As far as I can tell, currently the limiting factor for SSDs is not capacity but price. Current generation SSDs which range in capacity from 64GB to 512GB cost from $2 - $3 per GB while hard drives cost less than $0.25/GB. Price is usually an issue of production scale and sales volume. It's not hard to imagine in the next 5 years TB sized SSDs at a $0.25/GB or less price point.
But in the future will we really need TB of storage on a personal computing device?
I am a very atypical computer user. My current laptop has a very heavy application load. However for most home users, much of the storage space on their computers is consumed by the operating system and media files. Currently, a reasonably functional Windows 7 partition requires about 60GB. If you add that much again for applications and another 100GB for your songs, podcasts, photos and movies and another 100GB for games nd you are pushing 320GB of storage. Incidentally, that is also a pretty standard home computer HD configuration.
My home WiFi network, like most peoples, using 802.11g at 54Mbps (or 802.11n/MIMO at up to 300Mbps) has sufficient bandwidth to run a network file system AND stream high definition audio and video over a small home network. With the dramatic increase in connectivity, the NetBook model is starting to make a whole lot more sense. Additionally, end user terminals are increasingly not fully functional desktop and laptops, but smart phones, game consoles, media players/storage devices and smart peripherals and appliances. In this model it doesn't really make sense to have huge archives of often redundant data on multiple computers that rarely used for computing.
Most people, including me, keep more data on their laptop than they need. This is mostly because of convenience. Network storage for most people is limited to backups (which are not regularly done). With a reasonably smart network file system, much of that storage could be moved to network attached storage. The biggest obstacle to ubiquitous home networking is the cost and complexity (both setup and administration) of the network file system. Active Directory, Samba, NFS, etc. were designed and priced for corporate networks, not home networking. I don't know the home networking space very well. I know that consumer NAS devices are readily available for home networks and there are numerous media streaming servers - but I don't know of anything really comprehensive for this space.
It's easy to criticize - but most people recognize that that are no easy solutions to nations such as Iran and North Korea (adn China is another game all together).
The Sabre rattling of the Bush administration was ineffective and counter productive. The fact that we invaded Iraq, knowing they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and simply wagged our tongues at Iran and North Korea and allied with Pakistan speaks volumes.
The Obama approach - willingness to communicate, but no direct action other than somewhat toned down rhetoric (at least compared to "axis of evil"), is not likely to be any more effective in the short term, but the course is not run on Obama's strategy towards Iran and North Korea. In addition to a willingness to talk, one would hope that the US will continue to work through third parties on both the carrot (EU/France/Russia) and the stick (Israel??).
The US and other western nations need to speak up for human rights and against tyranny, however, empty sabre rattling doesn't really do it. We also need to at least verbally, and when possible, financially (education, humanitarian aid, etc.) support the nascent efforts of the people of Iran and North Korea towards throwing off the bonds of tyranny. This probably has to be done through third parties because of the way the US is vilified in both Iran and North Korea.
TSA is not exactly known for well reasoned intelligent policies.
I have a very common first name and last name - it's not John Smith, but it's similar, and some idiot put my name (as several hundred thousand others') on the no-fly watch list. So now for flights, I can't check in on the web or using the kiosks, I have to stand in the line-up and go to the service counter, show my passport, they call a supervisor who verifies by my birth date and place of birth that I am not the "John Smith" on the list and then I can check in. It makes it damn near impossible to do advance seat assignment or when I travel with my wife and children to sit in same row/section of the aircraft. The maddening part, since I live in Canada, is that I have to do this for domestic flights within Canada now, as well as in the US.
Accordingly, the content of the communication is not necessarily determinative: what matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage victim for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that victim.
The issue is if you get a child to trust you for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the included acts: sexual interference, invitation to touching, bestiality, exposure of genitals or abduction. That is - you still have to have the intent to commit one of the specified illegal acts.
Because they are children and lack the judgment and experience to make their own choices. It is very easy for a 12 year old to make choices the fuck their lives up forever. I don't need an education! What are the chances I get pregnant, or contract an STI. I won't fall. etc. That is why the state entrusts their well being to parents or guardians, who (hopefully) can exercise better judgment until such a time/age as the young man/woman is able to assume responsibility for themselves.
Unfortunately, not all parents are so responsible. There are no pre-requisites to becoming a parent. It only takes 30 seconds of sweating an one long grunt. But by your reasoning, the offspring of these imbeciles should be written off as fodder for whomever might exploit them because obviously they chose their parents.
But it does stop there.
