Ramps, boats and good rope. I pretty much guessed that as a child but you know well done to those involved.
Surely you didn't guess that on your own as a child, since we were taught exactly this as a possible theory when we were kids. It always made sense, now there is more evidence pertaining to how it worked.
Thanks to Obama and Hillary there is an abundance of illiterate undocumented laborers ready to be exploited for the task!
They're poor and desperate, so they're necessarily illiterate, and came here because of Hillary? You've already called them rapists and murderers, Mr. Trump, so you need not continue to insult and demonize them.
... the footballs games don't run late and all the DVRs miss the new start time. Sunday evening on CBS is The Worst Time for TV shows to air.
Oh, they won't miss the new start time, just the new END time. You'd think cable companies would have DVRs that adapt to changing times or program lengths by now.
Actually, all the Star Trek series and films that have aired to date have depicted the human race as multi-ethnic but largely monocultural.
With a whoooooole lot of white male, human, English-speaking captains, admirals, etc. I hope they Make Starfleet Great Again, and "totally destroy" anyone who thumbs his nose at them. We need to keep those undocumented Ferengi out.
They're saying, PLEASE subscribe to our service that we know you don't want." We're hearing, "Just go ahead and pirate it."
If they'd just go ahead and put it on regular CBS, I'd watch live or DVR it, and end up watching most of the commercials. Instead I'll be forced to download a version with no commercials. Oh well, less convenient for me and no profit to be made by them off of my eyeballs, but that's their choice. It will be disappointing when they don't bring it back for Season 2 because All Access is a failure.
Unfortunately, no one has yet seen fit to add Trump: The Art of The Deal, nor any of Mr Orange's other fine examples of American literature, to their banned books lists. I guess he never even considered using the slogan, Make American Books Great Again, since he obviously had nothing to lend to that fight.
Not likely. There would be little support for this except for Alito and Thomas (who were nominated long before Trump).
Gorsuch is unlikely to support unwarranted searches given his record. You apparently didn't spend time reviewing his opinions.
Do you spend much time thinking about these things, or do you just ejaculate on this forum randomly?
I don't have nearly as much faith in Gorsuch to stand up to the conservative Right. As accomplished and consistent as he is, he seems to me to be less concerned with the underlying intent of laws on the books (including the Constitution) than his own misguided ideals. Frankly, he is a sexist, not a defender of the rights of all people, so I find it hard if not stupid to trust him.
"Stingray" is not an adequate description of the technology in use, and to specifically talk about one brand's (is Stingray indeed a brand name?) family of tools would be to ignore other use of the underlying technological concepts, potential or real. Yes, this is about Stingrays, but it makes more sense to talk about "cell simulation technology" in legal proceedings. Think of it like this: if you were trying to ban tobacco, you wouldn't limit yourself to Marlboro reds, or even to pre-rolled cigarettes. At least not if your intention was to eliminate out tobacco-related cancer deaths and the huge burden that tobacco use places on our healthcare system. If you were to crack down on particular models of stingrays, there would be new ones that make minor changes to skirt regulation in no time.
As your "papers", safe and secure inside your house, move online, you do indeed maintain the expectation of privacy you did in your home. And in any case, your papers are separate from your home in the expectation of privacy.
The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen computers tracking everybody in a dozen different ways, from cell phones to license plate recognition to face recognition to cameras on every corner, all being fed into a machine panopticon for the government to watch you. The days when "well, you have no expectation of privacy" in data handed to a corporation need to come to an end.
Holy cow, somebody gets it! Yes, I hate to see suspects that are probably guilty get off (potentially) on what some see as technicalities, or to make the job of law enforcement agencies more difficult, but that doesn't mean we should launch ourselves headlong down a slippery slope. Interpreting the constitution to determine how its protection apply to new technological realms can and should be a contentious process, since we should never assume that we can predict or understand everything that will happen in the future.
Stingrays are powerful tools that should probably only be used in extreme cases when someone's life or our national security are in imminent danger. But if used cautiously under proper warrants, perhaps the technology will evolve into something more surgical that can selectively target suspects. The requirement of a proper warrant for stingray-derived evidence to be admissible is not an unreasonable encumbrance in less extreme cases. (But of course it should be noted that this does not effectually prohibit the cops from using stingrays to collect evidence that they never intend to present in court! They often use illegal techniques to build cases, and conveniently conceal that they have done so; they can use stingrays to uncover other evidence which could have been collected by other means, without revealing their questionable tactics.)
