Ummm... You need to re-read the Constitution if you think the court ruling on a warrant is "disingenuous and illogical". The courts are simply following the Constitution you deride them for not following. BTW, it is the 4th that concerns this more than the 5th although they do go hand-in-hand most of the time.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
You are referring to the part "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It is the court that dispenses due process of law. So encryption would most certainly block that due process.
Lastly, there are remedies to compel a suspect to comply with court orders to include imprisonment for contempt of court. Many have gone to jail for not complying with a legally issued court order to divulge their encryption password. So I don't see what this FBI Chief's issue is. He is using the age old "ticking time bomb" argument that was used to justify torturing detainees in Guantanamo. I don't buy it.
In short, it is not evil for a donor to say funds can't be used for a study where there doing so would produce a conflict of interest.
Which completely invalidates the whole concept of peer review. Go ahead... Try and find funding for privacy research amongst the crowd without any interest in the data. Good luck with that. Open peer review of any study is necessary to weed out bias. After all, you would pay for data you have no interest in right?
Double posting from the same article with this nugget:
Why the difference? The Florida landfill did not have a clay cap during the study, which would have sealed it from the elements. Caps are federally mandated to reduce pollution from water flowing into landfills. In the process, however, they reduce moisture content in the waste, the "master variable" in helping garbage decompose.
The residents are still free to waste all the food they want as long as they put it in the correct bin.
Although the issue here is about what bin you put waste food into, let me point you to a 1998 article on the topic of waste landfills and the types vs. the time of decomposition:
The point I am trying to make is that this law is targeting the wrong thing.
The study found that food decomposes relatively quickly. After six years in the Madison site, pasta, lima beans, peanuts and sunflower seeds all lost at least half of their dry weight, and pasta almost completely vanished. In Florida, the food samples were all more than 75 percent decomposed after only two years.
Newspaper was the only material that showed little change: Only 17.4 percent decomposed in Florida after two years, and 8.5 percent in Madison after six years.
Given a choice, putting the fine on paper products especially newspaper makes more sense from the point of view of reducing landfill real estate. Of course, someone putting food in the paper bin would upset the recycling process a miniscule amount not one that is too difficult to solve at the dump site. I suspect this is more about generating more revenue selling the compost since that pile would be reduced from wrong bin sorting. That's just my speculation though not supported by any facts.
Personally, I cannot wait to move into a completely rural area where I can either compost it or burn it. Saves $40/mo for as little as they have to do at my bit of the street.
Even in rural areas there are restrictions on what you can burn and when you can burn it. I live in one of the most rural areas in the country here in West Virginia and can tell you that you can be fined if you burn the wrong things at the wrong times.
Things like plastic, painted materials or other hazardous materials such as furniture foam and rubber are banned. That still doesn't stop people from doing it but the fines can get very steep especially for repeat offenders.
Of course it's not going to flip around because there is pressure among women to focus on making a family instead of pursuing a demanding career.
It is pressure but not as much sociological as it is biological. If women don't start a family before menopause, then that family will never start for that woman. So women literally do have a biological clock they are listening to unlike men. But having a family shouldn't stop a woman from having a good career with equal pay. Many if not most middle class families do have both parents working if only to keep on top of the bills especially since wages have stagnated or in some fields fallen. That isn't a choice. That is a necessity.
The computer I had before the M7 was HP TX-2. It too had a touchscreen but had a matte finish to it. It died due to other design flaws (poor airflow caused overheating) but the touchscreen was the thing that drew me to it.
In the case of the M7 its other features outweigh the glossy touchscreen. I just don't use the touch features on it. Besides, as I said, it isn't a true tablet but a big laptop. So a touchscreen with multigesture capabilities seems pretty useless on it.
Ummm... No. It isn't a case of being gooped up. It is a case of a single print is noticeable on this glossy screen. I am doing the solution to the problem which is not to use the touch features.
No. It is because people are treating a computer as an appliance. If it works out of the box they keep using it. Also, people won't go out of their way to replace a working product especially one they paid money for.
What you are talking about is the difference between those that see computers as appliances and those that take an interest in the workings of that appliance. And with today's distros being geared to making the install as easy as possible (for whatever level of literacy you have) it is making Linux easier for those that see it as an appliance.
To put this into the proper slashdot car analogy it is the difference between the guy who always puts new gear and tricks out their cars and their wives who get into it, toss the kids in the back seat and goes. That wife really doesn't appreciate the work done by her husband until something goes wrong.
the biggest problem is microsoft's insistence upon having a microsoft account, and use of trickery to ensure they are created, to login to the local pc, or to use the 'store' to download 'free' apps, or to use office 2013.. that's a total pain in the ass that no one should tolerate.
Yet Google does the same with Android. Amazon does the same thing with its platform too. So this isn't unique to Microsoft.
