"Cameras are in common use. This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains. If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up. Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house."
That's because the police are not allowed to invade your home's curtilage (area directly around the home). Peeking through the curtains invades the two inches directly in front of your window. However, if do not draw your curtains, there's nothing to prevent the police from using a camera with a telescopic lens to spy on you from across the street. As Kyllo noted, the police can fly helicopters in the airspace over your house and use magnifying cameras to take pictures of the top of your greenhouse in order to discover the pot you're growing, despite the fact you've put up ten foot fences around the green house (all without a warrant). Because the police are not invading your curtilage, they're allowed to do it.
Kyllo confronted a different issue: you normally feel like you are protected from invasion of privacy when people don't have technology that defeats your efforts to protect your privacy. Five hundred years ago, if you didn't want someone to spy through your window, you could build a moat. Then the telescopic lens was invented. How do you defeat that? The amazing technology that is curtains. But Scalia was saying that in 2001, most people didn't have thermal imagining scanners, so you didn't have to worry about others scanning your house. It was reasonable to believe that information was private. That's why Kyllo won his case.
To go back to the author of this article's question, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound. If thermal imaging scanners are in general use by the public today, then you and I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thermal emanations. So, if the police used a thermal imaging device today, the evidence gets admitted (if the technology is in general use).
I'm really surprised that the vast majority of people have never run anti-virus software. I always assume people have the software and just run it every once in a while. I use ClamXAV when I want to scan a file I've downloaded or received via email, but I don't have it set up to continually scan. I read a post today at Mac Guru Lounge on the Top 5 Mac Security Tips for the Holidays, which also talked about running AV software.
How old were you when you played Zelda on the NES? 5? 7? 10? I think I was 8. Then I got the SNES and bought A Link To The Past. Then the N64 came out, and I got Ocarina of Time. So on and so forth. Well, when the SNES, N64, and GameCube each came out, there was a new 8-year-old kid playing Zelda for the first time. Those of us who have played Zelda since the beginning might tire of it a bit. I, for one, don't care to see any major changes to Zelda, and I appreciate that there aren't ten offshoot games with Zelda characters running the show. God knows I don't want to see a Guitar Hero starring Ganon.
My point is that every Zelda game sells well because if Nintendo loses you due to boredom, there's a new kid to take your place. I mean, have you played the GameBoy Zelda games? They're all the same. Heck, Capcom basically promotes Oracle of Ages/Seasons as the same game, yet they sell millions of copies. There's no financial need to change the games, just because the author thinks everyone feels the same way as he and his friends.
The author tried to explain how revolutionary the Super Mario games have been in comparison to Zelda, yet he failed miserably. Basically, the "revolutions" came when the gaming system changed. 8-bit to 16-bit to 64-bit to GameCube. Wow. Exactly like Zelda. He even mentions that Super Mario Sunshine didn't sell as well as the others, yet he fails to mention that critics regard it as the most unSuper Mario game in the series. Look, as everyone here has said, Final Fantasy is an unfair comparison because it's 12 different games under the same brand. How many game series are out there that have been using the same model for 20 years and are still selling well? I think it's down to Mario and Zelda. That IS what's innovative.
As it is, there is absolutely no good order to watch the trilogy in, because Episode 3 ruins the surprises of 5 and 6, whereas watching the original trilogy basically lays out the story for the prequals, meaning there's no possiblity of Anakin's fall being interesting.
Yeah, I guess that whole tragedy genre never worked out.
Seriously, though, I agreed with all of your points. I wonder whether any filmmaker will make a story so beloved across the world, that when he has a chance to make new movies, will see the movies not as his babies but as belonging to the community at large. Just think how great I-III could have been if only...
Maybe the fact that the EPA tests highway driving at a brisk 45 mph instead of 65-75 mph has something to do with it. I guess we need to all drive in the right lane with our hazard lights on if we want the mileage we see on the stickers.
With Apple's warranty program, you get a new part for free by returning the old part. The bad power adapter was worth $79 to Apple. The new power adapter is worth $79 to Apple. If you keep both, you've basically screwed them out of $158. I'm not saying that's the smartest way to look at the situation, but that's what Apple does. On a side note, with the power adapters, very often "bad" power adapters are due to abuse, i.e. stretching/bending the cord till the wires are exposed. This is not covered under warranty, and when you return the old power adapter, if Apple finds that to be the case, you'll be charged for a new one. That's also why they put a hold on the credit card.