It's not even a honeypot. A honeypot requires intentional penetration of a system one knowingly is not welcome into.
This is arguably jamming and is an illegal use of spectrum that the device owner is not entitled to use.
No, while arguable, it is not reasonable to argue that this equates more closely to jamming than a honeypot. With new technology and new ways to exploit the flaws of old technology, it takes time for courts to agree on what is permissible and, as such, we may see conflicting decisions, like this one. This is where jurists need to be educated on the technical details and need to consider the broad intent of other laws. That's where interpretation of the constitution comes into play, since times change and our forebears could not possibly have predicted every development over the years.
This is about a reasonable expectation of privacy more so than the technical workings of modern cellular protocols. If there were no alternative ways to track suspects or it were impossible to get warrants to use stingrays, this court might have rendered a different decision, but I believe this was a correct and just outcome.
I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.
This court disagrees, and so do I. Using stingrays should absolutely require a warrant, and is far, far different from walking down the street behind a suspect. This decision by the D.C. appeals court does indeed reverse past precedent set by other courts that have allowed unreasonable encroachment on our right to privacy, and this is a good day for anyone who values privacy and limiting the ever-watchful eye of our government. They aren't saying you can't use stingrays, i don't think, but they are implying that you need to get a warrant, which is not that difficult or prohibitively time consuming.
As usual, TFA is useless. Why didn't the cops get a warrant in this case?
I don't have enough knowledge about this particular case to speculate, but there are three typical reasons for conducting a search of some kind without a warrant: 1. Courts don't require it under a given set of circumstances. 2. The cops were too lazy or in too much of a hurry to bother. 3. They simply thought they didn't need one because they are incompetent.
This actually sounds like a combination of the three, but more #1 than #3; other courts have previously allowed lots of warrantless phone tracking, so the cops figured they didn't need a warrant and/or didn't see a need to worry about crossing every "t" or dotting every "i." No investigator expects his case to go awry and set a significant (if preliminary) precedent, so their misjudgment shouldn't be construed as sloppiness. Anyway, I'm damn glad anytime a court upholds our reasonable expectation of privacy and reminds other arms (or tentacles) of the government that they are there to protect the rights of the masses, even when it means the cops might have to work a little harder to nail the bad guys. Surely law enforcement agencies won't like this decision (which will be tested again), but finding ways to work with inconveniences like our rights is a part of their job. Our rights don't only exist when it is convenient for cops to recognize them.
it's a soft cap but it does exist. Teams can go over but they pay a penalty. NBA is similar.
They adhere to it just fine - go over the suggested limit, you pay more. And they do. It isn't like they go over the cap number then refuse to pay the luxury tax. Until MLB institutes a tougher cap like the NFL, the big market teams will continue to overpay lots of players and gladly pay the league off.
The NBA is somewhere in between with the cap structure, but their players union wields a ton of power and keep forcing the cap to increase. And of course the dramatically smaller rosters mean fewer cuts out of the pie and thus higher average salaries. Once you reach the second level of the NBA cap you have little ability to sign free agents, which doesn't happen in MLB.
But how are the New England Patriots involved? It just sounds like their sort of thing.
Lame. Did you get that from Bleacher Report, Reddit, or some other site where the same uncreative Brady/Patriots jokes have already been posted 15 million times?
In my graduating class (a little over 300 kids), I'd say at least 75% of the top 30 students also played at least one sport. Of course they were sports other than American football.
It is possible to be smart and physically coordinated.
My graduating class was 96, IIRC, and about 80 played at least one sport. 100% also went on to four year colleges, most of which were more selective and arguably better than state schools. I don't think this proves anything, but you can take that for data.
I have noticed a inverse correlation between people who like sports and people who are good at logic, math and technology.
Sports are where you put the slow children.
You used the wrong article before "inverse" while trying to belittle others, so where do you fall in this hierarchy, below the slow athletes? Go practice your trolling elsewhere and come back once you've learned something, thanks.
