down the wrong street because they don't know that you're not supposed to drive down that street, the police are going to ruin their marriage? For that matter, if someone happens to drive to a bar in that neighborhood, the police are going to harass them?
Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.
This one is from Tel Aviv University. Maybe it is a more useful study for people to cite who are having gender policy discussions within various Jewish communities.
(Although it will not be enough to change certain Orthodox policies, like IIRC women don't count when determining if you have a quorum for a prayer.)
According to the report that reads more like a summary with hardly a data point, the most common vulnerability was an "Unsupported Unix Operating System."
Our country is too fond of market-based solutions to matters like this. Once (at least) one company finds a way to make a lot of money off of this, the discussion will be over and we will convince ourselves that it is for the better.
Arguably the bigger loss is in the fact that it will force even more scientists away from ethically sound research and into profit-driven work instead because there won't be any other careers.
Ethical restraints are actually one of the biggest things holding back US research. People are afraid of regulatory and publicity risk, and science goes much slower because experiments have to go through IRB processes. The result will be that other countries with comparable resources will play catch-up and then will be able to research faster than we can.
The ethics rules may not be as restrictive as you would like and their ethics may not track with your morality, but that doesn't mean US ethics aren't there.
No. "Just remember that for every Julian Bashir that can be created, there's a Khan Singh waiting in the wings."
It will be mostly an incremental process. Already many children with certain forms of retardation are aborted. People will become smarter and healthier as the techniques get better. Gattaca is an unrealistic extreme, but perhaps the average new baby will get five IQ points from genetics in fifty years, and ten in a hundred. Maybe it will even help diminish the unfair genetic advantage that smart families have.
sadly both sides are acting atrociously. short of turning both Israel and Palestine into a wasteland I am not sure this will ever get better as both sides have demonstrated time and time again they are incapable of living peacefully.
Almost as if there needed to be an independent arbiter of what videos could be published that didn't live, eat, and breathe an existence biased against the other.
A video celebrating kids blowing themselves up isn't okay, for example.
The main legit use I can see would be to have this drone alone side of the delivery trucks. meaning the trucks get to keep driving, the drones when they get near the correct location grab the box and drop it on the doorstep. Less wasted gas due to keeping the truck moving, and more deliveries for the same reason.
There are plenty of places where roads are unreliable. There are even places where the delivery truck may be pulled over by men with guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Citizens can do a hell of a lot more things than police can. Citizens enjoying Liberty doesn't change how the police operate.
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A device being commonly available to the public can affect whether or not police can use it.
Not only is this privacy fight not winnable on many levels, but this actually makes it harder--once a technology is in use with the general public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment is much harder to apply. (It is much harder to argue there has been an unreasonable search). You might still be able to argue data retention past a certain point is not permissible under a mosaic theory (i.e. enough information lets police put together a mosaic that should be barred without a warrant), and the Supreme Court has started to talk about that idea, but we don't have evolved law on that point yet.
Remember, if you care about privacy rights, you should be strongly supporting prisoner defense NGOs and lobbying for better support for your public defenders' offices. Seriously, write your state representatives a letter asking them to increase funding for criminal defense.
He might have, but even if he did an LLC is no where near an impenetrable shield. Especially with small businesses. You want a shield? Get big enough to afford a lobbyist or 10.
If you really piss off the wrong federal judge, lobbyists won't help you. They all have to be political enough to get elected, but only about half are political animals, strong figures in local party, etc...; they other half are really smart people with experience as a judge who have basically settled into the single most secure job in the world.
All of them tend to follow the law, but the law can be pretty flexible and go against you if you piss them off too much.
I guess the privacy laws are much more lax in Canada.
Here in Norway you can't even say publicly who is a customer.
In the United States we don't even have a privacy commissioner. In Canada they had the federal one and state commissioners.
There are only a few reasons we have any privacy at all. For example, companies not wanting to risk losing business. Also, any time a big company has a data breach, a few lawyers sue them in a class action.
