The fact that a library cannot be updated simultaneously with a security patch in all apps in the app store with a change that does not change API or in-app behavior is kind of absurd.
Disclaimer: I am guessing this is the case, or else why would 1500 apps still be vulnerable?
To be honest, I figured that it/had/ to be a bad ruling and...
No, it's all due to the stupid vague line between a "temporary stop", a "detention", and an "arrest". Our various branches of government have struggled with it for two centuries now.
Police need people to interact with them so the officers can do the job of investigating crimes. But legally in order to do that they must seize the thing, seize the person, seize the property, whatever. The requirements about due process, seizure of people and property, the law needed to allow for certain types of temporary seizures of people, and the balance is a hard one.
The traffic stop is just that, a stop. A temporary detention that can only last as long as necessary for the administrative task.
In the ruling (and according to most judges already), the officer stopped the individual and performed the task of writing a citation. Anything more than that is no longer a stop, it becomes either a detention or an arrest.
The ruling is clear on what the problem was here. The officer testified that they "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reasons for the stop out of the way." Then after the stop was complete he did not allow the man to leave, even after the man asked to go, so the officer could call in a drug-sniffing dog. That was a second detention, done without probable cause (since he had already dealt with the reason for the stop), and was therefore unlawful.
Yes, there will be more litigation on whether it is okay for an officer to walk around your car with his dog while holding your license after this.
This was *already* the law, from a Supreme Court Case in 2005. Some of the lower courts had just messed it up by not following it--basically saying that a couple of minutes is okay and doesn't really count.
SCOTUS just benchslapped them, although politely. This is one of those "No, we actually meant what we said, now stop being so pro-law-enforcement that you read this out of the law. Yes. They're criminals. But there's still a Constitution, and you have to follow it."
As a part time bartender i can attest, chances are likely it was a healthy dose of booze that brought this on. Ive had customers that beat the crap out of eachother for disagreements over how to hold a martini, where to park during a football game, and how to lace shoes properly in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
I can understand the martini and laces, but why would you go a football game during a zombie apocalypse?
So for a segment of the market, data throughput is no longer a competitive advantage.
Big, established players sometimes have trouble adapting to that kind of competitive shift; they are used to optimizing on one dimension and their engineers are amazing at it, but the market goes in a different direction.
It sometimes gives newcomers with smaller capital bases and different technologies that would seem silly by high-end standards the ability to disrupt markets.
Voyager kinda sucked at first, but actually got pretty good once they ran into the Borg. For some reason Star Trek writers have a history of hating women in command roles.
WTF?
Star Trek didn't have a problem with it; it was just rare overall in those days. Admiral Nachaeff and Commander Shelby come to mind--perfectly believable as command personnel. The captain on the other starship in Enterprise--the Columbia, was it--did a good job and might have worked well with better writing. The actress who played Dr. Polaski could probably have done it, although IIRC she didn't get a great critical reception and she might have some Scott Bacula type moralizing problems. Patrick Stewart had great command presence; Avery Brooks had okay command presence and grew a bit into the role; Kate Mulgrew had little command presence and was given terrible writing to work with.
Kate Mulgrew was terrible for the Janeway part, and Voyager, for the most part, was badly written. There *some* good stuff with the Doctor and with Seven, and a few good interactions between the others (Didn't they warn you about Ferengi at the Academy?), but the quality of most of the writing was least-common-denominator middle-school terrible. The enemies were neither believable nor interesting.
Seriously, compare the Romulans in "Balance of Terror" in TOS to *any* enemy in Voyager.
The hive mind always needs a leader. My space scifi reading history isn't up to snuff, but at least since Ender's Game 30 years ago, it's been common for hive minds to have a centralized authority figure, either as the host/transmitter of the mind, or something else. A hive mind without a leader ends up like the Force. Interconnected but with no purpose and no direction. We can't say the Borg were without direction. They've had direction since their first appearance.
The borg lacked a leader in early TNG and were a very effective enemy.