What is the difference between this and stealing another team's signs, which happens -all the time-?
It's been happening for over a century, in fact.
If your signs get stolen because you get sloppy and don't protect them or vary them, that's on you. But if you're the visiting team and the home team is using TV cameras to steal signs, that's a problem that baseball should try to eliminate. Big difference between this and run of the mill sign stealing. Using apple watches and a staff of camera men to steal signs has definitely not been happening for over a century.
There's a youtube video out there that has the full album if you care to listen to the whole thing. So far it's a pretty interesting blend, that's really hard to put a label on. One song reminded me of The Postal Service and another sounded a little like something Fleetwood Mac could have done. I'll have to finish the whole thing, but so far it's something I'd consider purchasing.
Fleetwood Mac!?!? I'm glad I listened on Youtube and didn't pay money for it. It sounds more like Ben Folds forgot what music sounded like, hired Vampire Weekend minus the "talent" and with worse instruments, after scanning Slashdot for buzzwords. I don't mean any part of that as a compliment. I hate being the hater, but I expected an NPR favorite would do better. Wow, this is so lame and cliched yet equally bad instrumentally that I can't even wrap my mind around it or adequately explain how much I hate it. I can't remember the last time I listened to a whole album like this, hoping all the while it was going to get better. It didn't.
It sounds more like they were using fake/non-existent gift cards, as the summary and article state there was a flaw in the Lowe's gift card "module." An acquaintance did something similar (though likely much more low-tech) at a restaurant where he worked. His method was obviously illegal, though he got away with close to $50k in embezzlement before he got caught, and convicted.
Right, because I'm so sure that someone who desires to commit grand theft auto (or whatever they call it in Canada) is going to see this picture AND track down this one of a kind vehicle (practically, anyway) AND manage to duplicate the key, knowing that the car has basically no resale value because it is so unusual. Right.
Slashdot Mirror
Ramps, boats and good rope. I pretty much guessed that as a child but you know well done to those involved.
Surely you didn't guess that on your own as a child, since we were taught exactly this as a possible theory when we were kids. It always made sense, now there is more evidence pertaining to how it worked.
Thanks to Obama and Hillary there is an abundance of illiterate undocumented laborers ready to be exploited for the task!
They're poor and desperate, so they're necessarily illiterate, and came here because of Hillary? You've already called them rapists and murderers, Mr. Trump, so you need not continue to insult and demonize them.
... the footballs games don't run late and all the DVRs miss the new start time. Sunday evening on CBS is The Worst Time for TV shows to air.
Oh, they won't miss the new start time, just the new END time. You'd think cable companies would have DVRs that adapt to changing times or program lengths by now.
Actually, all the Star Trek series and films that have aired to date have depicted the human race as multi-ethnic but largely monocultural.
With a whoooooole lot of white male, human, English-speaking captains, admirals, etc. I hope they Make Starfleet Great Again, and "totally destroy" anyone who thumbs his nose at them. We need to keep those undocumented Ferengi out.
...there IS a reason for CBS All Access, to stream those shows.
Then they still lose out on the vast majority of us who refuse to subscribe to a pay service to watch one or two shows we'd otherwise like to watch.
STD lol
It's a Canadian STD though - it pops up one day, apologizes, and goes away the next day, so no big deal.
They're saying, PLEASE subscribe to our service that we know you don't want." We're hearing, "Just go ahead and pirate it."
If they'd just go ahead and put it on regular CBS, I'd watch live or DVR it, and end up watching most of the commercials. Instead I'll be forced to download a version with no commercials. Oh well, less convenient for me and no profit to be made by them off of my eyeballs, but that's their choice. It will be disappointing when they don't bring it back for Season 2 because All Access is a failure.
Unfortunately, no one has yet seen fit to add Trump: The Art of The Deal, nor any of Mr Orange's other fine examples of American literature, to their banned books lists. I guess he never even considered using the slogan, Make American Books Great Again, since he obviously had nothing to lend to that fight.
Who cued the idiotic AC comments?
Not likely. There would be little support for this except for Alito and Thomas (who were nominated long before Trump).
Gorsuch is unlikely to support unwarranted searches given his record. You apparently didn't spend time reviewing his opinions.
