Indeed, but in this case it doesn't make much of a difference because the RIAA companies have been filing suits against people, even knowing them to not be the correct party and refusing to investigate cases where the screen name and IP address might belong to somebody else.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. One of the problems previously was that they weren't downloading, they were just looking and submitting screenshots. If you did that you should be able to get that evidence tossed or at least greatly reduce the credibility of the "expert" witless that's using it as evidence.
Just as long as your careful in how you do it to not run afoul of the rules of evidence when doing it. But demanding the witness explain how they know that the file is or isn't the one they saw is definitely legitimate.
Actually, you're not entirely correct, the human brain is much more like old console hardware than a modern computer. Because a lot of that stuff was done on consoles via registers. The programmer didn't have to do anything in particular other than write to or read from the appropriate register to have whatever done.
Such as on the GBA, if you wanted to write to the screen you would select the correct register and give it the correct value, the hardware would do the rest.
It depends whether you're talking about fuzzy math as in Fermi problems or more accurate stuff. Because it's two different processes that happen. The more accurate stuff is more taxing because it requires more attention, memory and care. You can round things at points when you just need a ball park.
11*56= 560+56 or 616. But, if you don't need exact precision, you can let 11 = 10 and add 60ish to the end product. It's not the correct answer of course, however as you add decimal places rounding like that often gets you close enough and it's a hell of a lot faster. And for some applications getting close fast is more important than getting exact later on. A lot of probability theory is like that.
For 2 digit numbers such a short cut makes little sense, but as you get larger numbers involved the difference in time gets to be pretty significant after awhile.
Indeed, and I suspect that they've learned to use the rules of math as well. I'm far better than most and it often times takes less time for me to do it in my head than it does to pull out the calculator, even if it is right in front of me. The trick is to use the properties to make things simpler.
For instance 12*17=204 it's also 12*12 + 12*5=204. Most people can without much trouble do the latter, but the former is much more difficult for folks to do. Mathematically the result is the same.
Now, the reason why triple digits is typically much harder is that most folks don't know their times tables that high and you start running into the problem of how many times you can use the same portion of the brain at the same time. In general you can only use a portion of the brain once at a time plus whatever you can remember without starting over. Otherwise you end up with problems of consistency and reliability.
Actually, you might try rigging up a USB adapter for those old RLL disks and then just using an RLL drive mailing the adapter to you at home. Let's see how long it takes them to figure out how to access that data. Or better yet, you'd be limited to a minute amount of data, but those old 8" floppy disks have to be hard to read these days.
That's debatable. Customs is there to stop undesirables from coming into the country as well. Every country has their interests. Canada won't allow people in that have been convicted of a DUI, IIRC, we won't let people back in that have been deported for violating our immigration requirements.
Not that it's a valid reason, but I suspect the reason for the searches, at least on paper, is to try and catch people smuggling in child porn or things of that nature. It's dumb and they just catch the low hanging fruit, but I suspect that's what they're trying to accomplish.
I wonder, why is it that the individual coming across the border with child porn gets busted when the TSA agents are briefly in possession as well. Strikes me as somewhat unfair that they get to possess child porn when nobody else does. Especially since the laws don't require the possession to be on purpose.
But, unless you leave the disk wherever you were or at home, they can still search the disk. Just without you being there to tell them to cram it. Remember that any mail going across the border can be searched by ICE.
Actually, it isn't a visible secret. The TSA goons have no way of knowing whether it's encrypted data or a string of essentially useless 1s and 0s. In fact were you to interleave encrypted data every 3rd or 4th bit, they'd have no way of knowing whether it was encrypted or just gibberish.
Plus it's an extremely blatant violation of the fifth amendment to force somebody to testify against themselves by giving up the passphrase.
It's the logic that the Bush administration applied when setting up GITMO. How it doesn't apply is beyond me. Mainly because the US government is the sole entity that is both in control of and responsible for whatever goes on there. The jurisdiction requirements that they were using to get around that imply that some nation state is responsible. Since it was the US which was solely responsible for all that goes on there and the US judicial branch is authorized under the constitution to examine anything that the US government does that's brought to court, the logic was thin at best.
I say we just change the laws, so that passengers have the right to fondle the screeners. I mean, if there's nothing wrong with touching the ball sack and breasts, then clearly the screeners would be fine being treated in that fashion.