I hear ya! I have an HP Envy M7 laptop that has a touchscreen and I never use the touchscreen for that reason. To make it worse, the screen (which is a very good LED HD display) has a high gloss panel that shows the prints extremely well. Why in the world HP chose to put a glossy screen as a touchscreen is beyond me. Touchscreens should have a matte finish to try and hide the print marks as much as possible.
Good for you. However, you won't be too happy when you get a new machine that doesn't come with anything other than 9. Or when your windows 7 drivers need an update to fix a bug or add a feature and the only available ones are for Windows 9. Or you want that snazzy new program and it's minimum requirements are Windows 9.
Like it or not, the world moves on. If standing still works for you then more power to you.
I know for a fact that the forms you submit to the OPM ask you in plain English "have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government"
Yes it does ask that and I also believe that question leads to guilt by association. It needs to be changed to:
Have you ever advocated the violent overthrow of the US Government?
That change will remove the friend of a friend of a friend is a terrorist thing.
Besides, if you were to apply that question to the government as a whole, then they too would fail considering the perpetrators of 9/11 itself was US supported during the Afghanistan / Russian war during the Reagan administration as "freedom fighters".
It is a chain. One that is used to build a strong case against an individual. It was Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes that said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Another Holmes quote which applies here is, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."
To be true to the fist quote you would need physical evidence from the other victims to compare DNA. You would have to account for his time during the murders. You would also need to place him at the scene of each murder. Lastly, you would need the motive as well as the means. Without a murder weapon or a motive, there are holes in this story.
Plenty in this topic saying that. Everything from streaming it from the cars via WiFi to storing it in the "cloud". The point is, the minute it leaves your custody and can be accessed by others, you lose the chain of custody evidence requires. That is why they still use tapes. It is a physical object that can be put under lock and key with special handling requiring a huge paper trail.
You may as well put it on YuoTube if you are going to put it anywhere with / via the Internet. It won't take long for the feeds to get hacked and then where is your chain of evidence? Would be funny though if someone did hack it and streamed a whole bunch of kiddie porn to it instead of the real feeds. The cops would then have to arrest themselves for possession and be placed on the sex offender lists forever...
That is the most retarded post I have ever read and I am in a "hillbilly" state too! I would go along with your proposition if you would sign a waver that prevented you from suing anyone or making any claim what-so-ever including but not limited to SSDI, worker's compensation, health care or life insurance. In short, if you took FULL responsibility for your own carelessness. Oh, and when your carelessness causes death or injury to others you will take full responsibility for their costs too right? When your carelessness causes damage to plant equipment you'll pay for that too right? And I figure while you are taking responsibility for your actions you may as well pay for lost production while they are cleaning up the mess you make on the plant floor.
All because you feel uncomfortable in the safety gear you are required to wear for the job, you want to endanger yourself and more importantly, others. OSHA exists because they are needed to prevent companies from endangering their employees seeking profits above safety. Just look into Upper Big Branch Mine explosion in Raleigh County, WV for an example of profits over safety in action.
Because it was... You know... A nuclear accident that had the nation on edge. And I consider ANY radiation release as non-trivial. It's effects may have been trivial but the release was not.
Still, the coal fired power plants have had their fair share of industrial "accidents" as the coal impoundment failures across the country has shown in the past 30 years. And now the wind and solar industries are facing off with the naturalists over bird and bat kills. So every effort we seem to make will have its risks. Welcome to life.
Whoa there cowboy! You threw out monetary figures, laws and even court orders without a single reference. And I take particular offense at this line:
The taxpayers have benefited from over $30 billion of free money gifted to the government by the electricity generating companies, it's not the other way around.
It wasn't the taxpayers that were screaming to build the nuclear power plants. It was the "power generation companies" who were seeking ever increasing profits with lower up front costs. They made a deal with the Devil and now they don't want to dance? Especially since I suspect it will take far over $30 billion to implement a storage facility that everyone and their dog will scream NIMBY at for good reason!
It's not hard to read US law, just tedious. It works a bit like a computer program, assuming you don't believe the lie that case law is law.
You evidently haven't read most laws that pass have you? They read more like program patches than full programs. Things like "strike 'the article' in part 24 of public law 93-025 and insert 'the code'.... etc...
To really get the gist you should be going to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) where the real rubber meets the road. Laws are implemented in the CFR. For example, the law that allows FEMA to do what it does is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) as amended. The CFR that implements it is Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR). The Stafford Act has changed hundreds of times while the CFR reflects those changes every October. Trust me, you would go bonkers trying to read the law and all the amendments that go with it without the CFR.
Every law that has an implementation (most laws) has a CFR. Want to know about allowable expenses? 2CFR. Department of Transportation workings? 49CFR. The list is endless.