Do you spend much time thinking about these things, or do you just ejaculate on this forum randomly?
I don't have nearly as much faith in Gorsuch to stand up to the conservative Right. As accomplished and consistent as he is, he seems to me to be less concerned with the underlying intent of laws on the books (including the Constitution) than his own misguided ideals. Frankly, he is a sexist, not a defender of the rights of all people, so I find it hard if not stupid to trust him.
"Stingray" is not an adequate description of the technology in use, and to specifically talk about one brand's (is Stingray indeed a brand name?) family of tools would be to ignore other use of the underlying technological concepts, potential or real. Yes, this is about Stingrays, but it makes more sense to talk about "cell simulation technology" in legal proceedings. Think of it like this: if you were trying to ban tobacco, you wouldn't limit yourself to Marlboro reds, or even to pre-rolled cigarettes. At least not if your intention was to eliminate out tobacco-related cancer deaths and the huge burden that tobacco use places on our healthcare system. If you were to crack down on particular models of stingrays, there would be new ones that make minor changes to skirt regulation in no time.
As your "papers", safe and secure inside your house, move online, you do indeed maintain the expectation of privacy you did in your home. And in any case, your papers are separate from your home in the expectation of privacy.
The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen computers tracking everybody in a dozen different ways, from cell phones to license plate recognition to face recognition to cameras on every corner, all being fed into a machine panopticon for the government to watch you. The days when "well, you have no expectation of privacy" in data handed to a corporation need to come to an end.
Holy cow, somebody gets it! Yes, I hate to see suspects that are probably guilty get off (potentially) on what some see as technicalities, or to make the job of law enforcement agencies more difficult, but that doesn't mean we should launch ourselves headlong down a slippery slope. Interpreting the constitution to determine how its protection apply to new technological realms can and should be a contentious process, since we should never assume that we can predict or understand everything that will happen in the future.
Stingrays are powerful tools that should probably only be used in extreme cases when someone's life or our national security are in imminent danger. But if used cautiously under proper warrants, perhaps the technology will evolve into something more surgical that can selectively target suspects. The requirement of a proper warrant for stingray-derived evidence to be admissible is not an unreasonable encumbrance in less extreme cases. (But of course it should be noted that this does not effectually prohibit the cops from using stingrays to collect evidence that they never intend to present in court! They often use illegal techniques to build cases, and conveniently conceal that they have done so; they can use stingrays to uncover other evidence which could have been collected by other means, without revealing their questionable tactics.)
It's not even a honeypot. A honeypot requires intentional penetration of a system one knowingly is not welcome into.
This is arguably jamming and is an illegal use of spectrum that the device owner is not entitled to use.
No, while arguable, it is not reasonable to argue that this equates more closely to jamming than a honeypot. With new technology and new ways to exploit the flaws of old technology, it takes time for courts to agree on what is permissible and, as such, we may see conflicting decisions, like this one. This is where jurists need to be educated on the technical details and need to consider the broad intent of other laws. That's where interpretation of the constitution comes into play, since times change and our forebears could not possibly have predicted every development over the years.
This is about a reasonable expectation of privacy more so than the technical workings of modern cellular protocols. If there were no alternative ways to track suspects or it were impossible to get warrants to use stingrays, this court might have rendered a different decision, but I believe this was a correct and just outcome.
I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.
This court disagrees, and so do I. Using stingrays should absolutely require a warrant, and is far, far different from walking down the street behind a suspect. This decision by the D.C. appeals court does indeed reverse past precedent set by other courts that have allowed unreasonable encroachment on our right to privacy, and this is a good day for anyone who values privacy and limiting the ever-watchful eye of our government. They aren't saying you can't use stingrays, i don't think, but they are implying that you need to get a warrant, which is not that difficult or prohibitively time consuming.
As usual, TFA is useless. Why didn't the cops get a warrant in this case?
I don't have enough knowledge about this particular case to speculate, but there are three typical reasons for conducting a search of some kind without a warrant: 1. Courts don't require it under a given set of circumstances. 2. The cops were too lazy or in too much of a hurry to bother. 3. They simply thought they didn't need one because they are incompetent.
