The effect would be mitigated if everyone would refrain from following other cars so closely.
Yeah.... I tried this for several weeks. Except everyone took the opportunity to sneak in front of me so they could play a game of changing lanes repeatedly to snake their way through traffic faster.
That is the problem. You can do what is best for the group, but then selfish individuals abuse that for their own gain which hurts the group more. I can't wait until we have self driving cars... I could easily foresee traffic signals going away, much more efficient cars and no more worrying about getting to old to be safe on the roads. Add to this a dropped death rate, and this breakthrough would easily be the greatest advancement of the 21st century.
Not necessarily stupidity. if I can see past the driver in front of me, I can make a better decision. I can see that he is simply adjusting speed to allow for a more reasonable space between him and the car in front. If I am stuck behind an SUV in my car, then I am not sure if his tap on the brake is about to turn into a full fledged stomp of the brakes, and I have to adjust, and possible harder that I need to. This becomes a cascading event.
And this is a U.S. based web site. If we are that "unimportant", please do not connect to our servers.
Now, I will admit that the imperial measurement system is a bit silly, but is ain't worth getting your knickers in a knot over. I am sure there is some Firefox extension that will auto covert for you...
The difference is that the wi-fi operator is enabling the illegal activity. It is common for scrap metal or pawn shops to have to report suspect items. There is plenty of precedence for this.
And if you think kiddie porn should be legal, you are a nut.
Ummmm. No. Only if you open it and discover it is. Otherwise, you are not responsible for reporting. The Bill even explicitly states that there is NO requirement to monitor. Only that if you do monitor or otherwise become aware of the activity that you must report.
Nope. The actual Bill simply states that if you run an oipen access service and realize that a user is using it for child porn that you MUST report it. In fact, the Bill goes as far as to say: " `(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."
So, if you don't monitor, you are not in trouble. I realize the article made incorrect statements about the Bill, but the Bill itself is, at worst, ineffective, not Orwellian.
(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
So, it does not require any actual monitoring. If monitoring does occur and you find a user d/ling child porn, you must report. If you think that we should shut down the internet for a day to protest this, you are nuts.
What part of the Bill is unenforceable? It only states that if you run a free-wifi service and realize that one of your "patrons" is engaged in child pornography that you must report it. This to me is simply common sense. Nothing in the bill talked about offensive cartoons. Nothing referred to anime. The Bill states child porn which has already been defined by the U.S. Supreme court as NOT being animated.
Nope. The Bill itself applies to people who knowingly provide services, and have discovered their users engaged in child pornography AND do not report it. But here at Slashdot we prefer to have knee jerk reaction based on a poorly understood article summary based on a misrepresented article. There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with the Bill.
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
`(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
`(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
`(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES- The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--
`(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or
`(B) section 1466A."
Basically, if you are operating a Wi-Fi service, and find out that one of your users is downloading or uploading child porn, you are responsible for reporting it. What part of that is controversial?
"while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--"
This indicates to me that 1) You are intending to provide a service, and that you obtain knowledge. You are not required to monitor your users' behavior.
So, sounds like a really ineffective law. Hardly Orwellian.
"least amount of understanding of how it works." Pot. Kettle. Black.
50 comments based on one writer's spin on a Bill. I'd like to see the actual Bill text to see what the law really says. My guess is when we see what is really in the Bill it will have very little to do with the article summary.
Slashdot Mirror
Title: Mars Rover, Spirit, Turns 4
Summary: ""Designed for a 90 day mission, the Spirit Mars Rover is starting its 4th year of exploration"
"Beginning 4th year" is not the same as turning 4.
You start your 2nd year of life when you turn 1.
Now for fun stats, what's the likelyhood of said asteroid hitting one of the rovers and/or hitting close enough to disable one?
The odds are zero according to NASA.
thats like a 300% greater chance
It is 200% greater. Or 300% as great.
Pare it down enough, and it might begin posting on Slashdot!
The effect would be mitigated if everyone would refrain from following other cars so closely.
Yeah.... I tried this for several weeks. Except everyone took the opportunity to sneak in front of me so they could play a game of changing lanes repeatedly to snake their way through traffic faster.
