A simple contract to that effect probably wouldn't be enforced by the courts, but lawyers have a few tricks that might apply.
IANAL, but IIUC, contracts usually include penalty clauses to spell out exactly what happens if someone violates the contract. So I'm wondering if some careful crafting could achieve the goal. Of course the penalty clause couldn't "unelect" the person and it probably couldn't force them to resign. Even requiring that they give the campaign donations back would be hard because the money is already spent at that point. Someone could come up with something.
Also while the contract might not be able to say "you must vote this way", it might be able to play one of the "poison pill" style tricks and say "if it ever becomes law that XYZ, then the penalties get triggered".
Personally I don't think it would be a good idea, but it would make an interesting thought experiment for law students to try to make such a contract that would be enforceable.
Having the freedom to make deals and deal compromises is a very important tool in politics. Being legally bound would limit that ability.
I've served in a representative role before where I had to violate the strict letter of why my constituents sent me there in order to obtain for them the spirit of what they wanted. This is why we vote for actual people rather than just political platforms. Bills have to be interpreted and are often a mixed bag of parts you like and parts you don't like. At the end of the day, a call has to be made, yea or nay, but whether it was the right call consistent with the campaign pledges will always be debatable.
(For the sake of discussion let's assume representatives that are interested in actually doing what they are supposed to and not just pandering to whoever has the cash.)
Experimenting is a good idea, but perhaps they can start on a smaller scale like the state level. It would be easier to achieve and would make it easier to get accepted at the federal level if a few (successful) state examples existed. Isn't there some quote about how states should serve as laboratories of democracy somewhere?
Names serve at least two purposes. First, they designate a particular machine and should be kept the same over its lifetime (barring the occasional re-christening) to avoid confusion if someone reads old documentation (e.g. trouble tickets about failed hardware). Second, names designate the purpose to which that hardware is being used (e.g. "mailserv" should always be the current mail server). Over time as hardware gets reassigned, these two purposes will inevitably drift apart.
The solution to this quandary is to realize that it is not an either/or problem. Nothing prevents you from having multiple DNS entries for each machine. Put the "real" name in the DNS that is kept invariant right along side a "purpose" name (e.g. "www", "smtp", "dev1", "test4", etc.) which can be freely changed as needed.
Actually you said "Even American employers can do that to spy on their employees." The anticedent of "that" was "bugs, microcameras and trojans and whatnot on a suspects computer". All of your other points are not germane the the question.
Oh, yeah. If you think I'm a corporate mole, well then I guess I've been successful in hiding my real identity. Mhuahahahah...*cough cough*...ahem.
Yeah, I read them, and (with the exception of the HP case) they do not indicate that any of those companies spy on home computer use. They may spy on their computers at work and spy on them when they are in public view, but nothing is said about home computer use. As one of the articles said "short of breaking into someone's home" these things are legal, but it is that home line is precisely the subject of debate. (Things posted on a blog are publicly posted and so reading them isn't spying on home computer use and is perfectly legal.)
The HP case on the other hand is interesting precisely because it proves that these sorts of actions are criminally illegal. Whether they get successfully prosecuted may be in doubt, but the subject at hand is whether by the letter of the law an employer can install monitoring software on a home computer without the employee's consent. Given the number of anti-hacking laws out there (unauthorized access of a computer anyone?), I think it is a pretty clear case that these actions are illegal.
None of these links refer to (1) private companies that, (2) place trojans or other software on (3) personal non-work computers.
Magic Lantern? Government institution. Different rules (regretably).
The other links? They say nothing about personal non-work computers. They only say that either work computers are bugged, or the people might be tailed by a PI.
If that is the case, then I agree there is no difference.
Do you have any citations for this? It just seems that with secret searches it would be all too easy for the police to plant evidence or make other false claims about what was found.
No, they can't. They can have such software on company issued computers. But breaking into the personally owned computer that an employee has at home, never.
A wire tap intercepts communication while it is in transit. That would be similar to intercepting e-mails when they pass through the ISP. On the other hand, this trojan would be closer to the police secretly breaking into your house in order to place a (webcam?) bug.
While the former is clearly legal (with a court order), I'm not sure if the later would be. It would be dangerously close to a secret search and I imagine that while the police can serve a search warrent if you happen to not be there, they can't purposely wait until you are gone in order to serve the search warent. Any one know any court rulings on this?
A wire tap intercepts communication while it is in transit. That would be similar to intercepting e-mails when they pass through the ISP. On the other hand, this trojan would be closer to the police secretly breaking into your house in order to place a (webcam?) bug.