One other general note...the 12" iBook is less than 5 oz heaver than the 12" PowerBook. Yes, that is a difference, but certainly not much heavier. I use both on a daily basis, and the PowerBook would be a better fit for a developer *only* if your compilers are optimized for the AltiVec instructions on a G4. Just my 2 cents.
No matter how bad one of your shipments was, those of you who actually care about people should still use UPS. UPS has a Union. FedEx does not. There are 10,000s of people all over the world working for UPS, and the more we use FedEx, the more private companies will be able to control workers' rights, salaries, and working conditions. I feel it's important to support unions, and I hope you do, too, despite occassional problems.
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but has any American citizen ever taken the U.S. government to court over the types of issues Sanford Levinson discusses in his essay? Like the fact that the US has not formally declared war against a particular country? Or when Eugene Debs was imprisoned for speaking out against entering WWI? Can the gov't be taken to court for these things?
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?
Well, perhaps you are not aware we funded Hussein with military weapons until six months prior to the Gulf "War" because the U.S. government supported his killing of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. So long as it didn't affect American oil interests, the gov't didn't care who he killed.
I'm not going to relentlessly cheerlead Israel -- their settlement policy in the West Bank was a mistake and it's come back to haunt them. But it's worth keeping in mind that the only country in that region in which Arabs can vote is Israel. In the rest of the area, the best they can hope for is a reasonably benign king (Morocco, Jordan) or despot (Egypt). And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.
Apparently you have never been to Israel. Go there and have a crime committed against you. See how strongly the police officials try to get you to say an Arab committed the crime. See how you can't find out what the convicted's punishment is (so he or she can be tortured by CIA-trained Israelis).
And by the way, the CIA is involved with the Palestinians, too. It's just that the CIA supports Arafat, and Palestinians do not. The PLO is a CIA-supported, pseudo-government that doesn't care whether Palestinians have a homeland. You may be saying you're taking a neutral stance, but to underestimate the US's involvement in preventing the Palestinians from gaining a nation-state that they want (read: not PLO approved) is also wrong.
Actually, the only actual grammatical mistake in this sentence is the de-genderizing of the unincluded nominative subject (the word that goes before considers). Since "considers" is written in the third-person, singular conjugation, it is inconsistent for the writer to use the word "their" on the second line. The person should have used the word "its." Otherwise, excepting the period at the end of the sentence (that I assume was there from the start), there are not grammatical mistakes.
You're probably thinking there should be a comma after "threat," but this is not the case because you're not separating two complete clauses: there's no subject after "threat." Secondly, you do not need to write the definite article preceding the word "extent" (which would read to the extent).
If you see anything I've missed, I'd be glad to hear it, but this is really a sound sentence.
You have to remember Microsoft is NOT going to be broken up. The appellate court has made that decision, and it's doubtful the Supreme Court would overturn it.
Now, if Microsoft remains a single entity, what's the best solution? Sanctions. And that's what this would be. I know you guys think antitrust laws are supposed to promote innovation, but what do you think the solution is when unethical innovation is produced? (Please remember that innovation is an ethical issue, not a technological one.) You prevent that "innovation" from taking place. No one really believes Windows XP is innovative. We all know this.
I think we can all agree on 3 important points:
The current versions of Windows are in violation of the appellate court's decision against Microsoft and its anticompetive practices.
The courts do not know how to punish Microsoft for its actions.
The issue at present is whether Microsoft can release a major OS upgrade that violates the court's decision in the same way the current versions do.
Why should the government let Microsoft do this? They shouldn't, and that's what this senator is trying to prevent.
Forgive me for believing I know what the actual issue is here, but I see that I am not alone.:)
The state of Kanas's decision has nothing to do with choosing an accurate (read as "correct," "righteous," or "scientifically provable") account of the development of beings on Earth and the planet itself.
The issue is: Who shall decide what can be taught in the classroom? Not what shall be taught. Is it the federal government? The state? Or the local boards of education? Imagine a school district in Texas in which 80% of the students speak Spanish as their first language. Do you force them to learn English because it is the most popular language in the country? Or do you allow them to continue speaking Spanish, preventing them from learning what you think will allow them to better adjust to and interact with the world?
