You put it in, and pull everything off the phone (cached emails and such included). Yes, you won't get access to linked accounts, but they are hosted, thus never delete, so that can be gotten with a slow warrant process.
What's odd is that they can already get a warrant for SMSs, call records, call recordings and such from the phone. So why would they need the instant access to the device, when they can get it slow and legal?
Well, when someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff, if you have a firearm for defense, you'll be killed. It's happened where someone came out with a handgun, and he was ordered to freeze, hands up, and put the gun down. He put his hands up, the "gun down" was repeated. He lowered the weapon to put it down, and was shot for lowering the weapon.
The point was that if the only evidence of someone being a criminal is on their phone they might not be a criminal. This simply is not true.
Can you give an example? A drug dealer running a network of drug running from their phone. But no evidence outside their phone. No drugs to be found. No phones receiving the commands. No witnesses seeing drugs move. No money mocing in or out of accounts or hands.
Nope, if the only "proof" is inside a phone, then there was no crime.
You put D first. Why do you hate R? Vote R to rebel against this persecution!
At least that's how it seems every time I see someone point out Reagan tripling the debt in 8 years when Obama is doing less, or Obama killing with drones, while Bush merely waterboarded.
Blocking p2p in the name of network health kind of defeats the point of net neutrality.
No, it doesn't. Blocking Skype because you sell VoIP defeats the point of net neutrality. Picking a "class" of traffic, that even you indicates causes actual harm, and reducing that harm on others doesn't seem to be a bad thing. As you hint, if that were the case, maybe the P2P makers would make their stuff to be less abusive so that it would not be targeted so much for throttling.
Note, even if they are declared "common carriers" they could still filter P2P. The standard of proof for harm to the network increases, but not the legal capabilities to address that harm.
This from the guy who claims to be an advanced driver because he tries to heel and toe an automatic going at 7 mph in city traffic.
You are lying.
Do you still mindlessly copy the vehicle in front, even if it runs a red?
"Still"? Do you "still" beat your wife? You are begging the question. You are stating a question in a manner that presumes I mindlessly copy someone. Another lie. Your question is invalid.
Why are you lying in a manner designed to incite or discredit? Are you really so pissed about some thread where you posted stupid stuff about driving, and I pointed it out? (yes, that's presumption, I have no idea which idiots I was correcting repeatedly, or how many cites I gave to heel-toe indicating it was a manual-only thing). If you had actually read anything I said, you'd note that I consistently stated that "heel-toe" implies manual only, as anyone with two feet would never need to heel-toe in an auto, as there are only two pedals, and both are usable at the same time by different feet.
Mostly people who don't know what it means. So far, *every* version of net neutrality has allowed for throttling of P2P for "network health" but so many people claim (wrongly) that net neutrality would make it illegal for a provider to deliberately and with justification, control their own network.
There are a number of loonitarians here that object on principle regarding a government regulation on a private network. Yes, that comes down to ignorance of what the regulation is, but also a general objection to any and all regulations, no matter how beneficial.
I think that people have missed the obvious solution. Define "Internet service" as access to all sites on the Internet without restriction or prejudice. Then the FCC hands off "net neutrality" to the FTC for false advertising lawsuits for anyone that claims "Internet service" that delivers an AOL version of the world, with paid preference and hidden/slow access to the rest Internet.
Of course that would fail when people sell "the world network" with disclaimers in the fine print. The US is broken that way. Many other places disallow fine print that contradicts the large print. "Free sandwiches on Tuesdays" (only applies to butter sandwiches, and must buy 6 regular priced sandwiches for each free one) would be illegal elsewhere, but is perfectly fine in the US. A reasonable person wouldn't conceive of such restrictions when seeing the big print. "Buy-6 get a free butter sandwich" would be the better large print. But no, in the US, we have given up consumer protection, and it's down to corporate protection.
The US has no concept of "foreigners". And the US citizens are spread around the globe. Why should a US citizen in France be denied the ability to sign a petition, when they can vote for president? So the petitions are (and should be) open world-wide, and the closing off of them should only be done in a way that identifies citizens, and I'm guessing that was "too hard" as there's no citizen list to check against.
I ride down a hill every day coming home from work. I pull the clutch and coast out of gear. I've passed within 10 feet of pedestrians before they notice me. ~35 mph, no noticable chain noise. The loudest thing to me is the wind noise, but I'm on it, so I don't expect that I'm hearing what a pedestrian would hear.