While the former is clearly legal (with a court order), I'm not sure if the later would be. It would be dangerously close to a secret search and I imagine that while the police can serve a search warrent if you happen to not be there, they can't purposely wait until you are gone in order to serve the search warent. (Any one know any court rulings on this?)
I think you need to distinguish between monitering communications in transit (e.g. phone taps), and actively entering someones place of resedence to place a bug. The former is clearly legal with a court order, but I'm not sure about the later. The same applies in the computer world. It is one thing to intercept e-mails as they pass through the ISP, but to "break-in" to someone's computer to place the trojen is a complete other level. Further, are the police allowed to cause property damage in the process of placing such a bug (whether physical or digital)? If not, then it would be hard to insert the trojen as turning a clean machine into a compromized machine might (IDK, IANAL) be considered property damage.
All viruses get in through security holes, but now days in my experience most of them use the one between the chair and the keyboard that's not the OS's fault. On Linux, it wouldn't be very hard to write a shell script that serves as an e-mail virus.
how long before the ISP makes "you must have a TPM-enabled PC"
Sure, I'll connect with a TPM PC... that's a router for my non-TPM PC.
If you are trying to check TPM after the fact you have something similar to the analog hole, except it doesn't have to be analog. For example, while TPM may prevent me from ripping a CD on a computer with TPM, it can't prevent me from ripping the CD on a computer without TPM then sending that data to the TPM PC and sending that data over the Internet from the TPM PC.
I looked at your other post, but have been unable to find any confirmation one way or the other of how such an experiment would turn out. It seems like the Quantum Eraser (for which experiments have already been completed) would be sufficient for FTL communication, but I can't find any reference that explains whether or not that would work (which makes me think there must be an "obvious" reason why it wouldn't that they all forget to mention).
I must confess that these ideas sound plausible, but on the flip side if they work they would serious break general relativity (and I mean seriously). I really would like to get to the bottom of this though since I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep at night until I do so.
you could conceivably find out that the collapse happened (the behavior becomes that of a particle instead of an element
I assume you mean "wave" instead of "element". If so, your statement is incorrect. It is impossible to pass any information (including whether the other guy looked at his half of the pair) via quantum entanglement.
Technically it has only two states (0 and 1) but is always in a superposition of the available states. Different superpositions have different mixes of the two states ranging from "pure" superpositions with only 0 or 1 in them to mixed states with equal amounts of 0 and 1 and everything in between.
(Even this doesn't tell the whole story because there are constraints on how the states can mix (the sum of their squares must be unit) and we also can have "negative" amounts of states (only indirectly observable because direct observation takes the square of the wave function).)
Apparently you don't know thermodynamics as well as you think you do. The only thermodynamic law that is even remotely related is the second law which only applies to closed systems of which the earth and the societies contained in it are not.
Many systems both inside and outside physics exhibit self-organization.
Why does this crap keep getting modded 'Insightful'? Presumably its by fellow armchair anti-economists who agree that the atomic composition of the Earth is changing. Retards.
By the same token, Gallium can't go extinct because it's still on the Earth. It's just in some form on low concentration that makes it expensive to harvest/mine.
And before you start bashing Economics, how about you take an introductory college course in it? Before I took such a course I also thought Economics was mostly voodoo, but once I got the real scoop my opinion changed. It has some very solid mathematical and theoretical foundations. (Note: Neither what you see on TV nor "folk" economics bare much relation to real economics.)
This answer is mostly correct, but it should be noted that the primary force that keeps atoms apart is the electromagnetic force. At large distances an atom appears neutral being made up of an equal number of positive and negative charges. However since the negative charges (i.e. electrons) are on the outside and the positive charges are on the inside (i.e. protons), when atoms get close to each other the repulsive force between the negative charges is over a shorter distance and is thus stronger than the canceling out attractive force between the positive and negative charges. (Disclaimer: This ignores quantum effects which paint a slightly different picture.)
Two silicon atoms that are in the same sphere will be sharing a metallic (?) bond which means they will be sharing electrons. Silicons atoms in different spheres won't be sharing electrons.
Finally, I suspect that the two spheres will deform slightly where they touch so more than one atom will be "touching". It would look about like if you were push two rubber balls together, except the physics might be totally different (I am not a rubber expert).
Slashdot Mirror
A simple contract to that effect probably wouldn't be enforced by the courts, but lawyers have a few tricks that might apply.