It turns out neither of these has consequences serious enough to be especially helpful to the average consumer.
This kind of holding is somewhat more important than usual because it is coming from the 2nd Circuit, which is one of the most respected appeals courts in the country. It will give it a little extra weight if the question is examined by either another circuit court or the Supreme Court in the future.
But.. but... what about the separation of Church and Perl?
As a general rule, nobody wants to be in state courts if they can help it. There are exceptions, and there are some good state courts, but you still would almost always rather be in federal court. If they could figure out a way to put all trade secrets cases in the commercial division in New York, for a counterexample of a good state court system, they might do it. But depending on the patchwork of inconsistent quality and law in state courts, if you're a big company in particular you'd rather just deal with federal courts.
So what? We only need one exoplanet capable of supporting life. And we will not even need that for decades, more likely centuries, possibly millenia.
Our first co-location effort is far more likely to be a world (or moon) in our solar system where humans live in a contained environment while terraforming the rest of the world. The transit time and complexity in getting seeding life forms there is literally astronomically less than trying to do that on a world in another solar system.
The only exceptions I could see where we might need to try the interstellar travel earlier would be if the exoplanet turned out to be so suited to our needs that we could just show up, or if it already had intelligent life and we established communication.
But realize that right now, we haven't sent so much as a rock even a sizable fraction of the way from here to Proxima Centauri, much less to a world with an exoplanet.
We all have a chance of living forever. Our sample size is just too small.
Actually, no--again, you're thinking of the old Roverfeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations. They deliberately designed the Gates Foundation not to be one of those immortal traditional foundations that get mired in their own bureaucracy. They've set it to spend all their money within 20 years of their death, with Buffet's contribution to be spent within ten years of his estate settlement. (His estate settlement could be dragged out absurdly, of course, but given the kind of people he trusts enough to be an executor it's unlikely that would happen without a damn good reason).
http://www.gatesfoundation.org...
The IRS knows they are untouchable now. They can willfully destroy any private group at will, as they did with conservative groups, without punishment - who cares if at the same time they are listening on cell phone conversations of taxpayers? They say it's only the enforcement arm, but since any taxpayer is potentially lying about taxes, the enforcement arm would cover everyone in the U.S....
Their funding got cut, which actually hurts the whole country.
No damages, though. A federal court can make them stop, but it can't order them to pay up (unless there is a federal law directly relevant).
Not true, or at least there is federal law for constitutional violations generally and has been for a long time. Damages in 1983 actions are common; otherwise people would be much less likely to enforce their constitutional rights.
See, e.g., http://www.sandberglaw.com/art...
Rockerfeller, Carnegie, and Ford are not Gates and certainly not Buffet.
I think people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give away their money to charities that buy products from the companies they own (such as Monsanto, Microsoft, drug companies, etc.) which pay them dividends and probably make them richer than before while making them look good at the same time. I think Zuckerberg is doing the same. For example, make investments in Internet infrastructure to get a billion or two more people on the Internet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Facebook, and profit from the ad revenue.
Um, no.
Well, YES, but no. Certainly, the misuse of charitable organizations is a thing, and a thing with a lot of tax advantages.
But you don't give away $44 billion dollars to charity as a way to hide an investment in your own company.
And you don't know anything about Warren Buffet, at all, if you believe this. He's a good guy. There isn't a trick to it, he just happens to be really good at allocating capital. He doesn't need to go searching for loopholes--he already thinks his taxes are too low.
I see. It sounds like you have driven down one of these streets. You are probably reacting out of fear because you know you are guilty, and soon your wife will too.
I feel quite confident in making this judgment of you given solely the evidence provided in your post, as will anyone who finds out you have received such a letter from the police.