Surely, you realize it's a distinction without a difference. The US agencies have already proven they do what they want, damn the consequences (because there are none). They should have moved operations to Germany, who at least pretend to care about privacy, and the rule of law.
Actually, this move from another company at least would help Americans a bit. The NSA actually does limit what it does with American stuff--it sucks up EVERY bit of data outside US borders, or tries to, but in the US it just sucks up MOST bits of data.
It is still wrong to seize his equipment without a warrant, or am I missing something here?
A couple of things. If they have probable cause to believe the computer has evidence of a crime, for example, they can certainly take it (although not necessarily search it) without a warrant, at least if they're legally wherever it is. There's also a diminished expectation of privacy at the airport.
If all he said was "I could do X," he might have reasonably good grounds to sue, although as the general consensus even on *slashdot* seems to be the guy was acting like a jerk, I don't know that it's a good test case. If you like, you know, freedom.
The sovereign. In this case it's an abstraction, but sort of exists in law. You can sue for constitutional violations because the country has waived sovereign immunity in a statute (law).
Plessy v. Ferguson is widely considered a black stain on the history of the court, along with Korematsu and the Dred Scott decision. Plessy was at least overturned in the Brown v. Board of Ed decisions; Korematsu (allowing the internment of Japanese Americans during war with Japan) has technically never been overturned but nobody in their right mind would cite to it. Dred Scott was effectively overturned by the 14th Amendment. (Which is also the only reason your cops need a search warrant, for example, a result NEVER intended by the drafters of the amendment.)
What do you think feminists (or anyone, for that matter) can realistically do about women living in oppressive conditions outside of the West? Are you willing to enlist for the army of occupation we'd need to send to the Middle East and Africa? I'm not. I doubt many feminists are either.
Education.
The elite of the world still comes to American Universities to learn. Then they go home. They are often intelligent and influential and can have a role in shaping attitudes, policy, and social change.
You very rarely change a culture for the better with an army of soldiers. An army of ideas stands a much better chance.
If you want equality, then stop trying to segregate, and stop man-shaming.
Society tries to shame everyone, just for different things. It is a control mechanism, and can be a useful one, but is not an ideal one.
Segregation is a fact of life in a large portion of the country; trying to desegregate is what's hard. In DC, there are neighborhoods where the public middle schools are mixed-race and that's okay, but if a neighbor actually makes the mistake of letting a white kid go on to the local public high school the school will transfer him out to a better public school within the day. It's not that there's a written policy, it's just that everyone in the school immediately knows that if the student stays there they will be discriminated against and possibly killed. Kind of like prisons.
3. Backup cameras are really, really useful and significantly increase safety. No matter how careful you are, as a practical matter backing up out of a blind driveway is always, at least a little bit, a matter of faith. Being able to see the kid before you hit them, even once, can save a hell of a lot more than a backup camera costs.
Sure, but it costs a lot for what is, in the end, a glorified webcam.
True. Glorified with particular technical requirements (weatherproof, able to withstand constant vibration, etc...), but yes, they charge a lot for it. Not as ridiculous as what they charge for entertainment packages and the like.:)
> Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.
Just like fake fortune tellers then?
Or building nuclear bombs. There are worse things they could do: they could *use* them. So it's okay, right?
They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.
All science is questionable science. That's what makes science distinct from religion.
It might be a science experiment, but that doesn't make it *medically* sound.
3. Cops will look at the system as part of a routine check and will fine you.
Last week at approximately 11AM, there was a road block on this side road by Georgia State troopers. They were stopping everyone.
When I rolled my window down, I asked what is going on?
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired. He took my license looked at it and walked around the car. And then handed it back.
Now, electronic safety devices are not given away by manufacturers. That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit. And having to take it to the dealer ($$$$) to update it?!
And we all know that when the warranty runs out on the electronics (cars are only 1 -3 years) they are going to break. And that means a trip to the dealer ($$$$) to fix a mandatory safety device.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
Not have a car? In the USA without having to live in an obscenely expensive part of town?