IANAL, but IIUC, contracts usually include penalty clauses to spell out exactly what happens if someone violates the contract. So I'm wondering if some careful crafting could achieve the goal. Of course the penalty clause couldn't "unelect" the person and it probably couldn't force them to resign. Even requiring that they give the campaign donations back would be hard because the money is already spent at that point. Someone could come up with something.
Also while the contract might not be able to say "you must vote this way", it might be able to play one of the "poison pill" style tricks and say "if it ever becomes law that XYZ, then the penalties get triggered".
Personally I don't think it would be a good idea, but it would make an interesting thought experiment for law students to try to make such a contract that would be enforceable.
Having the freedom to make deals and deal compromises is a very important tool in politics. Being legally bound would limit that ability.
I've served in a representative role before where I had to violate the strict letter of why my constituents sent me there in order to obtain for them the spirit of what they wanted. This is why we vote for actual people rather than just political platforms. Bills have to be interpreted and are often a mixed bag of parts you like and parts you don't like. At the end of the day, a call has to be made, yea or nay, but whether it was the right call consistent with the campaign pledges will always be debatable.
(For the sake of discussion let's assume representatives that are interested in actually doing what they are supposed to and not just pandering to whoever has the cash.)
Experimenting is a good idea, but perhaps they can start on a smaller scale like the state level. It would be easier to achieve and would make it easier to get accepted at the federal level if a few (successful) state examples existed. Isn't there some quote about how states should serve as laboratories of democracy somewhere?
Names serve at least two purposes. First, they designate a particular machine and should be kept the same over its lifetime (barring the occasional re-christening) to avoid confusion if someone reads old documentation (e.g. trouble tickets about failed hardware). Second, names designate the purpose to which that hardware is being used (e.g. "mailserv" should always be the current mail server). Over time as hardware gets reassigned, these two purposes will inevitably drift apart.
The solution to this quandary is to realize that it is not an either/or problem. Nothing prevents you from having multiple DNS entries for each machine. Put the "real" name in the DNS that is kept invariant right along side a "purpose" name (e.g. "www", "smtp", "dev1", "test4", etc.) which can be freely changed as needed.
Actually you said "Even American employers can do that to spy on their employees." The anticedent of "that" was "bugs, microcameras and trojans and whatnot on a suspects computer". All of your other points are not germane the the question.
Oh, yeah. If you think I'm a corporate mole, well then I guess I've been successful in hiding my real identity. Mhuahahahah...*cough cough*...ahem.
Yeah, I read them, and (with the exception of the HP case) they do not indicate that any of those companies spy on home computer use. They may spy on their computers at work and spy on them when they are in public view, but nothing is said about home computer use. As one of the articles said "short of breaking into someone's home" these things are legal, but it is that home line is precisely the subject of debate. (Things posted on a blog are publicly posted and so reading them isn't spying on home computer use and is perfectly legal.)
The HP case on the other hand is interesting precisely because it proves that these sorts of actions are criminally illegal. Whether they get successfully prosecuted may be in doubt, but the subject at hand is whether by the letter of the law an employer can install monitoring software on a home computer without the employee's consent. Given the number of anti-hacking laws out there (unauthorized access of a computer anyone?), I think it is a pretty clear case that these actions are illegal.
None of these links refer to (1) private companies that, (2) place trojans or other software on (3) personal non-work computers.
Magic Lantern? Government institution. Different rules (regretably).
The other links? They say nothing about personal non-work computers. They only say that either work computers are bugged, or the people might be tailed by a PI.
If that is the case, then I agree there is no difference.
Do you have any citations for this? It just seems that with secret searches it would be all too easy for the police to plant evidence or make other false claims about what was found.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a citation for that or some sort of proof.
Faking evidence is illegal and inadmissible. Now you may get away with it if you aren't caught, but it is still illegal and inadmissible.
No, they can't. They can have such software on company issued computers. But breaking into the personally owned computer that an employee has at home, never.
A wire tap intercepts communication while it is in transit. That would be similar to intercepting e-mails when they pass through the ISP. On the other hand, this trojan would be closer to the police secretly breaking into your house in order to place a (webcam?) bug.
While the former is clearly legal (with a court order), I'm not sure if the later would be. It would be dangerously close to a secret search and I imagine that while the police can serve a search warrent if you happen to not be there, they can't purposely wait until you are gone in order to serve the search warent. Any one know any court rulings on this?
A wire tap intercepts communication while it is in transit. That would be similar to intercepting e-mails when they pass through the ISP. On the other hand, this trojan would be closer to the police secretly breaking into your house in order to place a (webcam?) bug.
