Vulnerability is a fundamental property of houses built of cards. It's probably fair enough to expect those sitting atop the house of cards to know where some vulnerable cards are but you must equally expect that they will only identify those cards that do not affect their position in the house (This may be out of malice toward others atop the house... but you should not attribute malice to that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity). I would be willing to wager that none of the high-speed traders consulted suggested that for a house to withstand a shock you don't build it with cards.
I am not in US. Looking from outside, I find the apparent general lack of faith in the ability of US judges to act with impartiality in respect of the law surprising. This is doubly so when you consider that, with few exceptions, decisions are subject to appeal and review by many others. Can someone in the US please explain whether my perception is skewed or there is a general distrust? If the latter, where does that stem from?
The summary does not use the term 'removed.' The Core i5, to which the 'no Hyper-Threading' comment applies, never had Hyper-Threading to start with. The i7 models continue to have Hyper-Threading.
The regulators and legislators are currently investigating a range of options in the legal space; this will continue. What seems to be missing at the moment is practical (means of) enforcement of the current regulations. Legalising/deploying UAV identify-and-disable systems (several on the market) in sensitive areas is expensive but may be necessary if those with toys cannot fly responsibly.
That copyright expired 1 Jan 2016, so that control mechanism should be dead and buried. The book remained freely available in most of the world regardless.
Censorship was very effectively wielded by the far-right of politics in WWII Germany, the far left of politics in the USSR, the McCarthyist US to "protect" against the red peril,.... It is painfully obvious that censorship is used by groups of all persuasions not just 'progressives' (whatever that encompasses in your world view).
It is not the first drone-aircraft collision and it will not be the last. There a five identified in this report (one fatal):
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/...
In any case, it does not require a collision for an unmanned aircraft to be a safety threat that needs to be mitigated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nobody wants to wait until irresponsible use of unregulated aircraft brings down a high capacity aircraft on final before investigating options.
Well, the hundreds of dollars you might get back in a year or two of fighting Defense payment bureaucracy will be far outweighed by the fines for direct violations of air navigation law in the US.
I think the ACLU's map is missing things. Surely DHS interpret "land border" in such as way that every designated international airport also has a 100 mile zone around it. How many places in the US interior have direct flights from Europe, Canada etc.? Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City.... There's even a direct Sydney-Dallas service. I venture that there is probably no substantial US city outside the zone in the eyes of DHS.
The Federal government has stated that it will not step in if a State chooses to allow recreational/medicinal cannabis provided there is a regulation system in place (i.e. what CA is trying to do). However, if the trade is interstate or leaves the State's jurisdiction then bets are off (especially given the present politics). If the cannabis is in the air then it is (arguably) no longer in California's jurisdiction. CA may simply be avoiding any legal ambiguity surrounding this mode of transport.
Alternatively, it may be that this delivery mode does not: guarantee that the merchandise is delivered to the intended, legal recipient; provide security of the payload in case of forced or misdirected landing; or accommodate random checks of the legal bona-fides of shipments in transit.
As for the other modes of transport: who knows. I am sure some bureaucrat has a rationale that makes sense in government-speak.
This may simply be a pragmatic issue. Once the cannabis is in the air it likely falls under Federal law regarding air navigation (The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace). Cannabis distribution is a federal offence. Best to keep the Feds out of this.
If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.
True, then the Oompa Loompa could not unilaterally remove the protections. However, first the House and Senate need to agree to do something and then pass something up that the Oompa Loompa will not veto in a tweet. Either way there's a single-point-of-failure involved.
I'm not sure why Hollywood stars think that ANYONE in the world gives a shit about what they think regarding politics
It is exactly the same reason you think anyone in the world gives a shit about your opinion on politics. Political opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one, some people have two, and the people that speak best from the second are in politics.
As someone that works in the area of providing data for air navigation I can unreservedly say that the data to support completely automated flight from off-blocks to on-blocks, is simply not there yet. Aviation is chock full or rules, exceptions, regulations, grey areas, short term changes, and unexpected events; all currently best dealt with using a Mk 1 Brain (two in most cases). Not to say it couldn't happen for a good chunk of regular passenger/freight transport between major, 1st world, domestic centres in the fullness of time. Aviation change moves on timescales of a decade or more, not months.
Ultimately though, it is naive in the extreme to think you are going to save billions by not hiring pilots. All that experience has to get into aircraft and ground systems to make this work. That will not be happening as a matter of charity. What you save in pilots you lose in equipment costs, airway navigation and landing charges.
The $10000 reporting limit is transparent to the end user unless the transaction is made in cash (and not, it seems, a deposit through one of these machines) or triggers the "suspicious activity" criteria (e.g. repeated $9000+ deposits). I have moved close to $30000 electronically to other parties, in both AUD and USD through a forex service, in past weeks for a trip to Patagonia/Antarctica: not a piece of paper in sight.