Better yet, if pilots and personnel have to be screened like this, do the TSA agents have to be similarly searched? And if not, why not? Seems like if they're fine dishing it out they ought to be taking it.
They'll be using more scanners either way. What they're trying to do is get people to use them so that they get used to it. It's easier to get used to something like that where you're not really cognizant of what's really going on, than if you've got somebody groping your balls.
Weaponry on a plane is marginally more effective than ones bare hands. And that's assuming your talking about melee weapons. Firearms tend to be worse than nothing. Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.
Plus, a marine would fight dirty and use whatever there was available. No need to bring weaponry on board.
Well, that tends to be a byproduct of overly invasive 4th amendment protection violating searches. The TSA has busted a large number of people over the last nearly 1 decade, but they can't cite any cases where they caught somebody that was a trained terrorist. They did catch a couple lone nuts that didn't know what they were doing, but the older security screeners would've caught them as well.
What that ultimately means is that we're getting very, very little out of the extra screenings, which shouldn't be a surprise. 9/11 happened as much by luck as by planning, there were numerous opportunities to foil it, but because of poor intelligence sharing didn't. Why, we're going further than that is really beyond me. Terrorist plots convoluted enough to escape the notice of the intelligence community tend to fall apart on their own because there's too many pieces to break.
As unclean as it makes me feel saying it, Ron Paul has a point, the TSA doesn't have the legal right to violate the laws of the US, let alone the constitution, and I fully support his effort to make that crystal clear to the TSA goons.
I am as well. Anytime you communicate to children about touching and physical contact you have to be mindful not to give them the wrong idea. The reality is that anytime that somebody pressures you to allow them to touch you they are doing something wrong. The only exception to that is cases where there's legitimate probable cause or medical necessity.
But, forcing children to let you see them naked is always wrong, it just happens to be slightly less wrong than pressuring them to let you grope their genitals. And if the TSA isn't doing that,then there's presumably a security hole which would make the whole practice comletely moot.
You act as if it isn't the status quo for most corporations to behave like that.
The reason the GP stated that is that if we had real regulation of corporations like that it wouldn't have gotten to that point. But, because the free market results in supposedly better products, service and prices we don't need to subject them to oversight.
It's not a stereotype. It's really hard to find corporations to do business with that aren't engaging in that sort of behavior.
Part of it probably comes from the fact that our regulators don't regulate, meaning that the only way that a lot of that stuff gets punished is through class action suits. But, until there's a credible suit you can't just subpoena records from random companies. And so there's a greatly reduced risk in the short term of anybody noticing. Hence this sort of bad behavior, since most publicly traded companies are only looking maybe a year down the road tops.
Just because I can't see the moon at present doesn't mean that it isn't there. But it also doesn't mean that it is there because I saw it yesterday and it should still be in orbit either.
What it means is that there is a high likelihood that it is there, and not likely to have been stolen by some aliens in a plot to render our tidal tables worthless. Or whatever other possible way that the moon could go missing without crashing into the Earth.
I'd recommend listening to Dr. Feynman's lecture on that. He does a pretty good job of explaining Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. My recollection of it is a bit fuzzy, but it's not just seeing it or being there, it's actively trying to observe it. As in if you're measuring or recording it weird stuff happens. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't even pop into it until you try to measure either the velocity or the position. There is no problem with measure the number of electrons in a cathode ray and their velocity or number of electrons and their position.
But, I'm not a quantum physicist so I could very well be wrong.
If there are such forces we haven't discovered them yet. As in there is no unit of measure that I'm aware of which is capable of quantifying such forces.
But, if you can accurately simulate 100% accurately what it is that they're going to do, they aren't responsible for the actions, because they're not the ones choosing to do it. You'd be the one that's responsible as you're the one that knows what's going to happen and are able to alter the outcome.
Geocentrism isn't a useful theory. It's not even a theory, it's a "disproved theory." It's an idea that's know specifically to be false.
QM on the other hand better models much of life than anything we've come up with to this point. Doesn't mean that there isn't an alternate explanation or one which encompasses more in a more reliable way, but it would be quite unlikely that it's wrong the way that geocentrism is.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, but in this case it doesn't make much of a difference because the RIAA companies have been filing suits against people, even knowing them to not be the correct party and refusing to investigate cases where the screen name and IP address might belong to somebody else.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. One of the problems previously was that they weren't downloading, they were just looking and submitting screenshots. If you did that you should be able to get that evidence tossed or at least greatly reduce the credibility of the "expert" witless that's using it as evidence.