If you chose English, you probably also chose federal or state government. If you chose Spanish, you probably chose local control. One can obviously see the correlation to the teaching of creationism or evolution or any other theory. Some of you actually appended the word "theory" to the Big Bang. I'm not sure why, as you describe it as truth. In the classroom, teachers do not offer a disclaimer that the Big Bang theory is a theory based on scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is more "true" than a theory based on different system of reason.
No, what is taught is: scientific reason = truth. Now, before you flame me, I am an atheist who believes in so much of science, and I believe in the theory of evolution. Some of you have said that what is dangerous is allowing children to believe these opposing theories and that they should come back to the real world. Of course, the "real world" is based on your system of rationale, not theirs.
If you study the genealogies of the developments of structures of reason, you may believe that ours comes out of the Age of Enlightenment, when science became the structure of truth in order to offer a model which opposes religious dogma. The "problem" our country faces is that we are the only country in the world where those who do not want to submit to this system of rationale have a voice. Teaching evolution as the only possible truthful story to the history of the Earth is not at all different from what the pseudo-communist countries did (read: authoritarian education) during the Cold War. It may sound incredible to you or me to want to teach creationism or any other theory, but the fact is, this issue is only an issue because it calls on all of us to decide whether we want what is taught to our children to be controlled by our communities or by those in charge of our government. It's amazing to me how many so-called "liberals" (and, as a Green party voter, I consider myself one) out there, who speak of human rights, justice, equality, and diversity, are angry when a community wants to teach a theory which says, "Our beliefs lie in a different domain."
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sorry if people think this is a worthless quote. Isn't this situation comparable to an author who uses a publishing company to format, market, and distribute her book? Obviously, the author owns the content of the book, but the publishing house owns whatever rights it has towards the layout of the book. (ie. You couldn't sell ten pages from a book even by obtaining the author's permission.) Obviously, where the author's rights end is in the contract, so isn't the question (and a few other posts have said this) whether Company X signed a contract saying all HTML code it generated belongs to the first company.
Slashdot Mirror
"Cameras are in common use. This doesn't give the cops the right to set one up to look inside your house through a pinhole in your curtains. If they attempt to look inside the house, in any way, with any technology that ever comes up, without a warrant this is a violation of your expectation of privacy and they should be locked up. Not disciplined, but subject to the exact same penalties as if I put a camera in the bathroom of a woman's house."
That's because the police are not allowed to invade your home's curtilage (area directly around the home). Peeking through the curtains invades the two inches directly in front of your window. However, if do not draw your curtains, there's nothing to prevent the police from using a camera with a telescopic lens to spy on you from across the street. As Kyllo noted, the police can fly helicopters in the airspace over your house and use magnifying cameras to take pictures of the top of your greenhouse in order to discover the pot you're growing, despite the fact you've put up ten foot fences around the green house (all without a warrant). Because the police are not invading your curtilage, they're allowed to do it.
Kyllo confronted a different issue: you normally feel like you are protected from invasion of privacy when people don't have technology that defeats your efforts to protect your privacy. Five hundred years ago, if you didn't want someone to spy through your window, you could build a moat. Then the telescopic lens was invented. How do you defeat that? The amazing technology that is curtains. But Scalia was saying that in 2001, most people didn't have thermal imagining scanners, so you didn't have to worry about others scanning your house. It was reasonable to believe that information was private. That's why Kyllo won his case.
To go back to the author of this article's question, yes, the Supreme Court's ruling is still sound. If thermal imaging scanners are in general use by the public today, then you and I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding our thermal emanations. So, if the police used a thermal imaging device today, the evidence gets admitted (if the technology is in general use).
I'm really surprised that the vast majority of people have never run anti-virus software. I always assume people have the software and just run it every once in a while. I use ClamXAV when I want to scan a file I've downloaded or received via email, but I don't have it set up to continually scan. I read a post today at Mac Guru Lounge on the Top 5 Mac Security Tips for the Holidays, which also talked about running AV software.
So true.
How old were you when you played Zelda on the NES? 5? 7? 10? I think I was 8. Then I got the SNES and bought A Link To The Past. Then the N64 came out, and I got Ocarina of Time. So on and so forth. Well, when the SNES, N64, and GameCube each came out, there was a new 8-year-old kid playing Zelda for the first time. Those of us who have played Zelda since the beginning might tire of it a bit. I, for one, don't care to see any major changes to Zelda, and I appreciate that there aren't ten offshoot games with Zelda characters running the show. God knows I don't want to see a Guitar Hero starring Ganon.