The police have, in the past, argued that they are allowed to *collect* that information because it is publicly available data, and that reasoning was accepted. Now they're arguing that they can't be required to *divulge* that data because it is *not* public data.
No, the police are arguing that to release it would compromise ongoing investigations by alerting the "bad guys" that they are being monitored prior to being charged. I tend to agree with that assessment. Hence a little thing called "protective orders". The judge can issue a protective order on the data and that should satisfy the issue.
I've always challenged the notion that the police are "trained observers" and can be trusted 100% of the time to tell the truth even under oath. They are human after all with all the failings of everyone on the planet including emotional issues. To trust them to destroy irrelevant data is foolish on its face. This type of data is too valuable to them in future cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... You need to re-read the Constitution if you think the court ruling on a warrant is "disingenuous and illogical". The courts are simply following the Constitution you deride them for not following. BTW, it is the 4th that concerns this more than the 5th although they do go hand-in-hand most of the time.
You are referring to the part "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It is the court that dispenses due process of law. So encryption would most certainly block that due process.
Lastly, there are remedies to compel a suspect to comply with court orders to include imprisonment for contempt of court. Many have gone to jail for not complying with a legally issued court order to divulge their encryption password. So I don't see what this FBI Chief's issue is. He is using the age old "ticking time bomb" argument that was used to justify torturing detainees in Guantanamo. I don't buy it.
Which completely invalidates the whole concept of peer review. Go ahead... Try and find funding for privacy research amongst the crowd without any interest in the data. Good luck with that. Open peer review of any study is necessary to weed out bias. After all, you would pay for data you have no interest in right?
Double posting from the same article with this nugget:
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/...
Does anyone know if that capping is still a federal mandate? If so, this is a case where regulation against one hazard is creating another.
Although the issue here is about what bin you put waste food into, let me point you to a 1998 article on the topic of waste landfills and the types vs. the time of decomposition:
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/...
The point I am trying to make is that this law is targeting the wrong thing.
Given a choice, putting the fine on paper products especially newspaper makes more sense from the point of view of reducing landfill real estate. Of course, someone putting food in the paper bin would upset the recycling process a miniscule amount not one that is too difficult to solve at the dump site. I suspect this is more about generating more revenue selling the compost since that pile would be reduced from wrong bin sorting. That's just my speculation though not supported by any facts.
Even in rural areas there are restrictions on what you can burn and when you can burn it. I live in one of the most rural areas in the country here in West Virginia and can tell you that you can be fined if you burn the wrong things at the wrong times.
Things like plastic, painted materials or other hazardous materials such as furniture foam and rubber are banned. That still doesn't stop people from doing it but the fines can get very steep especially for repeat offenders.
It is pressure but not as much sociological as it is biological. If women don't start a family before menopause, then that family will never start for that woman. So women literally do have a biological clock they are listening to unlike men. But having a family shouldn't stop a woman from having a good career with equal pay. Many if not most middle class families do have both parents working if only to keep on top of the bills especially since wages have stagnated or in some fields fallen. That isn't a choice. That is a necessity.
The computer I had before the M7 was HP TX-2. It too had a touchscreen but had a matte finish to it. It died due to other design flaws (poor airflow caused overheating) but the touchscreen was the thing that drew me to it.
In the case of the M7 its other features outweigh the glossy touchscreen. I just don't use the touch features on it. Besides, as I said, it isn't a true tablet but a big laptop. So a touchscreen with multigesture capabilities seems pretty useless on it.
Ummm... No. It isn't a case of being gooped up. It is a case of a single print is noticeable on this glossy screen. I am doing the solution to the problem which is not to use the touch features.
No. It is because people are treating a computer as an appliance. If it works out of the box they keep using it. Also, people won't go out of their way to replace a working product especially one they paid money for.
What you are talking about is the difference between those that see computers as appliances and those that take an interest in the workings of that appliance. And with today's distros being geared to making the install as easy as possible (for whatever level of literacy you have) it is making Linux easier for those that see it as an appliance.
To put this into the proper slashdot car analogy it is the difference between the guy who always puts new gear and tricks out their cars and their wives who get into it, toss the kids in the back seat and goes. That wife really doesn't appreciate the work done by her husband until something goes wrong.
Yet Google does the same with Android. Amazon does the same thing with its platform too. So this isn't unique to Microsoft.
I hear ya! I have an HP Envy M7 laptop that has a touchscreen and I never use the touchscreen for that reason. To make it worse, the screen (which is a very good LED HD display) has a high gloss panel that shows the prints extremely well. Why in the world HP chose to put a glossy screen as a touchscreen is beyond me. Touchscreens should have a matte finish to try and hide the print marks as much as possible.
