Also, they need a warrant BEFORE they search someone's property. That's the point of having a warrant. If they can search before getting the warrant, then what's the point of the 4th amendment?
Nope, they really can get a retroactive warrant. I think they have to get it within 48 or 72 hours of conducting the search. If they do the search and the judge doesn't grant the warrant, nothing they found would be admissible during trial, which could very easily ruin their entire case. If the judge would have granted the warrant normally but doesn't agree that the police didn't have time to get it before the search, you might still end up with a pissed off judge that denies the warrant.
Just to toss in a contradictory story, I actually had pretty good experiences in high school with our computers. The school's system administrator was also a math teacher, but she knew what she was doing (as far as I could tell, anyway). I played around with Pascal programs a lot, and I hit the system's disk quota pretty easily. This was in the mid 1990's, so quotas were on the order of a few MB for each student. When I told the teacher that I was having a problem, she pretty much said "Oh, that's easy to fix," and set my disk limit to something like 100 MB. It was definitely a huge benefit to have teachers with a clue.
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get.
If you're saying that the problem is that evidence may be destroyed before law enforcement can seize it, there's a very simple solution to that. Police can conduct the search immediately, then get the warrant from the judge the next day. There is absolutely no valid excuse for not getting a search warrant.
I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all. Was it because most hijackings before were not suicide missions and procedure was to try and save the passengers by negotiation or something?
Pretty much. Previous hijackings basically consisted of "Take me to Some Island Country." The September 11, 2001, hijackings were assumed to be more of the same, in which case the safest course of action is to just go along with the hijackers and land wherever they tell you to. Since then (and probably into the future), people have instead assumed that they're going to be killed in the hijacking, so they will do whatever they can to try to limit the damage and casualties, even if they still end up being killed.
Riiiight. Because "William Jefferson Clinton", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "George Walker Bush" never, ever, ever got mentioned, which is why all three are permanently embedded in my brain.
Honestly, whenever I hear "William Jefferson Clinton" I have stop and think about who that is, because he was always called Bill. I would guess that most people would react similarly if you started talking about James Carter.
People often include the middle initials or names for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for a pretty obvious reason: "George Bush" is ambiguous.
Well sure, of course it would be nice if customers could actually get the bandwidth they were sold, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Realistically, if an ISP had (advertised bandwidth * number of customers), a large percentage of that bandwidth would sit idle and be wasted. Most people here are probably willing to accept prioritization that comes from legitimate QoS concerns. VoIP packets are time-sensitive, while BitTorrent packets aren't. VoIP requires a fairly consistent bandwidth, while BitTorrent can use bursts of bandwidth just fine. Most, if not all, of the people that would complain about their Linux disc images downloading in 21 minutes instead of 20 minutes are probably of the "I've got mine, the rest of you can fuck off" type; if they had nothing to complain about, they'd be compelled to find something to complain about.
"Fair limits" is still ambiguous, and I'm sure ISP's would claim that limiting BitTorrent to 1 KB/s is fair. "No limits" would be better, but it's important to keep in mind that prioritization is different from artificial limits. If you have a VoIP connection open, it's fine to prioritize that over your BitTorrent traffic, even if that effectively limits your BitTorrent bandwidth. What shouldn't be acceptable is having a limit of X KB/s for BitTorrent, no matter how much available bandwidth there is.
Net Neutrality, though, has a somewhat different primary goal. Net Neutrality isn't as much about prioritizing or limiting bandwidth based on protocol, but based on endpoints. Prioritizing Comcast's VoIP traffic over Skype's VoIP traffic is clearly anti-competitive, and that's what needs to be stopped first.
If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one.
It's not just more expensive and/or less efficient for a company trying to enter the market. There are two bigger issues. First, there's limited physical space. For fiber and cable, this isn't a major problem, since there's enough space for dozens of lines, but for things like water, electricity, sewage, and roads, it's just not physically possible to have open competition. Second, a new entry into the market is highly disruptive to the residents of the area. It might only take a few days of having half a road closed to run new fiber, but imagine how annoying it would be to have your road torn up once a month so that some new company can bury sewage pipes.
aerial unidentified vehicles, possibly military, were signaled to have landed
If the summary is correct, the article also said that the vehicles were piloted by 3-meter-tall creatures. I know there's a lot of cultural hatred amongst various groups in that part of the world, but I don't think a report about a military invasion by a neighboring country would go quite that far.
That's actually very easy, and happens naturally all the time. Natural decay is what makes radioactive substances radioactive. The hard part is separating out the enriched uranium. Once you do that it's very easy to make a bomb out of it.
My apologies for stating the bleeding obvious here, but "splitting an atom" usually refers to fission, not alpha, beta, or gamma decay. Fission and decay are two very different things.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible to enjoy something without being addicted to it?
Some biochemists might say so, since "enjoying" something is because of the neurochemicals released. Many addictive substances cause the production of those same chemicals. This is why cigarettes are addictive. The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.
If the government weren't there, they'd just pay for security if the land is worthwhile and productive.
Until someone else pays for an armed force that's stronger than that security. Maybe it's just me, but living in a society where day-to-day life is determined by who has the biggest guns doesn't seem much fun.