While the former is clearly legal (with a court order), I'm not sure if the later would be. It would be dangerously close to a secret search and I imagine that while the police can serve a search warrent if you happen to not be there, they can't purposely wait until you are gone in order to serve the search warent. (Any one know any court rulings on this?)
I think you need to distinguish between monitering communications in transit (e.g. phone taps), and actively entering someones place of resedence to place a bug. The former is clearly legal with a court order, but I'm not sure about the later. The same applies in the computer world. It is one thing to intercept e-mails as they pass through the ISP, but to "break-in" to someone's computer to place the trojen is a complete other level. Further, are the police allowed to cause property damage in the process of placing such a bug (whether physical or digital)? If not, then it would be hard to insert the trojen as turning a clean machine into a compromized machine might (IDK, IANAL) be considered property damage.
If your OS "needs" AV, your OS, IMO, sucks badly.
All viruses get in through security holes, but now days in my experience most of them use the one between the chair and the keyboard that's not the OS's fault. On Linux, it wouldn't be very hard to write a shell script that serves as an e-mail virus.
Even so couldn't the data be anonymized before being handed over.
how long before the ISP makes "you must have a TPM-enabled PC"
Sure, I'll connect with a TPM PC ... that's a router for my non-TPM PC.
If you are trying to check TPM after the fact you have something similar to the analog hole, except it doesn't have to be analog. For example, while TPM may prevent me from ripping a CD on a computer with TPM, it can't prevent me from ripping the CD on a computer without TPM then sending that data to the TPM PC and sending that data over the Internet from the TPM PC.
I looked at your other post, but have been unable to find any confirmation one way or the other of how such an experiment would turn out. It seems like the Quantum Eraser (for which experiments have already been completed) would be sufficient for FTL communication, but I can't find any reference that explains whether or not that would work (which makes me think there must be an "obvious" reason why it wouldn't that they all forget to mention).
I must confess that these ideas sound plausible, but on the flip side if they work they would serious break general relativity (and I mean seriously). I really would like to get to the bottom of this though since I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep at night until I do so.
you could conceivably find out that the collapse happened (the behavior becomes that of a particle instead of an element
I assume you mean "wave" instead of "element". If so, your statement is incorrect. It is impossible to pass any information (including whether the other guy looked at his half of the pair) via quantum entanglement.
Technically it has only two states (0 and 1) but is always in a superposition of the available states. Different superpositions have different mixes of the two states ranging from "pure" superpositions with only 0 or 1 in them to mixed states with equal amounts of 0 and 1 and everything in between.
(Even this doesn't tell the whole story because there are constraints on how the states can mix (the sum of their squares must be unit) and we also can have "negative" amounts of states (only indirectly observable because direct observation takes the square of the wave function).)
Apparently you don't know thermodynamics as well as you think you do. The only thermodynamic law that is even remotely related is the second law which only applies to closed systems of which the earth and the societies contained in it are not.
Many systems both inside and outside physics exhibit self-organization.
Why does this crap keep getting modded 'Insightful'? Presumably its by fellow armchair anti-economists who agree that the atomic composition of the Earth is changing. Retards.
By the same token, Gallium can't go extinct because it's still on the Earth. It's just in some form on low concentration that makes it expensive to harvest/mine.
And before you start bashing Economics, how about you take an introductory college course in it? Before I took such a course I also thought Economics was mostly voodoo, but once I got the real scoop my opinion changed. It has some very solid mathematical and theoretical foundations. (Note: Neither what you see on TV nor "folk" economics bare much relation to real economics.)
Yeah, like a human honey pot.
This answer is mostly correct, but it should be noted that the primary force that keeps atoms apart is the electromagnetic force. At large distances an atom appears neutral being made up of an equal number of positive and negative charges. However since the negative charges (i.e. electrons) are on the outside and the positive charges are on the inside (i.e. protons), when atoms get close to each other the repulsive force between the negative charges is over a shorter distance and is thus stronger than the canceling out attractive force between the positive and negative charges. (Disclaimer: This ignores quantum effects which paint a slightly different picture.)
Two silicon atoms that are in the same sphere will be sharing a metallic (?) bond which means they will be sharing electrons. Silicons atoms in different spheres won't be sharing electrons.
Finally, I suspect that the two spheres will deform slightly where they touch so more than one atom will be "touching". It would look about like if you were push two rubber balls together, except the physics might be totally different (I am not a rubber expert).