The tire noise is elevated when cornering (smooth tread when upright, deepening tread when leaned over, close to silent going straight, but I can hear it when I lean into a corner). And yes, the idling engine is still one of the noisiest parts of the bike. The only time I hear the chain is when it's long overdue for an adjustment. A chain, in practice, is as quiet as a shaft or belt. Not like a bicycle.
Based on your comments, I presume you ride a bicycle and are guessing. Well, that and you don't maintain your own bike (because you are incompetent/lazy), and aren't very good at riding it. When I was riding 100+ miles a week, I maintained my own bicycle, and I'd adjust the chain/shifters daily. There was not much noise from the chain. That only happens with cheap chains, worn gears, and poor shifters. And that points to a lazy and ignorant owner.
Yes, and they pulled her from care. You are asserting that cost isn't an issue? Wile I appreciate your random guessing, it's no more reliable than mine. I note the articles that come up are all months out of date, and very little has private, protected medical details that you claim to be privy to.
Abusive parents always claim it's the system that's out to get them (especially men in a divorce trying to get the kids to prevent support payments. And the system always claims it's infallible. More often than not, both sides are wrong.
I apologize for being so impartial that I didn't crucify the system based on your random guesses and unsubstantiated opinion. I'll try to be more biased next time.
The system sucks. The government is always wrong. The AMA is a union, so all doctors must be wrong 100% of the time because they are all union members. Is that better?
You have your non-profit well established before you try any funny business. Even if the business isn't too funny, many "charities" own private jets, and buy hookers for the CEOs (though rarely listed explicitly as such on the expense report). You only hear about a few that get caught, most don't.
Yes, she was a figure skater. She was in a wheel chair when she went to the hospital with a severe bowel issue from a (presumably) congenital defect. That she was well before she was sick doesn't relate to whether she's better now than she was when she was first admitted. She's gotten worse since she was discharged from the hospital (presumably because the parents stopped paying when they were legally removed from her life and DCF was put in charge of her care). DCF refusing her care for financial reasons is orthogonal to BCH's care of her when they were in charge of it.
There wasn't much "lost" in the dark ages. Lots of works of the Greeks and Romans survive to today, so it couldn't have been "lost" just ignored. It was more like one continual war, ending with the renaissance, like the end of WWII kick-started the US economy. You don't spend time time doing agricultural research when you are in the middle of a game of thrones. Progress continued in the middle east and far east, and, some say, the Americas, though much of that was lost (the most accurate calendar on the planet was from there, we just don't use it because it was complicated). But paper from China was never lost, nor paper from Egypt. We just didn't advance nearly as fast. Progress often comes in spurts and jumps.
I think it would be quite hard to forget the Bhor model of the atom, and that's only 100 years old. Go back 200 years and you lose the periodic table and most of the elements. I don't think such loss of knowledge is possible/practical. Even for radioactive potato farmers (though I'm not clear, is it the farmer or potato that's radioactive?).
Whether the answer is yes or no, neither affects this case. collecting sales tax is a state matter that the states and the feds agree is a state matter. One corporation exploiting a loophole has no effect on a different one in an unrelated case.
Tesla deliberately crafted their sales channel to be questionably legal to force the issue in places that didn't change the laws to what they want. They are ready for a legal battle, and obviously trying to provoke one. That doesn't mean they must be wrong, or are exploiting any loophole.
So they refuse to schedule over the phone? Or are their internal systems down because of outside traffic? If that's the case, just pull the plug (on the Internet, not the kid).
The problem was he wasn't calm. Walk in, take the child. If anyone stops you, make them physically stop you. Press charges for assault. Sue them, and the hospital for assault and wrongful arrest. Don't fight CPS. They do that every day for a living. Fight the unexpected fight.
The articles conflict. Some indicate she was wheelchair bound and "hair falling out" when BCH reported abuse. Others say that happened since. The only ones legally allowed to comment are the parents, and they are obviously not unbiased.
Why did her parents never confirm the diagnosis? There wasn't a medical test confirming her disgnosis ever done. Because this basic step was deliberately avoided by the parents, they got into trouble later. Some things seem fishy from both sides. It doesn't appear as clear-cut as you assert (multiple times in similar wording).
Also, it appears the parents shopped doctors looking for one that was willing to diagnose her without doing any tests. She had been seen by others for the same mitochondrial disease, but wasn't diagnosed with it. So they kept looking. Why? Is it that they read about it on the Internet, and didn't care whether she had it, but diagnosed her with it, so she'd have it, even if she didn't?
