That article talks about Magnetic and Solid-State Memory
Yes, and in addition they explicitly cover RAM. Check out "7. Methods of Recovery for Data stored in Random-Access Memory".
Actually data in RAM can be recovered too, depending on how long ago it was written and the memory chip has been used since then:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_ del.html
Your point is moot. The law doesn't require judicial oversight, and therefore, when the FBI inspects your records without judicial oversight, it isn't doing anything illegal.
No, his point isn't moot. If your sole point of reference is the current legislation, it would be very easy for any government to justify all actions. May I remind you that Hitler came to power legally and that many of his attacks on the Germans' civil and constitutional rights were theoretically "legal"? One could say that some prerequisites for democracy are the limitation, separation and control of state power. What you may not have noticed yet is that when the FBI gains the legal authority to not only execute searches but also judge their necessity, it effectively has executive and judicial powers. History has shown that situations where governments or even certain agencies have too much uncontrolled power generally lead to problems - big problems.
Of course, the system you describe isn't necessarily invalid or "bad", it just isn't a democracy, so please don't pretend it is one.
Because only those who have something to hide need fear the results.
It is not true that only those who have something to hide that fear the results. If you are pulled over by the police, searched for weapons and drugs, fingerprinted, taken down to the station for interrogation and then released again, you could say that the results of this search are in your favor (they didn't find anything suspicious, right?), but another result of this search is that your consitutional and human rights have been severely violated. Some people are afraid of that, quite rightfully so.
Because it is not your life, it's our life, and we permit you to live it only as long as you continue to be worth more to us alive
The concept of the "natural rights" of humans goes back to the enlightenment and the evolution of it is nowadays generally reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You may want to read it sometime:
The only reason you are still alive is because someone has decided to let you live.
Everything can be relativated and relativated and relativated some more. The result is usually a diluted and mostly meaningless statement: The only reason you're still alive is because someone hasn't decided to kill you yet. In fact, you're still alive is because your seventh grade English teacher decided to let you live. You owe him your life. Back then you were worth more to him alive than dead or seen otherwise, the potential consequences of his killing you outweighed the benefits of getting rid of you. What if he has a terminal illness now and bears a grudge against you? Now the balance has changed and three to six months in prison may be worthwhile for getting the ultimate revenge againt you for not paying attention in class and ridiculizing him. Since your life is not yours but rather ours and thus partially his, wouldn't it be his right to act in his interests and kill you?
As far as I know, there is also a firmware modification that can be made directly, but whether the new Radeon 9200 chipset in the iBook G4's will permit this remains to be seen.
Needless to say, I also find PC World's selection of benchmark applications uninteresting to say the least. I would expect any serious comparison of high-performance workstation CPU's to use accordingly demanding applications which place an emphasis mainly on the CPU and not on the graphics subsystem.. HMMer and Mathematica come to mind...
No. If everyone listens to radio, they wouldn't buy any CDs and musicians will starve.
So you're telling me it's illegal to listen to the radio? Uh.. ok.
No. CD is not like traditional goods, where the marginal cost is significant. The real cost of the music is in writing, performing and recording and people should compensate the artists for these costs, not for the cost of printing a CD. That's why when you pay 50 cents for a CD, you deprive the artist of sales and send an invalid market signal (the demand for this music is low - noone buys CDs from the producer).
Are you for real? So it's unethical for me to sell property that I have legally aquired and own? Upon the original purchase of the CD, the artists get their due royalties. Once I own it I can give it away, burn it, use it as a frisbee, let it through my shredder or resell it for one hundred times more. There is something called "property rights". You may want to read up on that and while you're at it, check out "supply and demand" (if the "demand for music is low", maybe there's a reason).
Slashdot Mirror
That article talks about Magnetic and Solid-State Memory Yes, and in addition they explicitly cover RAM. Check out "7. Methods of Recovery for Data stored in Random-Access Memory".
Actually data in RAM can be recovered too, depending on how long ago it was written and the memory chip has been used since then: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_ del.html
You can choose which projects you want your computer working on in your Grid preferences.
Your point is moot. The law doesn't require judicial oversight, and therefore, when the FBI inspects your records without judicial oversight, it isn't doing anything illegal.
No, his point isn't moot. If your sole point of reference is the current legislation, it would be very easy for any government to justify all actions. May I remind you that Hitler came to power legally and that many of his attacks on the Germans' civil and constitutional rights were theoretically "legal"? One could say that some prerequisites for democracy are the limitation, separation and control of state power. What you may not have noticed yet is that when the FBI gains the legal authority to not only execute searches but also judge their necessity, it effectively has executive and judicial powers. History has shown that situations where governments or even certain agencies have too much uncontrolled power generally lead to problems - big problems.
Of course, the system you describe isn't necessarily invalid or "bad", it just isn't a democracy, so please don't pretend it is one.
Because only those who have something to hide need fear the results.
It is not true that only those who have something to hide that fear the results. If you are pulled over by the police, searched for weapons and drugs, fingerprinted, taken down to the station for interrogation and then released again, you could say that the results of this search are in your favor (they didn't find anything suspicious, right?), but another result of this search is that your consitutional and human rights have been severely violated. Some people are afraid of that, quite rightfully so.
Because it is not your life, it's our life, and we permit you to live it only as long as you continue to be worth more to us alive
The concept of the "natural rights" of humans goes back to the enlightenment and the evolution of it is nowadays generally reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You may want to read it sometime:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html
The only reason you are still alive is because someone has decided to let you live.Everything can be relativated and relativated and relativated some more. The result is usually a diluted and mostly meaningless statement: The only reason you're still alive is because someone hasn't decided to kill you yet. In fact, you're still alive is because your seventh grade English teacher decided to let you live. You owe him your life. Back then you were worth more to him alive than dead or seen otherwise, the potential consequences of his killing you outweighed the benefits of getting rid of you. What if he has a terminal illness now and bears a grudge against you? Now the balance has changed and three to six months in prison may be worthwhile for getting the ultimate revenge againt you for not paying attention in class and ridiculizing him. Since your life is not yours but rather ours and thus partially his, wouldn't it be his right to act in his interests and kill you?
As far as I know, there is also a firmware modification that can be made directly, but whether the new Radeon 9200 chipset in the iBook G4's will permit this remains to be seen.
Needless to say, I also find PC World's selection of benchmark applications uninteresting to say the least. I would expect any serious comparison of high-performance workstation CPU's to use accordingly demanding applications which place an emphasis mainly on the CPU and not on the graphics subsystem.. HMMer and Mathematica come to mind...
No. If everyone listens to radio, they wouldn't buy any CDs and musicians will starve.
So you're telling me it's illegal to listen to the radio? Uh.. ok.
No. CD is not like traditional goods, where the marginal cost is significant. The real cost of the music is in writing, performing and recording and people should compensate the artists for these costs, not for the cost of printing a CD. That's why when you pay 50 cents for a CD, you deprive the artist of sales and send an invalid market signal (the demand for this music is low - noone buys CDs from the producer).
Are you for real? So it's unethical for me to sell property that I have legally aquired and own? Upon the original purchase of the CD, the artists get their due royalties. Once I own it I can give it away, burn it, use it as a frisbee, let it through my shredder or resell it for one hundred times more. There is something called "property rights". You may want to read up on that and while you're at it, check out "supply and demand" (if the "demand for music is low", maybe there's a reason).