That is the problem. You can do what is best for the group, but then selfish individuals abuse that for their own gain which hurts the group more. I can't wait until we have self driving cars... I could easily foresee traffic signals going away, much more efficient cars and no more worrying about getting to old to be safe on the roads. Add to this a dropped death rate, and this breakthrough would easily be the greatest advancement of the 21st century.
Not necessarily stupidity. if I can see past the driver in front of me, I can make a better decision. I can see that he is simply adjusting speed to allow for a more reasonable space between him and the car in front. If I am stuck behind an SUV in my car, then I am not sure if his tap on the brake is about to turn into a full fledged stomp of the brakes, and I have to adjust, and possible harder that I need to. This becomes a cascading event.
And this is a U.S. based web site. If we are that "unimportant", please do not connect to our servers.
Now, I will admit that the imperial measurement system is a bit silly, but is ain't worth getting your knickers in a knot over. I am sure there is some Firefox extension that will auto covert for you...
Been skipping your medication again? :)
A bit is a unit of data, which is not necessarily the same as knowledge. Since "knowledge" is a vague term, there is no "unit" of it.
So, you are standing in line with your boyfriends while he was standing with his girlfriend?
My personal favorite: "Gimme good presents or I will Force choke the life out of your pathetic body"
Why can't we have more stories like THIS one?
Did you even read the post? You have NO responsibility. None. Zero. Not one ounce. Only if you happen to find out. Then you need to report. No logs.
Now if your barrista sees it, you would probably be responsible for looking into it.
The difference is that the wi-fi operator is enabling the illegal activity. It is common for scrap metal or pawn shops to have to report suspect items. There is plenty of precedence for this.
And if you think kiddie porn should be legal, you are a nut.
The Bill states there IS NO requirement to monitor. There is no tangled mess.
Ummmm. No. Only if you open it and discover it is. Otherwise, you are not responsible for reporting. The Bill even explicitly states that there is NO requirement to monitor. Only that if you do monitor or otherwise become aware of the activity that you must report.
Nope. The actual Bill simply states that if you run an oipen access service and realize that a user is using it for child porn that you MUST report it. In fact, the Bill goes as far as to say:
" `(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."
So, if you don't monitor, you are not in trouble. I realize the article made incorrect statements about the Bill, but the Bill itself is, at worst, ineffective, not Orwellian.
And if you RTFB, you will see:
(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
So, it does not require any actual monitoring. If monitoring does occur and you find a user d/ling child porn, you must report. If you think that we should shut down the internet for a day to protest this, you are nuts.
What part of the Bill is unenforceable? It only states that if you run a free-wifi service and realize that one of your "patrons" is engaged in child pornography that you must report it. This to me is simply common sense. Nothing in the bill talked about offensive cartoons. Nothing referred to anime. The Bill states child porn which has already been defined by the U.S. Supreme court as NOT being animated.
I realize a lot of the reaction from Slashdot has been based on the article. However, the article bears little resemblance to the actual Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110gRla7T::
Nope. The Bill itself applies to people who knowingly provide services, and have discovered their users engaged in child pornography AND do not report it. But here at Slashdot we prefer to have knee jerk reaction based on a poorly understood article summary based on a misrepresented article. There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with the Bill.
From the actual Bill:
" (a) Duty To Report-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
`(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
`(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
`(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES- The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--
`(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or
`(B) section 1466A."
Basically, if you are operating a Wi-Fi service, and find out that one of your users is downloading or uploading child porn, you are responsible for reporting it. What part of that is controversial?
Thanks. The first thing I notice:
"while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--"
This indicates to me that 1) You are intending to provide a service, and that you obtain knowledge. You are not required to monitor your users' behavior.
So, sounds like a really ineffective law. Hardly Orwellian.
"least amount of understanding of how it works."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
50 comments based on one writer's spin on a Bill. I'd like to see the actual Bill text to see what the law really says. My guess is when we see what is really in the Bill it will have very little to do with the article summary.
Sorry, but I do not trust cnet news blurbs. Can someone post the text of the Bill itself?
So, it is kind of like Linux then?