It may be as simple as someone seeing that most medical abuse is by parents who insisted the child had mitochondrial disease, so BCH made the assumption that anyone who insisted it was such, without a prior objective diagnosis, was considered abusive. Given the numbers involved, that's a logical conclusion, even if it results in too many false positives.
I know that if I were still in the US, I'd likely have had CPS issues. I moved out of the US because it's unfixable. But I have a 7 year old who managed at age 4 to jump off a box 3 feet high and break an arm clean through (highly improbable), or fell getting out of a car at about the same age, landing on his face, and breaking a tooth, and recently fell in the shower, requiring 12 stitches across his eyebrow. At least all but one were when he was under supervised care (day care or after-school programs) with well established organizations with good reputations, so no suspicion was cast. He's just a klutz. He has constant bruises from where he runs into door knobs, walls, chairs, and such.
In the US, there are protests if a child was reported but not immediately pulled in cases of "real abuse" and protests when "real abuse" is reported and the child is immediately pulled.
My mother worked CPS her whole life. My sister worked CPS. Lasted a year before she had her breakdown and quit. Her example of why is: "You go to a house. The parents are loving and safe. But they won't say no to an uncle who comes in and rapes the children. So you know, for certain, that if you don't pull the children, the next time the uncle gets out of prison, he will be allowed to rape the children by the negligent parents. And you know that the parents love the children, and care for them well, aside from a blind spot for a particular relative. So, do you pull the children out of a loving household, subjecting them to foster care for as long as they are children (over 8 siblings have a near-zero chance of adoption), or leave them in a household with a 100% chance of being raped?"
You are incorrectly linking "conservative" to "Republican". Both parties are far right, they just argue over how far, so that they can appear different.
If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.
They aren't stores, they are showrooms. The maker has places where the possible users can see them. That is legal. I've gone to such things held by Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari (no, no idea why American makers *never* do that, unless you count NASCAR). If you like it, they direct you to a representative from a local dealer on site. The difference is Tesla directs you to the out-of-state order process, illegal in 48-ish states. But quite clearly interstate, not intrastate, unless you live in CA.
Slashdot Mirror
You put it in, and pull everything off the phone (cached emails and such included). Yes, you won't get access to linked accounts, but they are hosted, thus never delete, so that can be gotten with a slow warrant process.
What's odd is that they can already get a warrant for SMSs, call records, call recordings and such from the phone. So why would they need the instant access to the device, when they can get it slow and legal?
Violent crime is plummeting yet the state is escalating.
And because of research into lead and such, it looks like it was unrelated to any acts by the police state that resulted in the crime drop.
Well, when someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff, if you have a firearm for defense, you'll be killed. It's happened where someone came out with a handgun, and he was ordered to freeze, hands up, and put the gun down. He put his hands up, the "gun down" was repeated. He lowered the weapon to put it down, and was shot for lowering the weapon.
No knock should be illegal.
The point was that if the only evidence of someone being a criminal is on their phone they might not be a criminal. This simply is not true.
Can you give an example? A drug dealer running a network of drug running from their phone. But no evidence outside their phone. No drugs to be found. No phones receiving the commands. No witnesses seeing drugs move. No money mocing in or out of accounts or hands.
Nope, if the only "proof" is inside a phone, then there was no crime.
You put D first. Why do you hate R? Vote R to rebel against this persecution!
At least that's how it seems every time I see someone point out Reagan tripling the debt in 8 years when Obama is doing less, or Obama killing with drones, while Bush merely waterboarded.
Blocking p2p in the name of network health kind of defeats the point of net neutrality.
No, it doesn't. Blocking Skype because you sell VoIP defeats the point of net neutrality. Picking a "class" of traffic, that even you indicates causes actual harm, and reducing that harm on others doesn't seem to be a bad thing. As you hint, if that were the case, maybe the P2P makers would make their stuff to be less abusive so that it would not be targeted so much for throttling.
Note, even if they are declared "common carriers" they could still filter P2P. The standard of proof for harm to the network increases, but not the legal capabilities to address that harm.
This from the guy who claims to be an advanced driver because he tries to heel and toe an automatic going at 7 mph in city traffic.
You are lying.
Do you still mindlessly copy the vehicle in front, even if it runs a red?
"Still"? Do you "still" beat your wife? You are begging the question. You are stating a question in a manner that presumes I mindlessly copy someone. Another lie. Your question is invalid.
Why are you lying in a manner designed to incite or discredit? Are you really so pissed about some thread where you posted stupid stuff about driving, and I pointed it out? (yes, that's presumption, I have no idea which idiots I was correcting repeatedly, or how many cites I gave to heel-toe indicating it was a manual-only thing). If you had actually read anything I said, you'd note that I consistently stated that "heel-toe" implies manual only, as anyone with two feet would never need to heel-toe in an auto, as there are only two pedals, and both are usable at the same time by different feet.