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another. And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
1. The cop kept you for longer than necessary to satisfy the reason he claimed was the reason for the stop. He also kept your driver's license during that time, preventing you from leaving. You might be able to sue, because of that whole constitution thing. Ask a lawyer.
2. 60, 72, or 90 months is actually not unreasonable at least for a new car because you're keeping a car for at least that long, unless you can throw money away or something in your life changes. Shorter may be better depending on interest rates, but amortizing the cost of a car over most of its life isn't the worst thing in the world. Replacing cars with new ones every few years is usually throwing money away. But never pay for them with dealer financing, obviously.
3. Backup cameras are really, really useful and significantly increase safety. No matter how careful you are, as a practical matter backing up out of a blind driveway is always, at least a little bit, a matter of faith. Being able to see the kid before you hit them, even once, can save a hell of a lot more than a backup camera costs.
Net Neutrality may have a very different effect on the consumer in a country that charges consumers for bandwidth used rather than bandwidth available. In the US consumers pay once for internet and then have access to all non-private services with no added cost. If you are charging consumers based on bandwidth actually used, there is probably a better argument for some variation in costs based on how much each slice of bandwidth costs.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that a library cannot be updated simultaneously with a security patch in all apps in the app store with a change that does not change API or in-app behavior is kind of absurd.
Disclaimer: I am guessing this is the case, or else why would 1500 apps still be vulnerable?
To be honest, I figured that it /had/ to be a bad ruling and ...
No, it's all due to the stupid vague line between a "temporary stop", a "detention", and an "arrest". Our various branches of government have struggled with it for two centuries now.
Police need people to interact with them so the officers can do the job of investigating crimes. But legally in order to do that they must seize the thing, seize the person, seize the property, whatever. The requirements about due process, seizure of people and property, the law needed to allow for certain types of temporary seizures of people, and the balance is a hard one.
The traffic stop is just that, a stop. A temporary detention that can only last as long as necessary for the administrative task.
In the ruling (and according to most judges already), the officer stopped the individual and performed the task of writing a citation. Anything more than that is no longer a stop, it becomes either a detention or an arrest.
The ruling is clear on what the problem was here. The officer testified that they "had all their documents back and a copy of the written warning. I got all the reasons for the stop out of the way." Then after the stop was complete he did not allow the man to leave, even after the man asked to go, so the officer could call in a drug-sniffing dog. That was a second detention, done without probable cause (since he had already dealt with the reason for the stop), and was therefore unlawful.
Yes, there will be more litigation on whether it is okay for an officer to walk around your car with his dog while holding your license after this.
This was *already* the law, from a Supreme Court Case in 2005. Some of the lower courts had just messed it up by not following it--basically saying that a couple of minutes is okay and doesn't really count.
SCOTUS just benchslapped them, although politely. This is one of those "No, we actually meant what we said, now stop being so pro-law-enforcement that you read this out of the law. Yes. They're criminals. But there's still a Constitution, and you have to follow it."
But Pancreatic cancer is, on the whole, really uncool.
It's harder to operate on than most cancers and has a higher kill rate. Progress like this is very helpful.
As a part time bartender i can attest, chances are likely it was a healthy dose of booze that brought this on. Ive had customers that beat the crap out of eachother for disagreements over how to hold a martini, where to park during a football game, and how to lace shoes properly in the event of a zombie apocalypse.
I can understand the martini and laces, but why would you go a football game during a zombie apocalypse?
Cops deal with crazy things all the time. The last time I listened to a scanner there was some guy under a bridge attacking people with Nunchucks.
So for a segment of the market, data throughput is no longer a competitive advantage.
Big, established players sometimes have trouble adapting to that kind of competitive shift; they are used to optimizing on one dimension and their engineers are amazing at it, but the market goes in a different direction.