Just as long as your careful in how you do it to not run afoul of the rules of evidence when doing it. But demanding the witness explain how they know that the file is or isn't the one they saw is definitely legitimate.
Actually, you're not entirely correct, the human brain is much more like old console hardware than a modern computer. Because a lot of that stuff was done on consoles via registers. The programmer didn't have to do anything in particular other than write to or read from the appropriate register to have whatever done.
Such as on the GBA, if you wanted to write to the screen you would select the correct register and give it the correct value, the hardware would do the rest.
It depends whether you're talking about fuzzy math as in Fermi problems or more accurate stuff. Because it's two different processes that happen. The more accurate stuff is more taxing because it requires more attention, memory and care. You can round things at points when you just need a ball park.
11*56= 560+56 or 616. But, if you don't need exact precision, you can let 11 = 10 and add 60ish to the end product. It's not the correct answer of course, however as you add decimal places rounding like that often gets you close enough and it's a hell of a lot faster. And for some applications getting close fast is more important than getting exact later on. A lot of probability theory is like that.
For 2 digit numbers such a short cut makes little sense, but as you get larger numbers involved the difference in time gets to be pretty significant after awhile.
Indeed, and I suspect that they've learned to use the rules of math as well. I'm far better than most and it often times takes less time for me to do it in my head than it does to pull out the calculator, even if it is right in front of me. The trick is to use the properties to make things simpler.
For instance 12*17=204 it's also 12*12 + 12*5=204. Most people can without much trouble do the latter, but the former is much more difficult for folks to do. Mathematically the result is the same.
Now, the reason why triple digits is typically much harder is that most folks don't know their times tables that high and you start running into the problem of how many times you can use the same portion of the brain at the same time. In general you can only use a portion of the brain once at a time plus whatever you can remember without starting over. Otherwise you end up with problems of consistency and reliability.
Actually, you might try rigging up a USB adapter for those old RLL disks and then just using an RLL drive mailing the adapter to you at home. Let's see how long it takes them to figure out how to access that data. Or better yet, you'd be limited to a minute amount of data, but those old 8" floppy disks have to be hard to read these days.
Say, you're not one of those people that visits inmates in prison and acts suspicious on the way in just for the free anal probing are you?
That's debatable. Customs is there to stop undesirables from coming into the country as well. Every country has their interests. Canada won't allow people in that have been convicted of a DUI, IIRC, we won't let people back in that have been deported for violating our immigration requirements.
Not that it's a valid reason, but I suspect the reason for the searches, at least on paper, is to try and catch people smuggling in child porn or things of that nature. It's dumb and they just catch the low hanging fruit, but I suspect that's what they're trying to accomplish.
Except that ICE has the legal right to open and examine any packages that FedEx, UPS or USPS ships across the border.
I wonder, why is it that the individual coming across the border with child porn gets busted when the TSA agents are briefly in possession as well. Strikes me as somewhat unfair that they get to possess child porn when nobody else does. Especially since the laws don't require the possession to be on purpose.
But, unless you leave the disk wherever you were or at home, they can still search the disk. Just without you being there to tell them to cram it. Remember that any mail going across the border can be searched by ICE.
Actually, it isn't a visible secret. The TSA goons have no way of knowing whether it's encrypted data or a string of essentially useless 1s and 0s. In fact were you to interleave encrypted data every 3rd or 4th bit, they'd have no way of knowing whether it was encrypted or just gibberish.
Plus it's an extremely blatant violation of the fifth amendment to force somebody to testify against themselves by giving up the passphrase.
It's the logic that the Bush administration applied when setting up GITMO. How it doesn't apply is beyond me. Mainly because the US government is the sole entity that is both in control of and responsible for whatever goes on there. The jurisdiction requirements that they were using to get around that imply that some nation state is responsible. Since it was the US which was solely responsible for all that goes on there and the US judicial branch is authorized under the constitution to examine anything that the US government does that's brought to court, the logic was thin at best.
I say we just change the laws, so that passengers have the right to fondle the screeners. I mean, if there's nothing wrong with touching the ball sack and breasts, then clearly the screeners would be fine being treated in that fashion.
