That's just the way it is. Don't like it? Don't go to Israel.
Part of the problem is that rules like this don't exist when you first book your trip, or may exist and aren't published, or don't exist but then do exist as convenient to whomever decided they want the rule to apply.
It's easy to say 'Don't like it, don't go', but very often you won't know you will even be subjected to such activity until the instant it is applied to you. By then you 'not liking it' also means 'be comfortable with tossing away $10,000 worth of booked hotels, airfare, vacation time, seized luggage/laptops'
Obviously NOW I would know this about Israel, but only because I happened to read this article. I could still be impacted by this even if I hadn't travelled there yet but had simple booked my flight last month.
I think that there need to be a few things which should be added to copyright law:
1. If you aren't making it commercially available it reverts to public domain. (for a most 2x more than the average for the same mediatype. ie: $100,000 per copy shouldn't be considered making available. So a movie cannot be sold for more than $50 and still be considered available) 2. All copyrights must be registered, and rights must be defined by law and cannot be subdivided. The copyrights must be identifed as sold/transferred to a specific person. If the registry isn't updated within 5 years of the death of the person in the registry, it reverts to the public domain. (To avoid issues where Bob Author died, and his estate was divided equally among 10 children who then sold portions of odd bits of rights to different corporations in 10 different countries which were then subdivided 100 different ways again.) 3. Property tax must be paid on IP.
Would a warrant be issued to tear apart your home if it was overheard that you had a doobie in your sock drawer or would they limit the search to your sock drawer?
If the evidence was what you presented, and they searched your kitchen cupboards, a lawyer would probably get any cupboard evidence suppressed. If they found heroin in the sock drawer, they could use that evidence.
The government is asking for information which would demonstrate that he had the capability to access the information in a device. Such an admission would be useful to the prosecution which must account for the custodial chain of the device and the data within it.
An example of a situation where you might require this sort of defense:
1. You buy a computer from Bob on Craigslist. You stick it in your garage to work on later. 2. Bob is busted for something, and when questioned about the computer, says he sold it to you. 3. The police arrive at your house, and with a warrant seize the computer from your garage. 4. It turns out that 'Bob' was selling CP or something similarly illegal. The prosecutor decides that YOU purchased the computer/HDD as part of a purchase of CP from Bob. 5. You claim that you have no idea what is on the machine, and the prosecutor demands that you provide the encryption key to decrypt the files for search.
At this point, if you were to provide the encryption keys, it would demonstrate that you DID have the ability to access the files on the computer, this would be providing evidence to the prosecution that you were part of the chain of custody.
In the case where the person WAS compelled to turn over the encryption key, the prosecution already had evidence that the person already could access the encrypted device/file. Therefore, by turning over the encryption key, the person was not providing any evidence that the prosecution did not already have.
So if in the example I provide above, you had made a statement that "Hey, Bob sold me a computer, and you wouldn't believe the nasty stuff he had on it in an encrypted file." That would mean that you could not plead the 5th as it would already be a fact that you could access the encrypted file, so providing the keys wouldn't be giving any evidence to the prosecution.
Not sure if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
When the Segway was introduced, I remember there being many townships/cities that banned them, or passed some rather strong restrictions. Even then, the Segway is limited to... 20kph? So let me tack on the caveat of 'capable of speeds greater than 70kph'
There is no way in hell that what we consider the modern motorcycle, if introduced today, would have been allowed. Reporters would have breathless commentary about the 'New death machines your kids are dying to ride'.
I'm not so sure. The only reason you would have to be concerned about a limited gene pool over a long time period is if you never planned to add 'new blood' to the colony over time. In addition, while our current morals may consider it 'icky' once you reach the distance of second cousins, there risk of genetic problems is very diminished.
We might even want to be careful about trying to 'downselect' genetic disorders as well. Aside from some screening to ensure that there isn't some lethal combination you are sending up, we probably don't want to outguess evolution too much. (ie: certainly check to ensure that you aren't sending anyone up with hemophilia, but we might want to avoid going too GATTACA)
In terms of mass for a single transport to the moon, that would be the minimum required to get humans there. If you look at just a single flight. If you considered the overal cost of supporting the humans you grew from those sperm and eggs, you would need to send massive amounts of food and water as well.
