I thought the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 to make pseudo images of child porn illegal anyway. Sounds like this would be extending that to "abuse".
There was a case earlier this year of someone being arrested under that act.
See here
officials would turn them over to MySpace. The company, using new software, would then block anyone using that e-mail address from entering the site...
They mean new software like:
if (user == sex-offender)
then (drop)
else (proceed)
Won't they just, er, get another account? It's like CAN-SPAM deja vu. Must be election time.
For temperature try Web Thermometer. I'm sure there are similar devices for measuring water. I remember building a water sensor from a cheapo Radio Shack electronics lab years ago, there's really not much to it. From there it's just a question of monitoring for a signal on your COM port and sending an email or calling your cell on a particular 'event' (see 'man setserial' if you're a Linux user). You can also hook up a web cam and using something like xawtv on Linux via a shell script that can email pics. I'm sure you can do all this on Windows too. Don't forget to write a how-to for the rest of us when you have it all figured out.
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
That's interesting because it's apparently wrong.
Morton Grove, Illinois banned hand guns in 1981 and the ban withstood a constitutional challenge in the case of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove.
If Microsoft is so dedicated to online books and thinks it's such a great idea, I wonder why they didn't contribute to an already well-established site, like The Gutenberg Project which got its start back in 1971.
Tougher laws will do about as much to stop file sharing as the CAN-SPAM Act has done to stop unsolicited email. I'm guessing this report was written by a bunch of bureaucrats who just don't get it.
The technology will someday scale to 600Mbps, according to Bill McFarland, a member of the IEEE committee, with a range 50 percent greater than available with Wi-Fi now.
In physics there's measurement called "skin depth" which is the distance
a wave travels before its power level drops by 1/e or about 1/3. The formula is something like (wavelength/2*pi). The FCC regulates the power of 802.11n to something like 1mW per channel. So unless these new chips will have more power than is currently allowed, how can they have a greater range?
Try publicly saying that whites are smarter than blacks, or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high, or that ice floes are a good way of relieving the social security crunch, and see what happens to your career.
I see the point but those are really not good comparisons. An academic in the US could say Mexicans in California have a historical basis for asserting independence from the US and not really much would happen. Take Noam Chomsky, an MIT prof who says if the Nuremberg standards were applied, every US president would have been hanged. Didn't affect his career at all. And even if it did, the government in the US has no standing in dictating what academics say. That's the difference between the US and China and that's the point I think that's being made.
TV is basically a one way pipe to a dumb terminal, a relic of the last century. Online viewing has the potential to be much more.
But right now we need a lot more bandwidth to make online viewing a more convenient experience. Here's where conflict of interest comes in. In the US some big cable companies are also ISPs. Don't expect them to give you more Internet bandwidth so you can spend more time on the net and eventually cancel your cable subscription. Expect Net Neut to come up again and again as the net begins to compete with TV.
Been a Unix/Linux admin for eight years. Been running slackware on laptop as my sole OS for the past five years. I've seen a lot of changes. It's never been better. Sure it's a bazaar, but isn't that how it's supposed to be? Hey, if you don't like gnome, choose something else among the dozens of choices out there.
Perhaps the real problem is the plethora of side-liners, pundits, philosophers, and magazine authors who have nothing better to do than sit around and draw erroneous conclusions. I call these people OSS arm-chair experts. We don't need 'em. Seems the people with most to say write the least amount of code. Maybe they should learn to program and get involved rather than digging too deeply into what's wrong. Be positive.
The industry needs to get out of the old 20th century phone system mentality and become part of the Internet.
I bought a Treo 650 from Sprint a while back. Recently I switched to Cingular but had to buy another phone because the one from Sprint doesn't work on Cingular's network.
Could you imagine if the Internet had been designed and implemented by private industry? It would be a whole bunch of separate networks and you'd be nickel and dimed for every service.
That the blogger was anti-Islam seems to be totally irrelevant since Egypt is a secular state...
I agree about anti-Islamic sentiment fueling a knee jerk reaction but didn't Egypt pass an amendment to its constitution in 1980 that prohibits any law that contravenes the prevailing principles of Islamic Law
Doesn't sound too secular to me. But then again I suppose you could say the same thing about a lot of countries. UK law prohibits Catholics from being monarchs, for example.