My point is that every Zelda game sells well because if Nintendo loses you due to boredom, there's a new kid to take your place. I mean, have you played the GameBoy Zelda games? They're all the same. Heck, Capcom basically promotes Oracle of Ages/Seasons as the same game, yet they sell millions of copies. There's no financial need to change the games, just because the author thinks everyone feels the same way as he and his friends.
The author tried to explain how revolutionary the Super Mario games have been in comparison to Zelda, yet he failed miserably. Basically, the "revolutions" came when the gaming system changed. 8-bit to 16-bit to 64-bit to GameCube. Wow. Exactly like Zelda. He even mentions that Super Mario Sunshine didn't sell as well as the others, yet he fails to mention that critics regard it as the most unSuper Mario game in the series. Look, as everyone here has said, Final Fantasy is an unfair comparison because it's 12 different games under the same brand. How many game series are out there that have been using the same model for 20 years and are still selling well? I think it's down to Mario and Zelda. That IS what's innovative.
Which part of the license agreement do you feel Microsoft is violating?
Section 14 deals with DRM and essentially says you're bound to whatever restrictions Microsoft imposes.
Section 14.1 does not discuss sharing songs from Zune to Zune but rather limits how many of your personal computers can play the songs.
The last section explains how you can burn the purchased music.
Where's the violation?
As it is, there is absolutely no good order to watch the trilogy in, because Episode 3 ruins the surprises of 5 and 6, whereas watching the original trilogy basically lays out the story for the prequals, meaning there's no possiblity of Anakin's fall being interesting.
...
Yeah, I guess that whole tragedy genre never worked out.
Seriously, though, I agreed with all of your points. I wonder whether any filmmaker will make a story so beloved across the world, that when he has a chance to make new movies, will see the movies not as his babies but as belonging to the community at large. Just think how great I-III could have been if only
Maybe they'll make a junk mail game. Nothing feels better then pressing right trigger to destroy an e-mail.
Maybe the fact that the EPA tests highway driving at a brisk 45 mph instead of 65-75 mph has something to do with it. I guess we need to all drive in the right lane with our hazard lights on if we want the mileage we see on the stickers.
With Apple's warranty program, you get a new part for free by returning the old part. The bad power adapter was worth $79 to Apple. The new power adapter is worth $79 to Apple. If you keep both, you've basically screwed them out of $158. I'm not saying that's the smartest way to look at the situation, but that's what Apple does. On a side note, with the power adapters, very often "bad" power adapters are due to abuse, i.e. stretching/bending the cord till the wires are exposed. This is not covered under warranty, and when you return the old power adapter, if Apple finds that to be the case, you'll be charged for a new one. That's also why they put a hold on the credit card.
One other general note...the 12" iBook is less than 5 oz heaver than the 12" PowerBook. Yes, that is a difference, but certainly not much heavier. I use both on a daily basis, and the PowerBook would be a better fit for a developer *only* if your compilers are optimized for the AltiVec instructions on a G4. Just my 2 cents.
No matter how bad one of your shipments was, those of you who actually care about people should still use UPS. UPS has a Union. FedEx does not. There are 10,000s of people all over the world working for UPS, and the more we use FedEx, the more private companies will be able to control workers' rights, salaries, and working conditions. I feel it's important to support unions, and I hope you do, too, despite occassional problems.
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but has any American citizen ever taken the U.S. government to court over the types of issues Sanford Levinson discusses in his essay? Like the fact that the US has not formally declared war against a particular country? Or when Eugene Debs was imprisoned for speaking out against entering WWI? Can the gov't be taken to court for these things?
If it makes you feel better, think about how much we spend on defense each year. Now think about the dollar value of the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes in 1991. Was aid to Israel cost effective?
Well, perhaps you are not aware we funded Hussein with military weapons until six months prior to the Gulf "War" because the U.S. government supported his killing of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. So long as it didn't affect American oil interests, the gov't didn't care who he killed.
I'm not going to relentlessly cheerlead Israel -- their settlement policy in the West Bank was a mistake and it's come back to haunt them. But it's worth keeping in mind that the only country in that region in which Arabs can vote is Israel. In the rest of the area, the best they can hope for is a reasonably benign king (Morocco, Jordan) or despot (Egypt). And also that the current hostility isn't because Israel denied the Palestinians a homeland but because it offered them one.