The machines in question are for deposits, primarily for out-of-bank-hours business trade, and not the transactional cash withdrawal machines. They replaced the old night safe arrangements where cash was deposited in a bank safe and processed manually the following business day. The user population for these machines is much smaller than the common ATM. The number of unreported transactions we know about is in excess of 50000, each of more than $10000. We do not yet know to what extent suspicious activity on smaller deposits has been unreported. I do not think for a moment that these are all money laundering transactions, but it is still an amount in excess of $500,000,000 that has moved without scrutiny through these machines alone. The machines are only a small part of the systemic problem.
It does not say, "regulatory oversight after five years," but rather, " regulatory oversight for five years after the deal is completed." For five years after finialising the deal they will be subject to oversight from the regulator. Whether such oversight has any teeth is a separate issue: anything the company does not agree with will be litigated until the five years expires.
While we are engaging in hyperbole... surely George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four achieves all of the above, has proven to be far more descriptive of the real world (media control and alternate facts anyone?), and does it in a mere handful of pages compared to the morass of LoTR-themed books. (I guess that LoTR is as much a "literary monolith" as a collection three main books, and several related works can be.)
In Australia they have at-gate screening for liquids, in addition to the general airside security screening for liquids, for US-bound flights. US-bound security has been this way for some years. The world has been bending over and taking it from the US for quite some time.
Speaking for Australia and NZ, they do not do what was described. You have to queue, stop, insert your passport, take a ticket, proceed to a photo gate, insert the ticket, wait for it to take your 2D image, try to match the biometrics on the e-Passport and then it may let you in. I guess a better than 90% acceptance for the limited range of countries supported. However, if you are me with an Australian passport then your e-Passport has never worked in Australia (inbound or out): works flawlessly in NZ though. My e-Passport is not useful at e-Passport gates in Rome, so I guess that level of data sharing is not yet occurring.
Slashdot Mirror
Vulnerability is a fundamental property of houses built of cards. It's probably fair enough to expect those sitting atop the house of cards to know where some vulnerable cards are but you must equally expect that they will only identify those cards that do not affect their position in the house (This may be out of malice toward others atop the house... but you should not attribute malice to that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity). I would be willing to wager that none of the high-speed traders consulted suggested that for a house to withstand a shock you don't build it with cards.
still underestimating trump? some never learn.
You be sure to educate us when he actually does something great then.
I am not in US. Looking from outside, I find the apparent general lack of faith in the ability of US judges to act with impartiality in respect of the law surprising. This is doubly so when you consider that, with few exceptions, decisions are subject to appeal and review by many others. Can someone in the US please explain whether my perception is skewed or there is a general distrust? If the latter, where does that stem from?
They might be. Do you have evidence that they actually exist?
The summary does not use the term 'removed.' The Core i5, to which the 'no Hyper-Threading' comment applies, never had Hyper-Threading to start with. The i7 models continue to have Hyper-Threading.
The regulators and legislators are currently investigating a range of options in the legal space; this will continue. What seems to be missing at the moment is practical (means of) enforcement of the current regulations. Legalising/deploying UAV identify-and-disable systems (several on the market) in sensitive areas is expensive but may be necessary if those with toys cannot fly responsibly.
That copyright expired 1 Jan 2016, so that control mechanism should be dead and buried. The book remained freely available in most of the world regardless.
Censorship was very effectively wielded by the far-right of politics in WWII Germany, the far left of politics in the USSR, the McCarthyist US to "protect" against the red peril, .... It is painfully obvious that censorship is used by groups of all persuasions not just 'progressives' (whatever that encompasses in your world view).
It is not the first drone-aircraft collision and it will not be the last. There a five identified in this report (one fatal): https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/...
There has since been one reported potential collision in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
In any case, it does not require a collision for an unmanned aircraft to be a safety threat that needs to be mitigated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Nobody wants to wait until irresponsible use of unregulated aircraft brings down a high capacity aircraft on final before investigating options.
Well, the hundreds of dollars you might get back in a year or two of fighting Defense payment bureaucracy will be far outweighed by the fines for direct violations of air navigation law in the US.
Spoken like a true English speaker :)
I think the ACLU's map is missing things. Surely DHS interpret "land border" in such as way that every designated international airport also has a 100 mile zone around it. How many places in the US interior have direct flights from Europe, Canada etc.? Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City.... There's even a direct Sydney-Dallas service. I venture that there is probably no substantial US city outside the zone in the eyes of DHS.