Mostly people who don't know what it means. So far, *every* version of net neutrality has allowed for throttling of P2P for "network health" but so many people claim (wrongly) that net neutrality would make it illegal for a provider to deliberately and with justification, control their own network.
There are a number of loonitarians here that object on principle regarding a government regulation on a private network. Yes, that comes down to ignorance of what the regulation is, but also a general objection to any and all regulations, no matter how beneficial.
I think that people have missed the obvious solution. Define "Internet service" as access to all sites on the Internet without restriction or prejudice. Then the FCC hands off "net neutrality" to the FTC for false advertising lawsuits for anyone that claims "Internet service" that delivers an AOL version of the world, with paid preference and hidden/slow access to the rest Internet.
Of course that would fail when people sell "the world network" with disclaimers in the fine print. The US is broken that way. Many other places disallow fine print that contradicts the large print. "Free sandwiches on Tuesdays" (only applies to butter sandwiches, and must buy 6 regular priced sandwiches for each free one) would be illegal elsewhere, but is perfectly fine in the US. A reasonable person wouldn't conceive of such restrictions when seeing the big print. "Buy-6 get a free butter sandwich" would be the better large print. But no, in the US, we have given up consumer protection, and it's down to corporate protection.
The US has no concept of "foreigners". And the US citizens are spread around the globe. Why should a US citizen in France be denied the ability to sign a petition, when they can vote for president? So the petitions are (and should be) open world-wide, and the closing off of them should only be done in a way that identifies citizens, and I'm guessing that was "too hard" as there's no citizen list to check against.
I ride down a hill every day coming home from work. I pull the clutch and coast out of gear. I've passed within 10 feet of pedestrians before they notice me. ~35 mph, no noticable chain noise. The loudest thing to me is the wind noise, but I'm on it, so I don't expect that I'm hearing what a pedestrian would hear.
The tire noise is elevated when cornering (smooth tread when upright, deepening tread when leaned over, close to silent going straight, but I can hear it when I lean into a corner). And yes, the idling engine is still one of the noisiest parts of the bike. The only time I hear the chain is when it's long overdue for an adjustment. A chain, in practice, is as quiet as a shaft or belt. Not like a bicycle.
Based on your comments, I presume you ride a bicycle and are guessing. Well, that and you don't maintain your own bike (because you are incompetent/lazy), and aren't very good at riding it. When I was riding 100+ miles a week, I maintained my own bicycle, and I'd adjust the chain/shifters daily. There was not much noise from the chain. That only happens with cheap chains, worn gears, and poor shifters. And that points to a lazy and ignorant owner.
Yes, and they pulled her from care. You are asserting that cost isn't an issue? Wile I appreciate your random guessing, it's no more reliable than mine. I note the articles that come up are all months out of date, and very little has private, protected medical details that you claim to be privy to.
Abusive parents always claim it's the system that's out to get them (especially men in a divorce trying to get the kids to prevent support payments. And the system always claims it's infallible. More often than not, both sides are wrong.
I apologize for being so impartial that I didn't crucify the system based on your random guesses and unsubstantiated opinion. I'll try to be more biased next time.
The system sucks. The government is always wrong. The AMA is a union, so all doctors must be wrong 100% of the time because they are all union members. Is that better?
You have your non-profit well established before you try any funny business. Even if the business isn't too funny, many "charities" own private jets, and buy hookers for the CEOs (though rarely listed explicitly as such on the expense report). You only hear about a few that get caught, most don't.
Yes, she was a figure skater. She was in a wheel chair when she went to the hospital with a severe bowel issue from a (presumably) congenital defect. That she was well before she was sick doesn't relate to whether she's better now than she was when she was first admitted. She's gotten worse since she was discharged from the hospital (presumably because the parents stopped paying when they were legally removed from her life and DCF was put in charge of her care). DCF refusing her care for financial reasons is orthogonal to BCH's care of her when they were in charge of it.
There wasn't much "lost" in the dark ages. Lots of works of the Greeks and Romans survive to today, so it couldn't have been "lost" just ignored. It was more like one continual war, ending with the renaissance, like the end of WWII kick-started the US economy. You don't spend time time doing agricultural research when you are in the middle of a game of thrones. Progress continued in the middle east and far east, and, some say, the Americas, though much of that was lost (the most accurate calendar on the planet was from there, we just don't use it because it was complicated). But paper from China was never lost, nor paper from Egypt. We just didn't advance nearly as fast. Progress often comes in spurts and jumps.