Better yet, if pilots and personnel have to be screened like this, do the TSA agents have to be similarly searched? And if not, why not? Seems like if they're fine dishing it out they ought to be taking it.
They'll be using more scanners either way. What they're trying to do is get people to use them so that they get used to it. It's easier to get used to something like that where you're not really cognizant of what's really going on, than if you've got somebody groping your balls.
Weaponry on a plane is marginally more effective than ones bare hands. And that's assuming your talking about melee weapons. Firearms tend to be worse than nothing. Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.
Plus, a marine would fight dirty and use whatever there was available. No need to bring weaponry on board.
Well, that tends to be a byproduct of overly invasive 4th amendment protection violating searches. The TSA has busted a large number of people over the last nearly 1 decade, but they can't cite any cases where they caught somebody that was a trained terrorist. They did catch a couple lone nuts that didn't know what they were doing, but the older security screeners would've caught them as well.
What that ultimately means is that we're getting very, very little out of the extra screenings, which shouldn't be a surprise. 9/11 happened as much by luck as by planning, there were numerous opportunities to foil it, but because of poor intelligence sharing didn't. Why, we're going further than that is really beyond me. Terrorist plots convoluted enough to escape the notice of the intelligence community tend to fall apart on their own because there's too many pieces to break.
As unclean as it makes me feel saying it, Ron Paul has a point, the TSA doesn't have the legal right to violate the laws of the US, let alone the constitution, and I fully support his effort to make that crystal clear to the TSA goons.
It was the FBI that investigated and tracked him down, but your point stands.
I am as well. Anytime you communicate to children about touching and physical contact you have to be mindful not to give them the wrong idea. The reality is that anytime that somebody pressures you to allow them to touch you they are doing something wrong. The only exception to that is cases where there's legitimate probable cause or medical necessity.
But, forcing children to let you see them naked is always wrong, it just happens to be slightly less wrong than pressuring them to let you grope their genitals. And if the TSA isn't doing that,then there's presumably a security hole which would make the whole practice comletely moot.
You act as if it isn't the status quo for most corporations to behave like that.
The reason the GP stated that is that if we had real regulation of corporations like that it wouldn't have gotten to that point. But, because the free market results in supposedly better products, service and prices we don't need to subject them to oversight.
It's not a stereotype. It's really hard to find corporations to do business with that aren't engaging in that sort of behavior.
Part of it probably comes from the fact that our regulators don't regulate, meaning that the only way that a lot of that stuff gets punished is through class action suits. But, until there's a credible suit you can't just subpoena records from random companies. And so there's a greatly reduced risk in the short term of anybody noticing. Hence this sort of bad behavior, since most publicly traded companies are only looking maybe a year down the road tops.
You're misinterpreting that.
Just because I can't see the moon at present doesn't mean that it isn't there. But it also doesn't mean that it is there because I saw it yesterday and it should still be in orbit either.
What it means is that there is a high likelihood that it is there, and not likely to have been stolen by some aliens in a plot to render our tidal tables worthless. Or whatever other possible way that the moon could go missing without crashing into the Earth.
I'd recommend listening to Dr. Feynman's lecture on that. He does a pretty good job of explaining Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. My recollection of it is a bit fuzzy, but it's not just seeing it or being there, it's actively trying to observe it. As in if you're measuring or recording it weird stuff happens. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't even pop into it until you try to measure either the velocity or the position. There is no problem with measure the number of electrons in a cathode ray and their velocity or number of electrons and their position.
But, I'm not a quantum physicist so I could very well be wrong.
If there are such forces we haven't discovered them yet. As in there is no unit of measure that I'm aware of which is capable of quantifying such forces.
But, if you can accurately simulate 100% accurately what it is that they're going to do, they aren't responsible for the actions, because they're not the ones choosing to do it. You'd be the one that's responsible as you're the one that knows what's going to happen and are able to alter the outcome.
Geocentrism isn't a useful theory. It's not even a theory, it's a "disproved theory." It's an idea that's know specifically to be false.
QM on the other hand better models much of life than anything we've come up with to this point. Doesn't mean that there isn't an alternate explanation or one which encompasses more in a more reliable way, but it would be quite unlikely that it's wrong the way that geocentrism is.