Right now anyone can buy a handheld t.v. and watch television that way. Imagine a disaster happens and you're without power. Of course there's the option of using a radio, but what if you wanted to watch your local news? Will these handheld t.v.s being manufactured still work, or will they become obsolete?
Can the government somehow create censorship with this switch? With the way they will send t.v. programming out, is it possible to put certain restrictions (as opposed to options) on programming?
If a lawyer doesn't think the person being sued is able to pay out, or if the lawyer thinks the person being sued has better "team" of lawyers than you do, you're pretty much out of luck unless you can front them the money. After all, it is in the best interest of the lawyer to somehow get the money, and there's no point to sueing the poor or corporate giants.
There is still the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You know, a trial by a jury of your peers. I would imagine they'd have a very difficult job trying to prove something like that. 2.4k worth of data? That is hardly evidence. Who says it wasn't an accident doing that specific bittorrent?
I've had bad experiences on the web clicking on stuff I never meant to, such as a simple mouse click on a given link. With Internet speeds getting very high, well, enough said when trying to stop the download or page load. (I guess that is a good thing for those wanting to spread maleware and the like.)
There is too much wasteful spending at the federal level. They really need to stick to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Getting rid of direct taxes, i.e. income taxes, which never was intended by the founder fathers, would be a good start. Switching to a national sales tax would be a good thing, but it needs to be on non-essential new items if it is going to be progressive. I don't want sales tax on used items or necessities. However, this idea will never work as long as there's pork spending, I think it's called.
It is a definite attack on privacy. Additionally, what right does the government have to tell us that we have to modify our software by putting backdoors in them?
Given the choice of liberty or security, I'd choose liberty.
I am primarily right handed, but when playing the N64, I always had my right thumb on the analog stick with my left hand using the buttons, if I remember correctly. Yes, it kind of looks awkward using a controller like that.
Isn't this going to really help people who are left handed when it comes to playing video games? I'm looking at the picture, and it's difficult to tell if it can work.
It would be one thing to ban the sale of games based on a certain rating, like prohibiting those 12 and under to purchase rated T games, or prohibiting minors from buying rated Adult and/or Mature games. Once you start definiging OUTSIDE of the ratings, like any games with sex, violence, cop killing, etc, then that is going into censorship.
The below really bothers me. Someone may think that accepting that kind of offer admits no guilt, but in reality, it admits you're guilty. The logic is that if you are truly innocent, you should have no problem in court. But then again, the American judicial system is so messed up, especially towards juveniles/minors, it may be next to impossible to get a fair trial/proceeding.
Mike Boland, who represents one student, said his client probably will accept the offer. ''It doesn't require my client to acknowledge he is guilty of anything,'' he said.
If someone had a very, very fast computer. If someone knew that someone MD5 hashed a password or other text-like file on their computer. It might just be possible to get the original, if the person knows what he or she is looking for concerning the original.
I was being serious. Based on previous stuff, I assume it will only be a matter of time before someone can reverse it.
About MD5, if someone had a fast enough computer, that can be reversed into the original, with some possible duplications. But I don't know how fast. Perhaps NSA computer fast.
I don't know much about RFID microchips, but I do realize that it's only a matter of time before technology improves enough that those obstacles won't matter.
I have a very hard time believing it is possible to encrypt something one way. It is only a matter of time before some genius figures out a way to reverse it.
There can be some real bad abuses with this technology.
Unlike barcodes, RFID microchips could contain a unique number making it possible to tell the difference between two individual products. Like being able to trace an individual product back to a given store. Imagine if they added these to Coca~Cola Classic cans, and being able to read the RFID microchip and finding out which store it came from, because in addition to saying what the product is, it has a unique number.
This type of thing can really stop shoplifters, if the door doesn't open for products not scanned out, if you know what I mean.
To prevent abuse, it would be in the best interest of anyone pro-privacy to scan the number in for inventory, scan it out upon checkout, and delete the information afterwards regarding the unique number.
This sure seems like wasteful spending. Do we really need them? Okay, that aside. I think the only way I'd be almost okay with this type of surveillance is if the voters approved it, whether it's a bad idea or not.
Any issue which regards removing our privacy needs to be dealt with by a city/county referendum. That way it's not our representatives telling us what to do, so-to-speak.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone here an expert in common or civil law? Is it possible that the law can override the stuff written in a license?
Right now anyone can buy a handheld t.v. and watch television that way. Imagine a disaster happens and you're without power. Of course there's the option of using a radio, but what if you wanted to watch your local news? Will these handheld t.v.s being manufactured still work, or will they become obsolete?
Can the government somehow create censorship with this switch? With the way they will send t.v. programming out, is it possible to put certain restrictions (as opposed to options) on programming?