Sounds promising for law agencies but given that no caught suspects have been named and that criticism persists that face recognition technology is inherently unreliable, I wonder how much of this is just (sales) hype. I mean, come on, give us some real data where you can say it's effective because... here are the names of the criminals we caught and it can all be credited to the system.
The fact that these people need electricity more than they need a laptop is only part of the problem.
You might think a lecturer at Standford whould know better than to use the phrase these people when referring to Africans. Not everyone in Africa is without electricity and living in mud huts. Most people in Africa are not starving. Many countries on that continent are developing and at the stage where such low cost technology could actually beneficial.
That's a good point. There's a lot of debate about this right now. Some people want more power and permission to from the FCC to use different parts of the spectrum to increase the range. Others are concerned about interference. The problem with wireless communications is that in physics there's a measurement called "skin depth" which is the distance a wave travels before it's power level drops by 1/e or about 1/3. The formula is something like (wavelength/2*pi).
As for the cost:
Probably the most practical outside APs right now are ones with soekris boards. These are what sflan uses. Not cheap like you say, but there's no reason a $20 board shouldn't work. Couple that with something like MIT's roofnet meshed network, boost the power just a bit, and you've got a pretty good system.
Even if the future consquences of AGW were shown to be minimal, the UK would have to reinvent them as catastrophic in order to fulfill its insatiable desire to raise taxes.
Personally I think he'll be vindicated of everything. Pointing out a security flaw is not an attempt to enter a vessel, commit fraud, or traffick in anything.
But the the bill he signed came from Congress. And what Congress giveth it can taketh away. That's one check. The other check is the Supreme Court which has already ruled that habeas corpus, which Marshall Law suspends, cannot be taken away when cilvilian courts are in operation, see
Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 already amended the Protection of Children Act 1978 to make pseudo images of child porn illegal anyway. Sounds like this would be extending that to "abuse".
There was a case earlier this year of someone being arrested under that act. See here
Free speech is free speech. Just be happy they aren't transmitting commercials into your dreams (yet).
This is considered commercia speech and doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as other speech.
officials would turn them over to MySpace. The company, using new software, would then block anyone using that e-mail address from entering the site ...
They mean new software like:
if (user == sex-offender)
then (drop)
else (proceed)
Won't they just, er, get another account? It's like CAN-SPAM deja vu. Must be election time.
I think this guy already has it.
For temperature try Web Thermometer. I'm sure there are similar devices for measuring water. I remember building a water sensor from a cheapo Radio Shack electronics lab years ago, there's really not much to it. From there it's just a question of monitoring for a signal on your COM port and sending an email or calling your cell on a particular 'event' (see 'man setserial' if you're a Linux user). You can also hook up a web cam and using something like xawtv on Linux via a shell script that can email pics. I'm sure you can do all this on Windows too. Don't forget to write a how-to for the rest of us when you have it all figured out.
The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
That's interesting because it's apparently wrong. Morton Grove, Illinois banned hand guns in 1981 and the ban withstood a constitutional challenge in the case of Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove.
Please note that this doesn't make chatting on the highway at 85 mph any more safe.
Or perhaps any less safe than chatting with a passenger while drinking a soda at 85 mph, unless we have data to show otherwise.
If Microsoft is so dedicated to online books and thinks it's such a great idea, I wonder why they didn't contribute to an already well-established site, like The Gutenberg Project which got its start back in 1971.
Is this what they call embrace and extend?
Tougher laws will do about as much to stop file sharing as the CAN-SPAM Act has done to stop unsolicited email. I'm guessing this report was written by a bunch of bureaucrats who just don't get it.
The technology will someday scale to 600Mbps, according to Bill McFarland, a member of the IEEE committee, with a range 50 percent greater than available with Wi-Fi now.
In physics there's measurement called "skin depth" which is the distance a wave travels before its power level drops by 1/e or about 1/3. The formula is something like (wavelength/2*pi). The FCC regulates the power of 802.11n to something like 1mW per channel. So unless these new chips will have more power than is currently allowed, how can they have a greater range?
Most it came from an illegal monopoly
Try publicly saying that whites are smarter than blacks, or that teenage girls should have have hands-on sex ed in junior high, or that ice floes are a good way of relieving the social security crunch, and see what happens to your career.