It sometimes gives newcomers with smaller capital bases and different technologies that would seem silly by high-end standards the ability to disrupt markets.
Really cool picture!
Voyager kinda sucked at first, but actually got pretty good once they ran into the Borg. For some reason Star Trek writers have a history of hating women in command roles.
WTF?
Star Trek didn't have a problem with it; it was just rare overall in those days. Admiral Nachaeff and Commander Shelby come to mind--perfectly believable as command personnel. The captain on the other starship in Enterprise--the Columbia, was it--did a good job and might have worked well with better writing. The actress who played Dr. Polaski could probably have done it, although IIRC she didn't get a great critical reception and she might have some Scott Bacula type moralizing problems. Patrick Stewart had great command presence; Avery Brooks had okay command presence and grew a bit into the role; Kate Mulgrew had little command presence and was given terrible writing to work with.
Kate Mulgrew was terrible for the Janeway part, and Voyager, for the most part, was badly written. There *some* good stuff with the Doctor and with Seven, and a few good interactions between the others (Didn't they warn you about Ferengi at the Academy?), but the quality of most of the writing was least-common-denominator middle-school terrible. The enemies were neither believable nor interesting.
Seriously, compare the Romulans in "Balance of Terror" in TOS to *any* enemy in Voyager.
Compare any of the characters to Garek.
The hive mind always needs a leader. My space scifi reading history isn't up to snuff, but at least since Ender's Game 30 years ago, it's been common for hive minds to have a centralized authority figure, either as the host/transmitter of the mind, or something else. A hive mind without a leader ends up like the Force. Interconnected but with no purpose and no direction. We can't say the Borg were without direction. They've had direction since their first appearance.
The borg lacked a leader in early TNG and were a very effective enemy.
And the answer is...
None! We're not even talking enough laser to blind someone at that range, much less vaporize something/someone....
Plus the atmosphere, you know, exists...
Surely, you realize it's a distinction without a difference. The US agencies have already proven they do what they want, damn the consequences (because there are none). They should have moved operations to Germany, who at least pretend to care about privacy, and the rule of law.
Actually, this move from another company at least would help Americans a bit. The NSA actually does limit what it does with American stuff--it sucks up EVERY bit of data outside US borders, or tries to, but in the US it just sucks up MOST bits of data.
It is still wrong to seize his equipment without a warrant, or am I missing something here?
A couple of things. If they have probable cause to believe the computer has evidence of a crime, for example, they can certainly take it (although not necessarily search it) without a warrant, at least if they're legally wherever it is. There's also a diminished expectation of privacy at the airport.
If all he said was "I could do X," he might have reasonably good grounds to sue, although as the general consensus even on *slashdot* seems to be the guy was acting like a jerk, I don't know that it's a good test case. If you like, you know, freedom.
The sovereign. In this case it's an abstraction, but sort of exists in law. You can sue for constitutional violations because the country has waived sovereign immunity in a statute (law).
Plessy v. Ferguson is widely considered a black stain on the history of the court, along with Korematsu and the Dred Scott decision. Plessy was at least overturned in the Brown v. Board of Ed decisions; Korematsu (allowing the internment of Japanese Americans during war with Japan) has technically never been overturned but nobody in their right mind would cite to it. Dred Scott was effectively overturned by the 14th Amendment. (Which is also the only reason your cops need a search warrant, for example, a result NEVER intended by the drafters of the amendment.)
What do you think feminists (or anyone, for that matter) can realistically do about women living in oppressive conditions outside of the West? Are you willing to enlist for the army of occupation we'd need to send to the Middle East and Africa? I'm not. I doubt many feminists are either.
Education.
The elite of the world still comes to American Universities to learn. Then they go home. They are often intelligent and influential and can have a role in shaping attitudes, policy, and social change.
You very rarely change a culture for the better with an army of soldiers. An army of ideas stands a much better chance.
If you want equality, then stop trying to segregate, and stop man-shaming.