What I'm saying, is that when launching something into space costs about $2000/kg, and you need to send MANY people to this protocolony to get it started, it actually makes logistical sense to consider 'bulking up' the people here on Earth before launching them to the moon. Assume it takes about 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef (yes, we aren't bovines, but this is as accurate as I care got get for a slashdot post). If you are trying to get 100 people on this colony, having the colonists 'bulk up' by 10kg before leaving Earth would save you from sending (7kg of grain * 10extra kg * 100 people) = 7000kg of 'food' to ship. At $2000/kg, you are looking at $14,000,000 in food. If instead, you sent up bulked up colonists, you would spend only ($2000*10kg*100) = $2,000,000.
Right off the top, you will have saved $12 million dollars. That ignores the fact that if you had them pack on only fat, rather than lean muscle, that fat would be storing some water, and also important nutrients which would normally have to be shipped up as well (our digestive system is also not very good at absorbing nutrients as supplements, so a lot would be wasted there too).
It might even be very useful to have 'prebulked' colonists if there were some sort of crop failure/famine on the colony. While modern earthbound humans may not always like the fact that our ancestors evolved the tendency to store fats for times of famine, we might consider using it to our advantage in establishing a lunar colony.
I wasn't necessarily concerned about people breathing them, obviously air can be kept to a certain particulate count. What I was curious about was how it could eventually build up on equipment over time. I've designed avionics, and one of the things you have to account for is fungal growth. While these spores wouldn't be the kind which like to colonize rubber gaskets, I could certainly see it becoming a problem of buildup over the years. I'm not saying it can't be solved, but mushrooms just seemed a bit of an odd crop to try to grow.
Personally, I'd think one of the scarier prospects is the lunar regolith. That stuff is jaggy. Given how asbestos type fibers can cause mesothelioma, I'd be very worried about the long term effects of such dust entering the lungs of colonists. Even though there wouldn't be germs to worry about, decontamination after lunar surface excursions would have to be a pretty serious thing.
Honest question: How well does that turn out? We eat the fruiting body of most edible fungi (the mushroom). Do mushrooms sprout towards the light? Or do they rely on gravity to know which way is 'up'? Or is it simply that the cells nearest to the surface react with the increased oxygen and grow in 'that direction'?
How do you keep the spores controlled? On a short term timescale, I could see working in a mostly sealed area, but those spores are very (not volatile) but mobile and easily float free in the air. I don't want to be one of those guys who tries to point out 'obvious' issues that have already been considered, I'm honestly curious about how mushrooms grow in space.
A HUGE problem for solar energy is not necessarily atmosphere, but dust. A massive array of panels/mirrors on Earth must be continually protected against sandstorms and dust accumulation. (This is because many of the massive mirror/panel arrays are placed in desert like environments, much like the moon).
Without rain to wash the panels and plants to keep the dust storms down, solar panels must be protected/maintained.
However, while the moon seems like it would be terrible due to the fact that it is basically one giant dusty (and sharp dust at that) desert, the lack of an atmosphere means that any panel placed will not accumulate any dust or suffer sandstorms absent nearby impacts with meteors.
Long winded post short: I'd add that the moon has lots of open land that doesn't produce sandstorms in your positive category for solar power generation.
One of the oddities that people overlook in spaceflight, is that people with excess fat would make ideal colonists.
I don't think there is a more cost effective means in terms of payload to transport 'food and water' in a form usable to humans than fat people. I'm not talking morbidly obese, but an astronaut with 20kg extra weight is carrying pre-processed nutrients/energy/water in a form that requires the least amount of energy to turn back into work. As the astronaut burns off the excess fat, the wastes produced can be collected and reprocessed into useful water and fertilizers.
Consider the two options: A healthy astronaut with 20kg of fat A healthy astronaut with 0kg of excess and 20kg of food/water.
kg for kg, the stored fat will be much more efficient than 20kg of extra food/water.
I like to use Motorcycles as an example for what is wrong with US regulations. Without a doubt, I don't want an environmental policy like China, but so many regulations are in place to raise the barrier to entry and deny alternative designs.