If you actually read the decision, not just the various reporters account of the decision the law creates an inchoate (or preparatory) offense consisting of three elements: (1) an intentional communication by computer; (2) with a person whom the accused knows or believes to be under 14 years of age; (3) for the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence with respect to the underage person.
In this case, I think the law in question (and its interpretation by the court) strikes the right balance. The law doesn't proscribe ANY communication with a child, only communication for the purpose of facilitating a crime. The only change in this decision is that the court ruled that the communication alone (if there is clear intent to commit a crime) is sufficient for facilitation.
While everyone I'm sure believes their advise to be sage and well considered, not everyone should be counseling or mentoring children. People who work with children are held to a high standard. Coaches on my kids soccer, hockey and swimming clubs are all required to have criminal record checks. People who counsel/mentor children are trained to recognize compromising situations - they never counsel a child alone, one-on-one behind closed doors. Daycare/Preschool volunteers (not just the teachers) are also screened (they are also trained to recognize evidence of parental abuse). In the end, as a parent, I don't want just anyone taking it upon themselves to talk to, mentor or counsel my kids. Before I leave my kids alone with an adult supervisor for some activity, I want to know that the organization has been diligent in screening its employees and volunteers who work with children.
On the Internet however, many people are not whom they seem to be, and children are ill equipped to discern the difference between a safe and a dangerous situation.
The law in questions refers to communication with a child under the age of 14 in order to facilitate a crime involving that child.
BTW - the age of consent in Canada is 16 and the act contains a "close-in-age exception" so that 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with someone who is less than 5 years older then they are.
The age of majority is 18 in 6 of the provinces and 19 in the remaining 4 provinces and 3 territories.
The law in this case is about communication with a child under 14 years of age in order to facilitate a crime involving the child.
An adult man, posing as a 17 year old, struck up an ongoing relationship with a 12 year old girl, posing as a 13 year old. He told her he wanted to have oral sex with her. He was originally acquitted because the jury was instructed that criminal intent required him taking specific steps (setting a date/time) to commit the crime. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that required facilitation of the crime could be met by the conversation alone and did not require him to set a time and date on which to rape this child.
So he gets a new trial and a jury gets to decide if his stated desire for oral sex with a 13 year old is facilitation.
As a parent, I believe I have a right to determine who "mentors" my child.
In the case in questions, an adult, posing as a 17 year old, was fostering an online relationship with, and having sexually explicit (as in "I would like to have oral sex with you") conversations with a 12 year old posing as a 13 year old.
That kind of mentoring I think we could do without.
So in your twisted way of thinking, the law should not prohibit an adult from fostering a relationship with a 13 year old online, having sexually explicit conversations and saying he wants to have oral sex with her - as long as he hasn't (yet) made specific plans to meet with her for that purpose?
The original context was inappropriate conversations on the Internet used to lure children into predatory relationships.
Or did you somehow miss that subtle point?
Children are people who lack the judgment and experience to discern a dangerous situation from a benign one. That is why the state entrusts their safety and well being to a parent or guardian who is hopefully better equipped to recognize these situations and teach them to make better decisions so that their entire future is not destroyed by the foolish choices of a child.
Unfortunately, many parents show little better judgment than their children.
The ultimate responsibility is with the parents.
Unfortunately, there are no tests, qualifications, standards or other requirements to becoming a parent; it only takes 30 seconds of sweating. But the child that results from such an unfortunate union, suffers life long from the parenting failures of supposed adults who judgment is as questionable as that of their offspring.
Parents should monitor their children's Internet use. Parent's should disable interactive/chat functions of online games. Parents should enable parental controls, content filtering, monitor IM/Chat etc. But for the many parents who don't, the state still has an obligation to protect and mitigate the damage to their unfortunate progeny.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, currently the limiting factor for SSDs is not capacity but price. Current generation SSDs which range in capacity from 64GB to 512GB cost from $2 - $3 per GB while hard drives cost less than $0.25/GB. Price is usually an issue of production scale and sales volume. It's not hard to imagine in the next 5 years TB sized SSDs at a $0.25/GB or less price point.
But in the future will we really need TB of storage on a personal computing device?
I am a very atypical computer user. My current laptop has a very heavy application load. However for most home users, much of the storage space on their computers is consumed by the operating system and media files. Currently, a reasonably functional Windows 7 partition requires about 60GB. If you add that much again for applications and another 100GB for your songs, podcasts, photos and movies and another 100GB for games nd you are pushing 320GB of storage. Incidentally, that is also a pretty standard home computer HD configuration.
