You know this guy is a psycho neo-Nazi who's trying to radicalize other people, right? Martyr complexes are things that exist. If you torture this guy horribly, then the next guy will say "wow, society is awful, clearly the answer is _more_ terrorism, and I'll just shoot myself before they capture me".
yeah, tip: someone who commits a crime expecting to die in the process, isn't really afraid of the consequences afterwards.
Are you kidding? Is there some tiny bubble west of the lake that has magically bad service? Because I've lived all around Lake Washington and my internet has been stellar no matter what ISP I use.
If someone assaults you and breaks your leg, should your health insurance pay to find and arrest the guy who did it? If a serial arsonist is going around torching homes, should individual victims pay for the police to track him down?
It's in the best interests of a state and its citizens to stop crime, so we employ people to do it. If a reward can get the authorities a lead more efficiently than paying an investigator that much salary for the time it would take, then it's in the peoples' best interests to see their taxes used that way.
People do that with breathalyzers, too. Hell, people do that with radar guns for speeding. One of those few times where citizens can make things too inconvenient for the big guy instead of the other way around.
As for the reason for a warrant, here's how I'd imagine it: you slap the device on a phone, it skims commonly-used chat programs and flags "yes" or "no". If it flags "yes", then you either say "yeah I fucked up, give my phone back and I'll just eat what they give me" or "no, I didn't fuck up, put this phone in an evidence bag and give it to someone who can do real memory analysis forensics under strict oversight" or, even better, "no, I didn't fuck up, give the subpoena to Google and let THEIR SERVERS confirm whether I used the voice stuff, I'll just walk away with my phone now thanks".
Does it say you'd be presumed guilty? I would suppose that you could go to traffic court and say "Yes your Honor, I plead guilty to typing while driving and accept some kind of still-punishing plea" versus "No your Honor, I swear I was using voice dictation and I can prove it, so I plead not guilty; let law enforcement get a limited warrant to inspect my phone, and I'll risk harsher punishment if it can be shown that I lied in court".
If this device existed in theory, and did indeed have the privacy protections they're claiming with a legal system that didn't circumvent them, I think I'd support it. The hard part is pulling it off, but it sounds like they're making an earnest effort instead of just BSing. Anything that begins with "we'll make them get a limited warrant" is a pretty good place to start compared to what we normally see, and if you have a third party doing it, with strict oversight, then cool.
As a universal rule, on your way back down to a planet, you want to to apply maximum force for a short of a time as possible and at the last second possible. Anything you do to slow your descent before that means that you're fighting gravity for a longer time, and that wastes fuel. They don't have the resources to change their approach angle--and even if they did, shallow means it's hitting more air resistance on the way down, which means you slow down for free.
"Of those that have been accessed and analyzed with the companies’ “machine-learning” classification method, less than half (48%) can be classified as illegal under UK and US law. A separate manual classification of 1,000 sites found about 68% of the content to be illegal under those same laws."
Seriously, guys? The only place the 48% number comes from is from the same sentence saying that a more careful count said 68%.
The summary and article leave out the fact that this law bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery. Alternately, have you seen the photos that some trans men have posted--bodybuilders, with no way you could guess from appearance that they were born any different? Yeah, by this law, they have to use the ladies' room.
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
Eh, my place supports webmail or local clients for the same account. Local clients are faster, have better calendar and meeting integration, more responsive UIs, let you see your last-known mailbox offline when you don't have internet access, etc etc. They'll always be superior for my purposes.
Remember, if you run an experiment like this one a hundred times, you'll get this result once on average by pure statistical chance. The other 99 don't get published. There were a couple other things they measured (education and MMSE) that could have been interesting enough to publish, too, so knock the odds down to 1/33. Or, since they tried a couple different methods to normalize the data, odds are up to 1/20 that this study would have produced numbers this significant on a single variable by pure chance.
Slashdot Mirror
You know this guy is a psycho neo-Nazi who's trying to radicalize other people, right? Martyr complexes are things that exist. If you torture this guy horribly, then the next guy will say "wow, society is awful, clearly the answer is _more_ terrorism, and I'll just shoot myself before they capture me".
yeah, tip: someone who commits a crime expecting to die in the process, isn't really afraid of the consequences afterwards.
Are you kidding? Is there some tiny bubble west of the lake that has magically bad service? Because I've lived all around Lake Washington and my internet has been stellar no matter what ISP I use.
Well, cable internet is a different thing than cable TV, even though they like to bundle them together for "cheap" whenever they can.