Why motorcycles? Imagine if motorcycles had not been invented until 2012. Do you think that there would have been a chance in hell that a 2 wheeled, no seatbelt, no airbag, no roll cage, gasoline powered machine with typically one headlight would ever have been allowed?
No myth there. Simple fact. Conservative, by definition, means NOT having an open mind. It means "wanting to conserve the status quo" - which is ipso facto a closed-minded approach.
Well, when you get to make up your own definitions, I suppose it does mean whatever it is you want it to mean at that exact moment.
By and large, Texas' legendary racism virtually ensures the Chinese will keep migrating to sunny Cali, NY/NJ, Seattle, Chicago, and the Capitol....like many Asian immigrants, they seem to prefer the Blue States
I take it your experience with Texas is limited to Hollywood documentaries?
pass a law requiring e-merchants to collect sales tax based on the merchant's physical location.
I like it, but that's very tricky.
I incorporate in Delaware. I host my website in Delaware. You purchase from my site hosted in Delaware. I collect Delaware sales tax (0%). The item ships from a warehouse in some state other than Delaware.
The net result of your law is that you would have many corporations (and a LOT already do) incorporating or just making shell companies to setup a 'presence' in Delaware.
Granted, that's pretty much what happens now (and similar with regard to things like credit companies shopping for favorable laws).
I don't think you quite grasp what the Constitution is, and why suggesting that it be ignored as times change, rather than changing it to match the times is so naive and dangerous of a suggestion that I'm not even sure where to begin. (I rewrote this sentence three times just trying to grok the implications of your statement)
The Constitution isn't a law which may or may not have aged well over the centuries, it is the document which authorizes the existence of the US government itself. To leave the authorization for exercise of power up to a mutable interpretation (an interpretation developed by the government itself) without the conscent of the governed is the closest thing I've heard to someone saying, "Yeah, whatever the government decides to do is just, because it decided to do it."
The document is hard to change because any change is likely to have massive implications for both citizens and the rest of humanity.
An analogy would be someone taking it upon themself to make modifications to the Safety Procedures and work authorization process at a factory. Perhaps he felt it was completely unnecessary for someone to have to get approval from plant operations before modifying any structure. It was just a small hole being cut in some drywall. Except right behind that drywall was a chemical line. He cut through it, killed himself within 4s, the guy next to him within 2 hours, and caused a 1kilometer evacuation around the plant. All because he felt it was too outdated and time consuming to get proper approval for his action.
Sometimes, the difficulty in changing something is intentional because people's lives depend on that change not screwing something up through unintended consequences.
Paintball: you're likely to get a bruising, painful projectile whack you
Much like video games where you are likely to receive abusive comments, contribute little to the team unless you meet your obligation to spend many hours learning the maps/tricks/protips.
Paintball can suck if you are bad at it. Video games can suck if you are bad at it. But with practice, you shouldn't be likely to have a bruising, painful projectile whack you. That's what YOU should be doing to others.
Or to use the traditional gaming vernacular. l2p 2 pwn n00bs.
You can have grainy 320x240 of a car where plate looks like a white line 3-4 pixel high and it will still be able to extract real number out of it.
You will be able to extract a number. Whether that number is the one registered to that particular vehicle or simply electrical tape turning an I into a 1 or white reflective tape turning a 0 into a C is another matter.
That's part of the problem with the automated systems. They accumulate bad data that a human would toss out. The NJ turnpike sent my father a ticket once when someone was faking his plates on a white van. He drives a pickup truck, but the automated system only cared that it got the number. (took a while to get that fixed too)
90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
'reasonable'
That term very much depends upon the eye of the beholder don't you think? Specific details in legislation can mean that while 90% of people support a concept, the implementation often leaves much to be desired.
But alas, they failed to check for security holes in the design. Political parties and lobbyists have done an end-run around most of the checks built into the system.
No. They checked, and knew. Even the best system in the world will degrade if it isn't maintained an updated.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the way it is. Don't like it? Don't go to Israel.
Part of the problem is that rules like this don't exist when you first book your trip, or may exist and aren't published, or don't exist but then do exist as convenient to whomever decided they want the rule to apply.