My home WiFi network, like most peoples, using 802.11g at 54Mbps (or 802.11n/MIMO at up to 300Mbps) has sufficient bandwidth to run a network file system AND stream high definition audio and video over a small home network. With the dramatic increase in connectivity, the NetBook model is starting to make a whole lot more sense. Additionally, end user terminals are increasingly not fully functional desktop and laptops, but smart phones, game consoles, media players/storage devices and smart peripherals and appliances. In this model it doesn't really make sense to have huge archives of often redundant data on multiple computers that rarely used for computing.
Most people, including me, keep more data on their laptop than they need. This is mostly because of convenience. Network storage for most people is limited to backups (which are not regularly done). With a reasonably smart network file system, much of that storage could be moved to network attached storage. The biggest obstacle to ubiquitous home networking is the cost and complexity (both setup and administration) of the network file system. Active Directory, Samba, NFS, etc. were designed and priced for corporate networks, not home networking. I don't know the home networking space very well. I know that consumer NAS devices are readily available for home networks and there are numerous media streaming servers - but I don't know of anything really comprehensive for this space.
Now North Koreans can live long enough to starve to death.
This photo is obviously hiding her legs and "appendage" http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Naoko_yamazaki.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naoko_yamazaki.jpg&h=3000&w=2400&sz=1224&tbnid=1BPigELKZjoTYM:&tbnh=252&tbnw=201&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNaoko%2BYamazaki&hl=en&usg=__lwSUAKoG3cM5evUWAC5IMSoM6ho=&ei=yL-8S-qBN4jusQOqreCnBQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CA8Q9QEwAw
It's often difficult to determine where something is really made. Components and firmware come from china, final assembly in US, etc.
It's easy to criticize - but most people recognize that that are no easy solutions to nations such as Iran and North Korea (adn China is another game all together).
The Sabre rattling of the Bush administration was ineffective and counter productive. The fact that we invaded Iraq, knowing they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and simply wagged our tongues at Iran and North Korea and allied with Pakistan speaks volumes.
The Obama approach - willingness to communicate, but no direct action other than somewhat toned down rhetoric (at least compared to "axis of evil"), is not likely to be any more effective in the short term, but the course is not run on Obama's strategy towards Iran and North Korea. In addition to a willingness to talk, one would hope that the US will continue to work through third parties on both the carrot (EU/France/Russia) and the stick (Israel??).
The US and other western nations need to speak up for human rights and against tyranny, however, empty sabre rattling doesn't really do it. We also need to at least verbally, and when possible, financially (education, humanitarian aid, etc.) support the nascent efforts of the people of Iran and North Korea towards throwing off the bonds of tyranny. This probably has to be done through third parties because of the way the US is vilified in both Iran and North Korea.
A country really hasn't hit the public consciousness until Jack Bauer has tortured someone from that country.
TSA is not exactly known for well reasoned intelligent policies.
I have a very common first name and last name - it's not John Smith, but it's similar, and some idiot put my name (as several hundred thousand others') on the no-fly watch list. So now for flights, I can't check in on the web or using the kiosks, I have to stand in the line-up and go to the service counter, show my passport, they call a supervisor who verifies by my birth date and place of birth that I am not the "John Smith" on the list and then I can check in. It makes it damn near impossible to do advance seat assignment or when I travel with my wife and children to sit in same row/section of the aircraft. The maddening part, since I live in Canada, is that I have to do this for domestic flights within Canada now, as well as in the US.
No - but you can be executed an later found innocent.
Ruins your whole day.
It's better than executing the innocent.
Rather than quoting the reporter who quoted bits and pieces of the decision - why not read the decision.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc56/2009scc56.html
Accordingly, the content of the communication is not necessarily determinative: what matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused communicated by computer with an underage victim for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence in respect of that victim.
The issue is if you get a child to trust you for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the included acts: sexual interference, invitation to touching, bestiality, exposure of genitals or abduction. That is - you still have to have the intent to commit one of the specified illegal acts.
Because they are children and lack the judgment and experience to make their own choices. It is very easy for a 12 year old to make choices the fuck their lives up forever. I don't need an education! What are the chances I get pregnant, or contract an STI. I won't fall. etc. That is why the state entrusts their well being to parents or guardians, who (hopefully) can exercise better judgment until such a time/age as the young man/woman is able to assume responsibility for themselves.