The Federal government has stated that it will not step in if a State chooses to allow recreational/medicinal cannabis provided there is a regulation system in place (i.e. what CA is trying to do). However, if the trade is interstate or leaves the State's jurisdiction then bets are off (especially given the present politics). If the cannabis is in the air then it is (arguably) no longer in California's jurisdiction. CA may simply be avoiding any legal ambiguity surrounding this mode of transport.
Alternatively, it may be that this delivery mode does not: guarantee that the merchandise is delivered to the intended, legal recipient; provide security of the payload in case of forced or misdirected landing; or accommodate random checks of the legal bona-fides of shipments in transit.
As for the other modes of transport: who knows. I am sure some bureaucrat has a rationale that makes sense in government-speak.
This may simply be a pragmatic issue. Once the cannabis is in the air it likely falls under Federal law regarding air navigation (The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace). Cannabis distribution is a federal offence. Best to keep the Feds out of this.
plague
Check. http://www.npr.org/sections/go...
public hangings
Check. Hangings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Executions more broadly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
horse shit in the streets
http://www.historic-uk.com/His...
If the US wants it as part of our Law...then congress should be the ones to enact it.
True, then the Oompa Loompa could not unilaterally remove the protections. However, first the House and Senate need to agree to do something and then pass something up that the Oompa Loompa will not veto in a tweet. Either way there's a single-point-of-failure involved.
I'm not sure why Hollywood stars think that ANYONE in the world gives a shit about what they think regarding politics
It is exactly the same reason you think anyone in the world gives a shit about your opinion on politics. Political opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one, some people have two, and the people that speak best from the second are in politics.
Something along these lines perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As someone that works in the area of providing data for air navigation I can unreservedly say that the data to support completely automated flight from off-blocks to on-blocks, is simply not there yet. Aviation is chock full or rules, exceptions, regulations, grey areas, short term changes, and unexpected events; all currently best dealt with using a Mk 1 Brain (two in most cases). Not to say it couldn't happen for a good chunk of regular passenger/freight transport between major, 1st world, domestic centres in the fullness of time. Aviation change moves on timescales of a decade or more, not months.
Ultimately though, it is naive in the extreme to think you are going to save billions by not hiring pilots. All that experience has to get into aircraft and ground systems to make this work. That will not be happening as a matter of charity. What you save in pilots you lose in equipment costs, airway navigation and landing charges.
The $10000 reporting limit is transparent to the end user unless the transaction is made in cash (and not, it seems, a deposit through one of these machines) or triggers the "suspicious activity" criteria (e.g. repeated $9000+ deposits). I have moved close to $30000 electronically to other parties, in both AUD and USD through a forex service, in past weeks for a trip to Patagonia/Antarctica: not a piece of paper in sight. The machines in question are for deposits, primarily for out-of-bank-hours business trade, and not the transactional cash withdrawal machines. They replaced the old night safe arrangements where cash was deposited in a bank safe and processed manually the following business day. The user population for these machines is much smaller than the common ATM. The number of unreported transactions we know about is in excess of 50000, each of more than $10000. We do not yet know to what extent suspicious activity on smaller deposits has been unreported. I do not think for a moment that these are all money laundering transactions, but it is still an amount in excess of $500,000,000 that has moved without scrutiny through these machines alone. The machines are only a small part of the systemic problem.
This, and its close ally the PIN Number, are a classic examples of RAS Syndrome (Redundant acronym syndrome syndrome).
https://letsencrypt.org/certif... under the heading "Certificate Transparency"
It does not say, "regulatory oversight after five years," but rather, " regulatory oversight for five years after the deal is completed." For five years after finialising the deal they will be subject to oversight from the regulator. Whether such oversight has any teeth is a separate issue: anything the company does not agree with will be litigated until the five years expires.
While we are engaging in hyperbole... surely George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four achieves all of the above, has proven to be far more descriptive of the real world (media control and alternate facts anyone?), and does it in a mere handful of pages compared to the morass of LoTR-themed books. (I guess that LoTR is as much a "literary monolith" as a collection three main books, and several related works can be.)
In Australia they have at-gate screening for liquids, in addition to the general airside security screening for liquids, for US-bound flights. US-bound security has been this way for some years. The world has been bending over and taking it from the US for quite some time.
Speaking for Australia and NZ, they do not do what was described. You have to queue, stop, insert your passport, take a ticket, proceed to a photo gate, insert the ticket, wait for it to take your 2D image, try to match the biometrics on the e-Passport and then it may let you in. I guess a better than 90% acceptance for the limited range of countries supported. However, if you are me with an Australian passport then your e-Passport has never worked in Australia (inbound or out): works flawlessly in NZ though. My e-Passport is not useful at e-Passport gates in Rome, so I guess that level of data sharing is not yet occurring.