It's easy to say 'Don't like it, don't go', but very often you won't know you will even be subjected to such activity until the instant it is applied to you. By then you 'not liking it' also means 'be comfortable with tossing away $10,000 worth of booked hotels, airfare, vacation time, seized luggage/laptops'
Obviously NOW I would know this about Israel, but only because I happened to read this article. I could still be impacted by this even if I hadn't travelled there yet but had simple booked my flight last month.
We have to be careful. Considering the types of people that win elections, this guy could become president some day.
Hey, but when I googled him, the news results for me turned up the fact that he is for every single position I support.
wait a second... my wife just googled him and he is for every single position she supports too... and we don't even agree on everything.
I think that there need to be a few things which should be added to copyright law:
1. If you aren't making it commercially available it reverts to public domain.
(for a most 2x more than the average for the same mediatype. ie: $100,000 per copy shouldn't be considered making available. So a movie cannot be sold for more than $50 and still be considered available)
2. All copyrights must be registered, and rights must be defined by law and cannot be subdivided. The copyrights must be identifed as sold/transferred to a specific person. If the registry isn't updated within 5 years of the death of the person in the registry, it reverts to the public domain.
(To avoid issues where Bob Author died, and his estate was divided equally among 10 children who then sold portions of odd bits of rights to different corporations in 10 different countries which were then subdivided 100 different ways again.)
3. Property tax must be paid on IP.
Would a warrant be issued to tear apart your home if it was overheard that you had a doobie in your sock drawer or would they limit the search to your sock drawer?
If the evidence was what you presented, and they searched your kitchen cupboards, a lawyer would probably get any cupboard evidence suppressed. If they found heroin in the sock drawer, they could use that evidence.
Not quite right.
The government is asking for information which would demonstrate that he had the capability to access the information in a device. Such an admission would be useful to the prosecution which must account for the custodial chain of the device and the data within it.
An example of a situation where you might require this sort of defense:
1. You buy a computer from Bob on Craigslist. You stick it in your garage to work on later.
2. Bob is busted for something, and when questioned about the computer, says he sold it to you.
3. The police arrive at your house, and with a warrant seize the computer from your garage.
4. It turns out that 'Bob' was selling CP or something similarly illegal. The prosecutor decides that YOU purchased the computer/HDD as part of a purchase of CP from Bob.
5. You claim that you have no idea what is on the machine, and the prosecutor demands that you provide the encryption key to decrypt the files for search.
At this point, if you were to provide the encryption keys, it would demonstrate that you DID have the ability to access the files on the computer, this would be providing evidence to the prosecution that you were part of the chain of custody.
In the case where the person WAS compelled to turn over the encryption key, the prosecution already had evidence that the person already could access the encrypted device/file. Therefore, by turning over the encryption key, the person was not providing any evidence that the prosecution did not already have.
So if in the example I provide above, you had made a statement that "Hey, Bob sold me a computer, and you wouldn't believe the nasty stuff he had on it in an encrypted file." That would mean that you could not plead the 5th as it would already be a fact that you could access the encrypted file, so providing the keys wouldn't be giving any evidence to the prosecution.
Not sure if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
When the Segway was introduced, I remember there being many townships/cities that banned them, or passed some rather strong restrictions. Even then, the Segway is limited to... 20kph? So let me tack on the caveat of 'capable of speeds greater than 70kph'
There is no way in hell that what we consider the modern motorcycle, if introduced today, would have been allowed. Reporters would have breathless commentary about the 'New death machines your kids are dying to ride'.
Doesn't everyone have to fly through DFW? That's hardly representative of Texas.
If it's a freakshow, it's probably the best showcase of the flying public in the US.
I'm guessing you would consider the concept of 'First, do no harm' to be close-minded?
I'm not so sure. The only reason you would have to be concerned about a limited gene pool over a long time period is if you never planned to add 'new blood' to the colony over time. In addition, while our current morals may consider it 'icky' once you reach the distance of second cousins, there risk of genetic problems is very diminished.
We might even want to be careful about trying to 'downselect' genetic disorders as well. Aside from some screening to ensure that there isn't some lethal combination you are sending up, we probably don't want to outguess evolution too much. (ie: certainly check to ensure that you aren't sending anyone up with hemophilia, but we might want to avoid going too GATTACA)
In terms of mass for a single transport to the moon, that would be the minimum required to get humans there. If you look at just a single flight. If you considered the overal cost of supporting the humans you grew from those sperm and eggs, you would need to send massive amounts of food and water as well.