Unfortunately, not all parents are so responsible. There are no pre-requisites to becoming a parent. It only takes 30 seconds of sweating an one long grunt. But by your reasoning, the offspring of these imbeciles should be written off as fodder for whomever might exploit them because obviously they chose their parents.
But it does stop there. If you actually read the decision, not just the various reporters account of the decision the law creates an inchoate (or preparatory) offense consisting of three elements: (1) an intentional communication by computer; (2) with a person whom the accused knows or believes to be under 14 years of age; (3) for the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence with respect to the underage person.
In this case, I think the law in question (and its interpretation by the court) strikes the right balance. The law doesn't proscribe ANY communication with a child, only communication for the purpose of facilitating a crime. The only change in this decision is that the court ruled that the communication alone (if there is clear intent to commit a crime) is sufficient for facilitation.
While everyone I'm sure believes their advise to be sage and well considered, not everyone should be counseling or mentoring children. People who work with children are held to a high standard. Coaches on my kids soccer, hockey and swimming clubs are all required to have criminal record checks. People who counsel/mentor children are trained to recognize compromising situations - they never counsel a child alone, one-on-one behind closed doors. Daycare/Preschool volunteers (not just the teachers) are also screened (they are also trained to recognize evidence of parental abuse). In the end, as a parent, I don't want just anyone taking it upon themselves to talk to, mentor or counsel my kids. Before I leave my kids alone with an adult supervisor for some activity, I want to know that the organization has been diligent in screening its employees and volunteers who work with children.
On the Internet however, many people are not whom they seem to be, and children are ill equipped to discern the difference between a safe and a dangerous situation.
The law in questions refers to communication with a child under the age of 14 in order to facilitate a crime involving that child.
BTW - the age of consent in Canada is 16 and the act contains a "close-in-age exception" so that 14 and 15 year olds can have sex with someone who is less than 5 years older then they are.
The age of majority is 18 in 6 of the provinces and 19 in the remaining 4 provinces and 3 territories.
The law in this case is about communication with a child under 14 years of age in order to facilitate a crime involving the child.
An adult man, posing as a 17 year old, struck up an ongoing relationship with a 12 year old girl, posing as a 13 year old. He told her he wanted to have oral sex with her. He was originally acquitted because the jury was instructed that criminal intent required him taking specific steps (setting a date/time) to commit the crime. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that required facilitation of the crime could be met by the conversation alone and did not require him to set a time and date on which to rape this child.
So he gets a new trial and a jury gets to decide if his stated desire for oral sex with a 13 year old is facilitation.
To me - this meets the standard for clarity.
Are you communicating with a child, under 14 years of age, with the intent of facilitating a crime by telling your daughter to come home for dinner?
Yes - the law is so stupid that it falls apart under such an obvious strawman argument.
As a parent, I believe I have a right to determine who "mentors" my child.
In the case in questions, an adult, posing as a 17 year old, was fostering an online relationship with, and having sexually explicit (as in "I would like to have oral sex with you") conversations with a 12 year old posing as a 13 year old.
That kind of mentoring I think we could do without.
Yes - because all jurisprudence goes out the window in the face of obvious strawman/slippery slope arguments.
Yes - its a which hunt to prosecute a creep who tells a 13 year old girl he wants to have oral sex with her.
So in your twisted way of thinking, the law should not prohibit an adult from fostering a relationship with a 13 year old online, having sexually explicit conversations and saying he wants to have oral sex with her - as long as he hasn't (yet) made specific plans to meet with her for that purpose?
In all of those situations there are appropriate, responsible adults to whom the child can turn - none of which involve the Internet.
The original context was inappropriate conversations on the Internet used to lure children into predatory relationships. Or did you somehow miss that subtle point?
Children are people who lack the judgment and experience to discern a dangerous situation from a benign one. That is why the state entrusts their safety and well being to a parent or guardian who is hopefully better equipped to recognize these situations and teach them to make better decisions so that their entire future is not destroyed by the foolish choices of a child. Unfortunately, many parents show little better judgment than their children.
The ultimate responsibility is with the parents. Unfortunately, there are no tests, qualifications, standards or other requirements to becoming a parent; it only takes 30 seconds of sweating. But the child that results from such an unfortunate union, suffers life long from the parenting failures of supposed adults who judgment is as questionable as that of their offspring. Parents should monitor their children's Internet use. Parent's should disable interactive/chat functions of online games. Parents should enable parental controls, content filtering, monitor IM/Chat etc. But for the many parents who don't, the state still has an obligation to protect and mitigate the damage to their unfortunate progeny.