Good for you. However, you won't be too happy when you get a new machine that doesn't come with anything other than 9. Or when your windows 7 drivers need an update to fix a bug or add a feature and the only available ones are for Windows 9. Or you want that snazzy new program and it's minimum requirements are Windows 9.
Like it or not, the world moves on. If standing still works for you then more power to you.
Yes it does ask that and I also believe that question leads to guilt by association. It needs to be changed to:
That change will remove the friend of a friend of a friend is a terrorist thing.
Besides, if you were to apply that question to the government as a whole, then they too would fail considering the perpetrators of 9/11 itself was US supported during the Afghanistan / Russian war during the Reagan administration as "freedom fighters".
You forgot a step if you are running 8.*. If you only do what you have, then Windows Defender will reject your edits as being "malicious".
See here to fix that:
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho...
It is a chain. One that is used to build a strong case against an individual. It was Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes that said, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Another Holmes quote which applies here is, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."
To be true to the fist quote you would need physical evidence from the other victims to compare DNA. You would have to account for his time during the murders. You would also need to place him at the scene of each murder. Lastly, you would need the motive as well as the means. Without a murder weapon or a motive, there are holes in this story.
Plenty in this topic saying that. Everything from streaming it from the cars via WiFi to storing it in the "cloud". The point is, the minute it leaves your custody and can be accessed by others, you lose the chain of custody evidence requires. That is why they still use tapes. It is a physical object that can be put under lock and key with special handling requiring a huge paper trail.
You may as well put it on YuoTube if you are going to put it anywhere with / via the Internet. It won't take long for the feeds to get hacked and then where is your chain of evidence? Would be funny though if someone did hack it and streamed a whole bunch of kiddie porn to it instead of the real feeds. The cops would then have to arrest themselves for possession and be placed on the sex offender lists forever...
At least it would answer the question, where is your Congress Critter today? Just look for the handy-dandy nightlight in the corridors...
That is the most retarded post I have ever read and I am in a "hillbilly" state too! I would go along with your proposition if you would sign a waver that prevented you from suing anyone or making any claim what-so-ever including but not limited to SSDI, worker's compensation, health care or life insurance. In short, if you took FULL responsibility for your own carelessness. Oh, and when your carelessness causes death or injury to others you will take full responsibility for their costs too right? When your carelessness causes damage to plant equipment you'll pay for that too right? And I figure while you are taking responsibility for your actions you may as well pay for lost production while they are cleaning up the mess you make on the plant floor.
All because you feel uncomfortable in the safety gear you are required to wear for the job, you want to endanger yourself and more importantly, others. OSHA exists because they are needed to prevent companies from endangering their employees seeking profits above safety. Just look into Upper Big Branch Mine explosion in Raleigh County, WV for an example of profits over safety in action.
Because it was... You know... A nuclear accident that had the nation on edge. And I consider ANY radiation release as non-trivial. It's effects may have been trivial but the release was not.
Or Chernobyl or Three Mile Island....
Still, the coal fired power plants have had their fair share of industrial "accidents" as the coal impoundment failures across the country has shown in the past 30 years. And now the wind and solar industries are facing off with the naturalists over bird and bat kills. So every effort we seem to make will have its risks. Welcome to life.
Whoa there cowboy! You threw out monetary figures, laws and even court orders without a single reference. And I take particular offense at this line:
It wasn't the taxpayers that were screaming to build the nuclear power plants. It was the "power generation companies" who were seeking ever increasing profits with lower up front costs. They made a deal with the Devil and now they don't want to dance? Especially since I suspect it will take far over $30 billion to implement a storage facility that everyone and their dog will scream NIMBY at for good reason!
You evidently haven't read most laws that pass have you? They read more like program patches than full programs. Things like "strike 'the article' in part 24 of public law 93-025 and insert 'the code'.... etc...
To really get the gist you should be going to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) where the real rubber meets the road. Laws are implemented in the CFR. For example, the law that allows FEMA to do what it does is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) as amended. The CFR that implements it is Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44CFR). The Stafford Act has changed hundreds of times while the CFR reflects those changes every October. Trust me, you would go bonkers trying to read the law and all the amendments that go with it without the CFR.
Every law that has an implementation (most laws) has a CFR. Want to know about allowable expenses? 2CFR. Department of Transportation workings? 49CFR. The list is endless.
No, the police are arguing that to release it would compromise ongoing investigations by alerting the "bad guys" that they are being monitored prior to being charged. I tend to agree with that assessment. Hence a little thing called "protective orders". The judge can issue a protective order on the data and that should satisfy the issue.
I've always challenged the notion that the police are "trained observers" and can be trusted 100% of the time to tell the truth even under oath. They are human after all with all the failings of everyone on the planet including emotional issues. To trust them to destroy irrelevant data is foolish on its face. This type of data is too valuable to them in future cases.