What I'm saying, is that when launching something into space costs about $2000/kg, and you need to send MANY people to this protocolony to get it started, it actually makes logistical sense to consider 'bulking up' the people here on Earth before launching them to the moon. Assume it takes about 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef (yes, we aren't bovines, but this is as accurate as I care got get for a slashdot post). If you are trying to get 100 people on this colony, having the colonists 'bulk up' by 10kg before leaving Earth would save you from sending (7kg of grain * 10extra kg * 100 people) = 7000kg of 'food' to ship. At $2000/kg, you are looking at $14,000,000 in food. If instead, you sent up bulked up colonists, you would spend only ($2000*10kg*100) = $2,000,000.
Right off the top, you will have saved $12 million dollars. That ignores the fact that if you had them pack on only fat, rather than lean muscle, that fat would be storing some water, and also important nutrients which would normally have to be shipped up as well (our digestive system is also not very good at absorbing nutrients as supplements, so a lot would be wasted there too).
It might even be very useful to have 'prebulked' colonists if there were some sort of crop failure/famine on the colony. While modern earthbound humans may not always like the fact that our ancestors evolved the tendency to store fats for times of famine, we might consider using it to our advantage in establishing a lunar colony.
I wasn't necessarily concerned about people breathing them, obviously air can be kept to a certain particulate count. What I was curious about was how it could eventually build up on equipment over time. I've designed avionics, and one of the things you have to account for is fungal growth. While these spores wouldn't be the kind which like to colonize rubber gaskets, I could certainly see it becoming a problem of buildup over the years. I'm not saying it can't be solved, but mushrooms just seemed a bit of an odd crop to try to grow.
Personally, I'd think one of the scarier prospects is the lunar regolith. That stuff is jaggy. Given how asbestos type fibers can cause mesothelioma, I'd be very worried about the long term effects of such dust entering the lungs of colonists. Even though there wouldn't be germs to worry about, decontamination after lunar surface excursions would have to be a pretty serious thing.
growing of suitable flora (mushrooms) for food
Honest question: How well does that turn out? We eat the fruiting body of most edible fungi (the mushroom). Do mushrooms sprout towards the light? Or do they rely on gravity to know which way is 'up'? Or is it simply that the cells nearest to the surface react with the increased oxygen and grow in 'that direction'?
How do you keep the spores controlled? On a short term timescale, I could see working in a mostly sealed area, but those spores are very (not volatile) but mobile and easily float free in the air. I don't want to be one of those guys who tries to point out 'obvious' issues that have already been considered, I'm honestly curious about how mushrooms grow in space.
Would you drink tap water in a fracking area?
I would. That's because I had my well tested by an impartial testing company before they began fracking, and after they completed fracking.
A HUGE problem for solar energy is not necessarily atmosphere, but dust. A massive array of panels/mirrors on Earth must be continually protected against sandstorms and dust accumulation. (This is because many of the massive mirror/panel arrays are placed in desert like environments, much like the moon).
Without rain to wash the panels and plants to keep the dust storms down, solar panels must be protected/maintained.
However, while the moon seems like it would be terrible due to the fact that it is basically one giant dusty (and sharp dust at that) desert, the lack of an atmosphere means that any panel placed will not accumulate any dust or suffer sandstorms absent nearby impacts with meteors.
Long winded post short: I'd add that the moon has lots of open land that doesn't produce sandstorms in your positive category for solar power generation.
One of the oddities that people overlook in spaceflight, is that people with excess fat would make ideal colonists.
I don't think there is a more cost effective means in terms of payload to transport 'food and water' in a form usable to humans than fat people. I'm not talking morbidly obese, but an astronaut with 20kg extra weight is carrying pre-processed nutrients/energy/water in a form that requires the least amount of energy to turn back into work. As the astronaut burns off the excess fat, the wastes produced can be collected and reprocessed into useful water and fertilizers.
Consider the two options:
A healthy astronaut with 20kg of fat
A healthy astronaut with 0kg of excess and 20kg of food/water.
kg for kg, the stored fat will be much more efficient than 20kg of extra food/water.