I see the point but those are really not good comparisons. An academic in the US could say Mexicans in California have a historical basis for asserting independence from the US and not really much would happen. Take Noam Chomsky, an MIT prof who says if the Nuremberg standards were applied, every US president would have been hanged. Didn't affect his career at all. And even if it did, the government in the US has no standing in dictating what academics say. That's the difference between the US and China and that's the point I think that's being made.
TV is basically a one way pipe to a dumb terminal, a relic of the last century. Online viewing has the potential to be much more.
But right now we need a lot more bandwidth to make online viewing a more convenient experience. Here's where conflict of interest comes in. In the US some big cable companies are also ISPs. Don't expect them to give you more Internet bandwidth so you can spend more time on the net and eventually cancel your cable subscription. Expect Net Neut to come up again and again as the net begins to compete with TV.
Been a Unix/Linux admin for eight years. Been running slackware on laptop as my sole OS for the past five years. I've seen a lot of changes. It's never been better. Sure it's a bazaar, but isn't that how it's supposed to be? Hey, if you don't like gnome, choose something else among the dozens of choices out there.
Perhaps the real problem is the plethora of side-liners, pundits, philosophers, and magazine authors who have nothing better to do than sit around and draw erroneous conclusions. I call these people OSS arm-chair experts. We don't need 'em. Seems the people with most to say write the least amount of code. Maybe they should learn to program and get involved rather than digging too deeply into what's wrong. Be positive.
The industry needs to get out of the old 20th century phone system mentality and become part of the Internet. I bought a Treo 650 from Sprint a while back. Recently I switched to Cingular but had to buy another phone because the one from Sprint doesn't work on Cingular's network.
Could you imagine if the Internet had been designed and implemented by private industry? It would be a whole bunch of separate networks and you'd be nickel and dimed for every service.
Phone systems are just plain dumb.
That the blogger was anti-Islam seems to be totally irrelevant since Egypt is a secular state ...
I agree about anti-Islamic sentiment fueling a knee jerk reaction but didn't Egypt pass an amendment to its constitution in 1980 that prohibits any law that contravenes the prevailing principles of Islamic Law
Doesn't sound too secular to me. But then again I suppose you could say the same thing about a lot of countries. UK law prohibits Catholics from being monarchs, for example.
Sounds promising for law agencies but given that no caught suspects have been named and that criticism persists that face recognition technology is inherently unreliable, I wonder how much of this is just (sales) hype. I mean, come on, give us some real data where you can say it's effective because ... here are the names of the criminals we caught and it can all be credited to the system.
The fact that these people need electricity more than they need a laptop is only part of the problem.
You might think a lecturer at Standford whould know better than to use the phrase these people when referring to Africans. Not everyone in Africa is without electricity and living in mud huts. Most people in Africa are not starving. Many countries on that continent are developing and at the stage where such low cost technology could actually beneficial.
Maybe they should sue DARPA.
Mod parent up. There's a definite correlation here of money for laws. Here's the long term trend.
That's a good point. There's a lot of debate about this right now. Some people want more power and permission to from the FCC to use different parts of the spectrum to increase the range. Others are concerned about interference. The problem with wireless communications is that in physics there's a measurement called "skin depth" which is the distance a wave travels before it's power level drops by 1/e or about 1/3. The formula is something like (wavelength/2*pi).
As for the cost:
Probably the most practical outside APs right now are ones with soekris boards. These are what sflan uses. Not cheap like you say, but there's no reason a $20 board shouldn't work. Couple that with something like MIT's roofnet meshed network, boost the power just a bit, and you've got a pretty good system.
Even if the future consquences of AGW were shown to be minimal, the UK would have to reinvent them as catastrophic in order to fulfill its insatiable desire to raise taxes.
Title 18, 1036, 1343, and 2318
Attempting to enter a vessel by false pretenses:
Fraud by wire:
Trafficking in counterfit labels:
Personally I think he'll be vindicated of everything. Pointing out a security flaw is not an attempt to enter a vessel, commit fraud, or traffick in anything.
Looks like he's being charged with:
Attempting to enter a vessel by false pretenses:
Fraud by wire:
Trafficking in counterfit labels:
But the the bill he signed came from Congress. And what Congress giveth it can taketh away. That's one check. The other check is the Supreme Court which has already ruled that habeas corpus, which Marshall Law suspends, cannot be taken away when cilvilian courts are in operation, see Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866.