I think it would be quite hard to forget the Bhor model of the atom, and that's only 100 years old. Go back 200 years and you lose the periodic table and most of the elements. I don't think such loss of knowledge is possible/practical. Even for radioactive potato farmers (though I'm not clear, is it the farmer or potato that's radioactive?).
Whether the answer is yes or no, neither affects this case. collecting sales tax is a state matter that the states and the feds agree is a state matter. One corporation exploiting a loophole has no effect on a different one in an unrelated case.
Tesla deliberately crafted their sales channel to be questionably legal to force the issue in places that didn't change the laws to what they want. They are ready for a legal battle, and obviously trying to provoke one. That doesn't mean they must be wrong, or are exploiting any loophole.
So they refuse to schedule over the phone? Or are their internal systems down because of outside traffic? If that's the case, just pull the plug (on the Internet, not the kid).
I've heard "an avalanche of good fortune", it's not destructive, just a large thing that comes all at once.
The problem was he wasn't calm. Walk in, take the child. If anyone stops you, make them physically stop you. Press charges for assault. Sue them, and the hospital for assault and wrongful arrest. Don't fight CPS. They do that every day for a living. Fight the unexpected fight.
The articles conflict. Some indicate she was wheelchair bound and "hair falling out" when BCH reported abuse. Others say that happened since. The only ones legally allowed to comment are the parents, and they are obviously not unbiased.
Why did her parents never confirm the diagnosis? There wasn't a medical test confirming her disgnosis ever done. Because this basic step was deliberately avoided by the parents, they got into trouble later. Some things seem fishy from both sides. It doesn't appear as clear-cut as you assert (multiple times in similar wording).
Also, it appears the parents shopped doctors looking for one that was willing to diagnose her without doing any tests. She had been seen by others for the same mitochondrial disease, but wasn't diagnosed with it. So they kept looking. Why? Is it that they read about it on the Internet, and didn't care whether she had it, but diagnosed her with it, so she'd have it, even if she didn't?
It may be as simple as someone seeing that most medical abuse is by parents who insisted the child had mitochondrial disease, so BCH made the assumption that anyone who insisted it was such, without a prior objective diagnosis, was considered abusive. Given the numbers involved, that's a logical conclusion, even if it results in too many false positives.
I know that if I were still in the US, I'd likely have had CPS issues. I moved out of the US because it's unfixable. But I have a 7 year old who managed at age 4 to jump off a box 3 feet high and break an arm clean through (highly improbable), or fell getting out of a car at about the same age, landing on his face, and breaking a tooth, and recently fell in the shower, requiring 12 stitches across his eyebrow. At least all but one were when he was under supervised care (day care or after-school programs) with well established organizations with good reputations, so no suspicion was cast. He's just a klutz. He has constant bruises from where he runs into door knobs, walls, chairs, and such.
In the US, there are protests if a child was reported but not immediately pulled in cases of "real abuse" and protests when "real abuse" is reported and the child is immediately pulled.
My mother worked CPS her whole life. My sister worked CPS. Lasted a year before she had her breakdown and quit. Her example of why is:
"You go to a house. The parents are loving and safe. But they won't say no to an uncle who comes in and rapes the children. So you know, for certain, that if you don't pull the children, the next time the uncle gets out of prison, he will be allowed to rape the children by the negligent parents. And you know that the parents love the children, and care for them well, aside from a blind spot for a particular relative. So, do you pull the children out of a loving household, subjecting them to foster care for as long as they are children (over 8 siblings have a near-zero chance of adoption), or leave them in a household with a 100% chance of being raped?"
When you can answer that, you can comment on CPS.
If nothing else, the DDoSing gets the public eye on it to ensure the best care possible for the child involved.
Te parents say she's worse. The actual medical records aren't public. The parents aren't exactly unbiased.
Right, it's the conservatives.
You are incorrectly linking "conservative" to "Republican". Both parties are far right, they just argue over how far, so that they can appear different.
If Tesla was not setting up "stores" in the various states, then what the states are doing would be regulating interstate commerce.
They aren't stores, they are showrooms. The maker has places where the possible users can see them. That is legal. I've gone to such things held by Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari (no, no idea why American makers *never* do that, unless you count NASCAR). If you like it, they direct you to a representative from a local dealer on site. The difference is Tesla directs you to the out-of-state order process, illegal in 48-ish states. But quite clearly interstate, not intrastate, unless you live in CA.