Society tries to shame everyone, just for different things. It is a control mechanism, and can be a useful one, but is not an ideal one.
Segregation is a fact of life in a large portion of the country; trying to desegregate is what's hard. In DC, there are neighborhoods where the public middle schools are mixed-race and that's okay, but if a neighbor actually makes the mistake of letting a white kid go on to the local public high school the school will transfer him out to a better public school within the day. It's not that there's a written policy, it's just that everyone in the school immediately knows that if the student stays there they will be discriminated against and possibly killed. Kind of like prisons.
3. Backup cameras are really, really useful and significantly increase safety. No matter how careful you are, as a practical matter backing up out of a blind driveway is always, at least a little bit, a matter of faith. Being able to see the kid before you hit them, even once, can save a hell of a lot more than a backup camera costs.
Sure, but it costs a lot for what is, in the end, a glorified webcam.
True. Glorified with particular technical requirements (weatherproof, able to withstand constant vibration, etc...), but yes, they charge a lot for it. Not as ridiculous as what they charge for entertainment packages and the like. :)
Now people will have to act like adults and simply say "no, thank you."
Normally you simply don't engage. There is a little more engagement than in NYC, but also a higher homeless population per capita, I think.
> Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.
Just like fake fortune tellers then?
Or building nuclear bombs. There are worse things they could do: they could *use* them. So it's okay, right?
#reasonfail
They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.
All science is questionable science. That's what makes science distinct from religion.
It might be a science experiment, but that doesn't make it *medically* sound.
When you censor out so much potential subject material for use in a game, you think you're going to have as viable of a market base?
Well, Harry Potter is really GTA4 cleaned up and put into a book.
3. Cops will look at the system as part of a routine check and will fine you.
Last week at approximately 11AM, there was a road block on this side road by Georgia State troopers. They were stopping everyone.
When I rolled my window down, I asked what is going on?
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired. He took my license looked at it and walked around the car. And then handed it back.
Now, electronic safety devices are not given away by manufacturers. That backup camera system and this will cost way more to the consumer than necessary. For an example, compare the OEM GPS systems with what you can buy on your own - this whole integrated in dash stuff making it cost more is bullshit. And having to take it to the dealer ($$$$) to update it?!
And we all know that when the warranty runs out on the electronics (cars are only 1 -3 years) they are going to break. And that means a trip to the dealer ($$$$) to fix a mandatory safety device.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
Not have a car? In the USA without having to live in an obscenely expensive part of town?
This country is set up to put us into debt - one way or another. And in the meantime, jobs are going overseas and are not being created fast enough here.
1. The cop kept you for longer than necessary to satisfy the reason he claimed was the reason for the stop. He also kept your driver's license during that time, preventing you from leaving. You might be able to sue, because of that whole constitution thing. Ask a lawyer.
2. 60, 72, or 90 months is actually not unreasonable at least for a new car because you're keeping a car for at least that long, unless you can throw money away or something in your life changes. Shorter may be better depending on interest rates, but amortizing the cost of a car over most of its life isn't the worst thing in the world. Replacing cars with new ones every few years is usually throwing money away. But never pay for them with dealer financing, obviously.
3. Backup cameras are really, really useful and significantly increase safety. No matter how careful you are, as a practical matter backing up out of a blind driveway is always, at least a little bit, a matter of faith. Being able to see the kid before you hit them, even once, can save a hell of a lot more than a backup camera costs.
Net Neutrality may have a very different effect on the consumer in a country that charges consumers for bandwidth used rather than bandwidth available. In the US consumers pay once for internet and then have access to all non-private services with no added cost. If you are charging consumers based on bandwidth actually used, there is probably a better argument for some variation in costs based on how much each slice of bandwidth costs.
*blinks*
Economics and Psychology are considered STEM? Really?
Your #1 - AT&T, spent $3 million on lobbying.
That's about 1/10 of what net neutrality proponents Google and Facebook spent.
No, they spent $3 million on contributions, $14 million on lobbying.