Actually, no. I know the anti-human trafficking community quite well and have an understanding of the harm these places do to millions of women around the world every year, many of them underage. In the United States, tens of thousands of people are trafficked every year. Lots of kids. Lots of girls who run away and find a pimp to exploit them and make them feel loved. Lots of stupid guys who have no fucking idea are out on the street paying to rape those kids. The people who teach "John School" find they get a mix--the johns who just don't care what they're doing, and the ones who had no clue.
But that doesn't make it right to send letters that risk breaking up marriages just because someone drives down the wrong block. At the very least, such a letter would need to be incredibly carefully worded, with a tact not many people can command. And even then, it may cause great harm to perfectly innocent people. Not to mention the expanded database of blackmail material that starts turning up in political opposition research.
Sovereign immunity. You can't sue them for official acts unless they let you.
You can sue the police for violating the Constitution, as a matter of federal law.
No, it doesn't indicate a problem. If you think it does, name it, but make sure that it also explains why most car salesmen being male is a problem, and most realtors being female. Be sure that the suggested cure is also applied to remove the gender imbalance in teaching and nursing (mostly female), and in auto repair and roofing (mostly male).
The problem is all-male summer camp. Put a bunch of guys together and their guyism can become exaggerated. This, in turn, can make girls feel or actually be excluded.
Clear boundaries with clear consequences (and proportional responses to boundary violations) are the solution, but in real life people are messy. Some are afraid of reporting boundary violations because of the risk of retaliation, others are stupid enough to retaliate, the lack of discussing simple boundary violations leads to more egregious ones as people don't learn where the boundaries of acceptable behavior are.
Are the police insane? So if someone drives down the wrong street because they don't know that you're not supposed to drive down that street, the police are going to ruin their marriage? For that matter, if someone happens to drive to a bar in that neighborhood, the police are going to harass them?
*Headdesk*
Also, cue the lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...
Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.
This one is from Tel Aviv University. Maybe it is a more useful study for people to cite who are having gender policy discussions within various Jewish communities.
(Although it will not be enough to change certain Orthodox policies, like IIRC women don't count when determining if you have a quorum for a prayer.)
According to the report that reads more like a summary with hardly a data point, the most common vulnerability was an "Unsupported Unix Operating System."
Our country is too fond of market-based solutions to matters like this. Once (at least) one company finds a way to make a lot of money off of this, the discussion will be over and we will convince ourselves that it is for the better.
Arguably the bigger loss is in the fact that it will force even more scientists away from ethically sound research and into profit-driven work instead because there won't be any other careers.
Ethical restraints are actually one of the biggest things holding back US research. People are afraid of regulatory and publicity risk, and science goes much slower because experiments have to go through IRB processes. The result will be that other countries with comparable resources will play catch-up and then will be able to research faster than we can.
The ethics rules may not be as restrictive as you would like and their ethics may not track with your morality, but that doesn't mean US ethics aren't there.
that's creeped out by this???
No. "Just remember that for every Julian Bashir that can be created, there's a Khan Singh waiting in the wings."
It will be mostly an incremental process. Already many children with certain forms of retardation are aborted. People will become smarter and healthier as the techniques get better. Gattaca is an unrealistic extreme, but perhaps the average new baby will get five IQ points from genetics in fifty years, and ten in a hundred. Maybe it will even help diminish the unfair genetic advantage that smart families have.
Your quips are literally retarded.
I do not think it means what you think it means...
sadly both sides are acting atrociously. short of turning both Israel and Palestine into a wasteland I am not sure this will ever get better as both sides have demonstrated time and time again they are incapable of living peacefully.
Almost as if there needed to be an independent arbiter of what videos could be published that didn't live, eat, and breathe an existence biased against the other.
A video celebrating kids blowing themselves up isn't okay, for example.
The main legit use I can see would be to have this drone alone side of the delivery trucks. meaning the trucks get to keep driving, the drones when they get near the correct location grab the box and drop it on the doorstep. Less wasted gas due to keeping the truck moving, and more deliveries for the same reason.
There are plenty of places where roads are unreliable. There are even places where the delivery truck may be pulled over by men with guns.