This actually sounds like a combination of the three, but more #1 than #3; other courts have previously allowed lots of warrantless phone tracking, so the cops figured they didn't need a warrant and/or didn't see a need to worry about crossing every "t" or dotting every "i." No investigator expects his case to go awry and set a significant (if preliminary) precedent, so their misjudgment shouldn't be construed as sloppiness. Anyway, I'm damn glad anytime a court upholds our reasonable expectation of privacy and reminds other arms (or tentacles) of the government that they are there to protect the rights of the masses, even when it means the cops might have to work a little harder to nail the bad guys. Surely law enforcement agencies won't like this decision (which will be tested again), but finding ways to work with inconveniences like our rights is a part of their job. Our rights don't only exist when it is convenient for cops to recognize them.
Umm... Ethics? When does any form of cheating become acceptable?
Every time before you get caught, duh.
it's a soft cap but it does exist. Teams can go over but they pay a penalty. NBA is similar.
They adhere to it just fine - go over the suggested limit, you pay more. And they do. It isn't like they go over the cap number then refuse to pay the luxury tax. Until MLB institutes a tougher cap like the NFL, the big market teams will continue to overpay lots of players and gladly pay the league off.
The NBA is somewhere in between with the cap structure, but their players union wields a ton of power and keep forcing the cap to increase. And of course the dramatically smaller rosters mean fewer cuts out of the pie and thus higher average salaries. Once you reach the second level of the NBA cap you have little ability to sign free agents, which doesn't happen in MLB.
But how are the New England Patriots involved? It just sounds like their sort of thing.
Lame. Did you get that from Bleacher Report, Reddit, or some other site where the same uncreative Brady/Patriots jokes have already been posted 15 million times?
In my graduating class (a little over 300 kids), I'd say at least 75% of the top 30 students also played at least one sport. Of course they were sports other than American football. It is possible to be smart and physically coordinated.
My graduating class was 96, IIRC, and about 80 played at least one sport. 100% also went on to four year colleges, most of which were more selective and arguably better than state schools. I don't think this proves anything, but you can take that for data.
I have noticed a inverse correlation between people who like sports and people who are good at logic, math and technology.
Sports are where you put the slow children.
You used the wrong article before "inverse" while trying to belittle others, so where do you fall in this hierarchy, below the slow athletes? Go practice your trolling elsewhere and come back once you've learned something, thanks.
What is the difference between this and stealing another team's signs, which happens -all the time-?
It's been happening for over a century, in fact.
If your signs get stolen because you get sloppy and don't protect them or vary them, that's on you. But if you're the visiting team and the home team is using TV cameras to steal signs, that's a problem that baseball should try to eliminate. Big difference between this and run of the mill sign stealing. Using apple watches and a staff of camera men to steal signs has definitely not been happening for over a century.
There's a youtube video out there that has the full album if you care to listen to the whole thing. So far it's a pretty interesting blend, that's really hard to put a label on. One song reminded me of The Postal Service and another sounded a little like something Fleetwood Mac could have done. I'll have to finish the whole thing, but so far it's something I'd consider purchasing.
Fleetwood Mac!?!? I'm glad I listened on Youtube and didn't pay money for it. It sounds more like Ben Folds forgot what music sounded like, hired Vampire Weekend minus the "talent" and with worse instruments, after scanning Slashdot for buzzwords. I don't mean any part of that as a compliment. I hate being the hater, but I expected an NPR favorite would do better. Wow, this is so lame and cliched yet equally bad instrumentally that I can't even wrap my mind around it or adequately explain how much I hate it. I can't remember the last time I listened to a whole album like this, hoping all the while it was going to get better. It didn't.
What's even more dystopian than that is a world where Ray Kurzweil is taken seriously.
Or where this album is taken seriously. Yuck!
It sounds more like they were using fake/non-existent gift cards, as the summary and article state there was a flaw in the Lowe's gift card "module." An acquaintance did something similar (though likely much more low-tech) at a restaurant where he worked. His method was obviously illegal, though he got away with close to $50k in embezzlement before he got caught, and convicted.
Right, because I'm so sure that someone who desires to commit grand theft auto (or whatever they call it in Canada) is going to see this picture AND track down this one of a kind vehicle (practically, anyway) AND manage to duplicate the key, knowing that the car has basically no resale value because it is so unusual. Right.