Iff the jobless claims went down because they're hiring more, then absolutely sequitur. You hire more when you expect business to increase.
If someone assaults you and breaks your leg, should your health insurance pay to find and arrest the guy who did it? If a serial arsonist is going around torching homes, should individual victims pay for the police to track him down?
It's in the best interests of a state and its citizens to stop crime, so we employ people to do it. If a reward can get the authorities a lead more efficiently than paying an investigator that much salary for the time it would take, then it's in the peoples' best interests to see their taxes used that way.
Does your wallet have a light-up screen? Especially at night?
People do that with breathalyzers, too. Hell, people do that with radar guns for speeding. One of those few times where citizens can make things too inconvenient for the big guy instead of the other way around.
That's why you involve a third party with oversight. They're not cops and they care about their reputation.
And when the cop who saw the phone in your hands pulls out his dashcam that shows the same thing?
As for the reason for a warrant, here's how I'd imagine it: you slap the device on a phone, it skims commonly-used chat programs and flags "yes" or "no". If it flags "yes", then you either say "yeah I fucked up, give my phone back and I'll just eat what they give me" or "no, I didn't fuck up, put this phone in an evidence bag and give it to someone who can do real memory analysis forensics under strict oversight" or, even better, "no, I didn't fuck up, give the subpoena to Google and let THEIR SERVERS confirm whether I used the voice stuff, I'll just walk away with my phone now thanks".
Does it say you'd be presumed guilty? I would suppose that you could go to traffic court and say "Yes your Honor, I plead guilty to typing while driving and accept some kind of still-punishing plea" versus "No your Honor, I swear I was using voice dictation and I can prove it, so I plead not guilty; let law enforcement get a limited warrant to inspect my phone, and I'll risk harsher punishment if it can be shown that I lied in court".
If this device existed in theory, and did indeed have the privacy protections they're claiming with a legal system that didn't circumvent them, I think I'd support it. The hard part is pulling it off, but it sounds like they're making an earnest effort instead of just BSing. Anything that begins with "we'll make them get a limited warrant" is a pretty good place to start compared to what we normally see, and if you have a third party doing it, with strict oversight, then cool.
As a universal rule, on your way back down to a planet, you want to to apply maximum force for a short of a time as possible and at the last second possible. Anything you do to slow your descent before that means that you're fighting gravity for a longer time, and that wastes fuel. They don't have the resources to change their approach angle--and even if they did, shallow means it's hitting more air resistance on the way down, which means you slow down for free.
That's the term SpaceX uses.
Okay wow! Thank you editors! The summary got changed and I appreciate that. Seemed like that never happened on old Slashdot.
Man, now I want to go back and read the Watchmen graphic novel again.
"Of those that have been accessed and analyzed with the companies’ “machine-learning” classification method, less than half (48%) can be classified as illegal under UK and US law. A separate manual classification of 1,000 sites found about 68% of the content to be illegal under those same laws."
Seriously, guys? The only place the 48% number comes from is from the same sentence saying that a more careful count said 68%.
Well it's not like they'd be sharing the SAME urinal. Don't care who you are at all--move a couple stalls over there buddy.
The summary and article leave out the fact that this law bans local jurisdictions from offering any LGBT protections beyond what the state does, which is "none". Cities had local laws saying, for example, you couldn't refuse to rent to a gay couple just because they were gay...those city laws are now struck from the books by state mandate.
See one problem is the law says gender AT BIRTH. Which means it doesn't matter if you've had the surgery. Alternately, have you seen the photos that some trans men have posted--bodybuilders, with no way you could guess from appearance that they were born any different? Yeah, by this law, they have to use the ladies' room.
If people obey this law, it's going to massively RAISE the number of people who don't look like they belong in the restroom they're in.
Eh, my place supports webmail or local clients for the same account. Local clients are faster, have better calendar and meeting integration, more responsive UIs, let you see your last-known mailbox offline when you don't have internet access, etc etc. They'll always be superior for my purposes.
I always liked the subtle "There are 11 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't."
Just remember, in some areas pro-police bumper stickers can get you more scrutiny by the police as well.
Anyone willing to give a tl;dr explanation for those of us who don't want to get lost on Wikipedia for the next couple hours?
Remember, if you run an experiment like this one a hundred times, you'll get this result once on average by pure statistical chance. The other 99 don't get published. There were a couple other things they measured (education and MMSE) that could have been interesting enough to publish, too, so knock the odds down to 1/33. Or, since they tried a couple different methods to normalize the data, odds are up to 1/20 that this study would have produced numbers this significant on a single variable by pure chance.