Here we go. Awaiting the 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 digit responses...
Thank god we don't have a postcount on this site.
I like to use Motorcycles as an example for what is wrong with US regulations. Without a doubt, I don't want an environmental policy like China, but so many regulations are in place to raise the barrier to entry and deny alternative designs.
Why motorcycles? Imagine if motorcycles had not been invented until 2012. Do you think that there would have been a chance in hell that a 2 wheeled, no seatbelt, no airbag, no roll cage, gasoline powered machine with typically one headlight would ever have been allowed?
No myth there. Simple fact. Conservative, by definition, means NOT having an open mind. It means "wanting to conserve the status quo" - which is ipso facto a closed-minded approach.
Well, when you get to make up your own definitions, I suppose it does mean whatever it is you want it to mean at that exact moment.
By and large, Texas' legendary racism virtually ensures the Chinese will keep migrating to sunny Cali, NY/NJ, Seattle, Chicago, and the Capitol....like many Asian immigrants, they seem to prefer the Blue States
I take it your experience with Texas is limited to Hollywood documentaries?
pass a law requiring e-merchants to collect sales tax based on the merchant's physical location.
I like it, but that's very tricky.
I incorporate in Delaware. I host my website in Delaware. You purchase from my site hosted in Delaware. I collect Delaware sales tax (0%). The item ships from a warehouse in some state other than Delaware.
The net result of your law is that you would have many corporations (and a LOT already do) incorporating or just making shell companies to setup a 'presence' in Delaware.
Granted, that's pretty much what happens now (and similar with regard to things like credit companies shopping for favorable laws).
I don't think you quite grasp what the Constitution is, and why suggesting that it be ignored as times change, rather than changing it to match the times is so naive and dangerous of a suggestion that I'm not even sure where to begin. (I rewrote this sentence three times just trying to grok the implications of your statement)
The Constitution isn't a law which may or may not have aged well over the centuries, it is the document which authorizes the existence of the US government itself. To leave the authorization for exercise of power up to a mutable interpretation (an interpretation developed by the government itself) without the conscent of the governed is the closest thing I've heard to someone saying, "Yeah, whatever the government decides to do is just, because it decided to do it."
The document is hard to change because any change is likely to have massive implications for both citizens and the rest of humanity.
An analogy would be someone taking it upon themself to make modifications to the Safety Procedures and work authorization process at a factory. Perhaps he felt it was completely unnecessary for someone to have to get approval from plant operations before modifying any structure. It was just a small hole being cut in some drywall. Except right behind that drywall was a chemical line. He cut through it, killed himself within 4s, the guy next to him within 2 hours, and caused a 1kilometer evacuation around the plant. All because he felt it was too outdated and time consuming to get proper approval for his action.
Sometimes, the difficulty in changing something is intentional because people's lives depend on that change not screwing something up through unintended consequences.
Paintball: you're likely to get a bruising, painful projectile whack you
Much like video games where you are likely to receive abusive comments, contribute little to the team unless you meet your obligation to spend many hours learning the maps/tricks/protips.
Paintball can suck if you are bad at it. Video games can suck if you are bad at it. But with practice, you shouldn't be likely to have a bruising, painful projectile whack you. That's what YOU should be doing to others.
Or to use the traditional gaming vernacular. l2p 2 pwn n00bs.
You can have grainy 320x240 of a car where plate looks like a white line 3-4 pixel high and it will still be able to extract real number out of it.
You will be able to extract a number. Whether that number is the one registered to that particular vehicle or simply electrical tape turning an I into a 1 or white reflective tape turning a 0 into a C is another matter.
That's part of the problem with the automated systems. They accumulate bad data that a human would toss out. The NJ turnpike sent my father a ticket once when someone was faking his plates on a white van. He drives a pickup truck, but the automated system only cared that it got the number. (took a while to get that fixed too)
90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
'reasonable'
That term very much depends upon the eye of the beholder don't you think? Specific details in legislation can mean that while 90% of people support a concept, the implementation often leaves much to be desired.
But alas, they failed to check for security holes in the design. Political parties and lobbyists have done an end-run around most of the checks built into the system.
No. They checked, and knew. Even the best system in the world will degrade if it isn't maintained an updated.