Apparently you have never been to Israel. Go there and have a crime committed against you. See how strongly the police officials try to get you to say an Arab committed the crime. See how you can't find out what the convicted's punishment is (so he or she can be tortured by CIA-trained Israelis).
And by the way, the CIA is involved with the Palestinians, too. It's just that the CIA supports Arafat, and Palestinians do not. The PLO is a CIA-supported, pseudo-government that doesn't care whether Palestinians have a homeland. You may be saying you're taking a neutral stance, but to underestimate the US's involvement in preventing the Palestinians from gaining a nation-state that they want (read: not PLO approved) is also wrong.
But that's just my 2 cents.
Actually, the only actual grammatical mistake in this sentence is the de-genderizing of the unincluded nominative subject (the word that goes before considers). Since "considers" is written in the third-person, singular conjugation, it is inconsistent for the writer to use the word "their" on the second line. The person should have used the word "its." Otherwise, excepting the period at the end of the sentence (that I assume was there from the start), there are not grammatical mistakes. You're probably thinking there should be a comma after "threat," but this is not the case because you're not separating two complete clauses: there's no subject after "threat." Secondly, you do not need to write the definite article preceding the word "extent" (which would read to the extent). If you see anything I've missed, I'd be glad to hear it, but this is really a sound sentence.
- The current versions of Windows are in violation of the appellate court's decision against Microsoft and its anticompetive practices.
- The courts do not know how to punish Microsoft for its actions.
- The issue at present is whether Microsoft can release a major OS upgrade that violates the court's decision in the same way the current versions do.
Why should the government let Microsoft do this? They shouldn't, and that's what this senator is trying to prevent.Forgive me for believing I know what the actual issue is here, but I see that I am not alone. :)
The state of Kanas's decision has nothing to do with choosing an accurate (read as "correct," "righteous," or "scientifically provable") account of the development of beings on Earth and the planet itself.
The issue is: Who shall decide what can be taught in the classroom? Not what shall be taught. Is it the federal government? The state? Or the local boards of education? Imagine a school district in Texas in which 80% of the students speak Spanish as their first language. Do you force them to learn English because it is the most popular language in the country? Or do you allow them to continue speaking Spanish, preventing them from learning what you think will allow them to better adjust to and interact with the world?
If you chose English, you probably also chose federal or state government. If you chose Spanish, you probably chose local control. One can obviously see the correlation to the teaching of creationism or evolution or any other theory. Some of you actually appended the word "theory" to the Big Bang. I'm not sure why, as you describe it as truth. In the classroom, teachers do not offer a disclaimer that the Big Bang theory is a theory based on scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is more "true" than a theory based on different system of reason.
No, what is taught is: scientific reason = truth. Now, before you flame me, I am an atheist who believes in so much of science, and I believe in the theory of evolution. Some of you have said that what is dangerous is allowing children to believe these opposing theories and that they should come back to the real world. Of course, the "real world" is based on your system of rationale, not theirs.
If you study the genealogies of the developments of structures of reason, you may believe that ours comes out of the Age of Enlightenment, when science became the structure of truth in order to offer a model which opposes religious dogma. The "problem" our country faces is that we are the only country in the world where those who do not want to submit to this system of rationale have a voice. Teaching evolution as the only possible truthful story to the history of the Earth is not at all different from what the pseudo-communist countries did (read: authoritarian education) during the Cold War. It may sound incredible to you or me to want to teach creationism or any other theory, but the fact is, this issue is only an issue because it calls on all of us to decide whether we want what is taught to our children to be controlled by our communities or by those in charge of our government. It's amazing to me how many so-called "liberals" (and, as a Green party voter, I consider myself one) out there, who speak of human rights, justice, equality, and diversity, are angry when a community wants to teach a theory which says, "Our beliefs lie in a different domain."
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm sorry if people think this is a worthless quote. Isn't this situation comparable to an author who uses a publishing company to format, market, and distribute her book? Obviously, the author owns the content of the book, but the publishing house owns whatever rights it has towards the layout of the book. (ie. You couldn't sell ten pages from a book even by obtaining the author's permission.) Obviously, where the author's rights end is in the contract, so isn't the question (and a few other posts have said this) whether Company X signed a contract saying all HTML code it generated belongs to the first company.