If a lawyer doesn't think the person being sued is able to pay out, or if the lawyer thinks the person being sued has better "team" of lawyers than you do, you're pretty much out of luck unless you can front them the money. After all, it is in the best interest of the lawyer to somehow get the money, and there's no point to sueing the poor or corporate giants.
That is why public defenders exist, and if someone knows some tricks, they can make it real hard for the "big company" to win.
There is still the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You know, a trial by a jury of your peers. I would imagine they'd have a very difficult job trying to prove something like that. 2.4k worth of data? That is hardly evidence. Who says it wasn't an accident doing that specific bittorrent?
I've had bad experiences on the web clicking on stuff I never meant to, such as a simple mouse click on a given link. With Internet speeds getting very high, well, enough said when trying to stop the download or page load. (I guess that is a good thing for those wanting to spread maleware and the like.)
There is too much wasteful spending at the federal level. They really need to stick to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Getting rid of direct taxes, i.e. income taxes, which never was intended by the founder fathers, would be a good start. Switching to a national sales tax would be a good thing, but it needs to be on non-essential new items if it is going to be progressive. I don't want sales tax on used items or necessities. However, this idea will never work as long as there's pork spending, I think it's called.
What are you talking about?
It is a definite attack on privacy. Additionally, what right does the government have to tell us that we have to modify our software by putting backdoors in them?
Given the choice of liberty or security, I'd choose liberty.
Actually, I don't believe it is symmetric. Look at the analog stick part. It's curved, isn't it? But still, it looks very useable.
http://www.1up.com/do/imageDisplay?id=2308865 kind of looks curved, but still, it should be a lot easier than the controllers of the past.
I am primarily right handed, but when playing the N64, I always had my right thumb on the analog stick with my left hand using the buttons, if I remember correctly. Yes, it kind of looks awkward using a controller like that.
Isn't this going to really help people who are left handed when it comes to playing video games? I'm looking at the picture, and it's difficult to tell if it can work.
It would be one thing to ban the sale of games based on a certain rating, like prohibiting those 12 and under to purchase rated T games, or prohibiting minors from buying rated Adult and/or Mature games. Once you start definiging OUTSIDE of the ratings, like any games with sex, violence, cop killing, etc, then that is going into censorship.
The below really bothers me. Someone may think that accepting that kind of offer admits no guilt, but in reality, it admits you're guilty. The logic is that if you are truly innocent, you should have no problem in court. But then again, the American judicial system is so messed up, especially towards juveniles/minors, it may be next to impossible to get a fair trial/proceeding.
3 aug26,0,1647962,print.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b4_5kutztown-
Mike Boland, who represents one student, said his client probably will accept the offer. ''It doesn't require my client to acknowledge he is guilty of anything,'' he said.
Then it would be possible, but we just haven't reached that point yet.
If someone had a very, very fast computer. If someone knew that someone MD5 hashed a password or other text-like file on their computer. It might just be possible to get the original, if the person knows what he or she is looking for concerning the original.
I was being serious. Based on previous stuff, I assume it will only be a matter of time before someone can reverse it.
About MD5, if someone had a fast enough computer, that can be reversed into the original, with some possible duplications. But I don't know how fast. Perhaps NSA computer fast.
I don't know much about RFID microchips, but I do realize that it's only a matter of time before technology improves enough that those obstacles won't matter.
I have a very hard time believing it is possible to encrypt something one way. It is only a matter of time before some genius figures out a way to reverse it.
There can be some real bad abuses with this technology.
Unlike barcodes, RFID microchips could contain a unique number making it possible to tell the difference between two individual products. Like being able to trace an individual product back to a given store. Imagine if they added these to Coca~Cola Classic cans, and being able to read the RFID microchip and finding out which store it came from, because in addition to saying what the product is, it has a unique number.
This type of thing can really stop shoplifters, if the door doesn't open for products not scanned out, if you know what I mean.
To prevent abuse, it would be in the best interest of anyone pro-privacy to scan the number in for inventory, scan it out upon checkout, and delete the information afterwards regarding the unique number.
One person's trash is another person's treasure, if you were talking about censorship.
The current Internet doesn't need replaced or fixed.
It would be better if we just judge each person individually, regardless of statistics regarding gender, race, etc.
But it would still be illegal and punishable.
This sure seems like wasteful spending. Do we really need them? Okay, that aside. I think the only way I'd be almost okay with this type of surveillance is if the voters approved it, whether it's a bad idea or not.
Any issue which regards removing our privacy needs to be dealt with by a city/county referendum. That way it's not our representatives telling us what to do, so-to-speak.
That is the prosecutor's job to prove it by providing evidence and such.