The dominant religions on this planet teach that there will be a world-ending apocalypse but the faithful will be whisked away to a better place.
Does Islam have any concept of an Apocalypse? The only small bits of Jewish text that get close to such an idea are generally ignored, so if Islam doesn't have it, I think it's pretty much just Christianity.
And I absolutely agree with you. One of the worst things to happen to this world has been the progression from "If I'm a good person and pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I'm an evil person and pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I'm an evil person and pray to Jesus just once the week before I die, I'll get in to Heaven".
I'm sure the "slavery" will be allowed for the non-profits.
Unpaid work for a non-profit is usually called "volunteering". It's more acceptable because your labor isn't being used to increase the wealth of the shareholders, but doing something to help improve the world (for varying definitions of improve).
Same, I thought interns were unpaid by definition - i.e. if you're getting paid it's not an internship. That at least seems to be the understanding in my neck of the woods.
A lot of places use the term "co-op" instead of "intern", precisely because it's often assumed that interns aren't paid.
So Pfizer breaks the law, and the government is afraid to apply the prescribed penalties for the infraction and your solution is for the government to than break the law or rather selectively apply it and not enforce their IP rights.
How would it be any different from imprisoning or fining a person that breaks the law?
Slightly OT, but just out of interest, "Also, simply being in the same premises as the forbidden item is not considered possession." - how does that work with drug busts, or similar? - "What, that? - thats not *my* 10 kilos, it just sits there in the corner usually, honest Officer.."
Presumably, "simply being in the same premises" means you have no control and/or knowledge over the illegal item. If your roommate gets busted for having cocaine in his sock drawer, you haven't committed any crime. If your roommate gets busted for having cocaine sitting on his desk next to his keyboard, you might get in trouble for failing to report a crime, but you aren't in possession of cocaine just because you live in the same apartment.
...seems like your saying that if accused you need to prove your innocence. Where is the presumption of innocence...
It's in criminal courts where it actually applies.
Demonstrating non-infringing use can only prevent having your site shut down completely after the judge rules against you for not removing copyrighted material after being notified.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, they need a warrant BEFORE they search someone's property. That's the point of having a warrant. If they can search before getting the warrant, then what's the point of the 4th amendment?
Nope, they really can get a retroactive warrant. I think they have to get it within 48 or 72 hours of conducting the search. If they do the search and the judge doesn't grant the warrant, nothing they found would be admissible during trial, which could very easily ruin their entire case. If the judge would have granted the warrant normally but doesn't agree that the police didn't have time to get it before the search, you might still end up with a pissed off judge that denies the warrant.
Just to toss in a contradictory story, I actually had pretty good experiences in high school with our computers. The school's system administrator was also a math teacher, but she knew what she was doing (as far as I could tell, anyway). I played around with Pascal programs a lot, and I hit the system's disk quota pretty easily. This was in the mid 1990's, so quotas were on the order of a few MB for each student. When I told the teacher that I was having a problem, she pretty much said "Oh, that's easy to fix," and set my disk limit to something like 100 MB. It was definitely a huge benefit to have teachers with a clue.
The problem with getting warrants is that they take time to get.
If you're saying that the problem is that evidence may be destroyed before law enforcement can seize it, there's a very simple solution to that. Police can conduct the search immediately, then get the warrant from the judge the next day. There is absolutely no valid excuse for not getting a search warrant.
I always wondered why the cockpit was not just locked and all. Was it because most hijackings before were not suicide missions and procedure was to try and save the passengers by negotiation or something?
Pretty much. Previous hijackings basically consisted of "Take me to Some Island Country." The September 11, 2001, hijackings were assumed to be more of the same, in which case the safest course of action is to just go along with the hijackers and land wherever they tell you to. Since then (and probably into the future), people have instead assumed that they're going to be killed in the hijacking, so they will do whatever they can to try to limit the damage and casualties, even if they still end up being killed.
Riiiight. Because "William Jefferson Clinton", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "George Walker Bush" never, ever, ever got mentioned, which is why all three are permanently embedded in my brain.
Honestly, whenever I hear "William Jefferson Clinton" I have stop and think about who that is, because he was always called Bill. I would guess that most people would react similarly if you started talking about James Carter.
People often include the middle initials or names for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush for a pretty obvious reason: "George Bush" is ambiguous.
But that's literally what "officially" means...
Well sure, of course it would be nice if customers could actually get the bandwidth they were sold, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Realistically, if an ISP had (advertised bandwidth * number of customers), a large percentage of that bandwidth would sit idle and be wasted. Most people here are probably willing to accept prioritization that comes from legitimate QoS concerns. VoIP packets are time-sensitive, while BitTorrent packets aren't. VoIP requires a fairly consistent bandwidth, while BitTorrent can use bursts of bandwidth just fine. Most, if not all, of the people that would complain about their Linux disc images downloading in 21 minutes instead of 20 minutes are probably of the "I've got mine, the rest of you can fuck off" type; if they had nothing to complain about, they'd be compelled to find something to complain about.
"Fair limits" is still ambiguous, and I'm sure ISP's would claim that limiting BitTorrent to 1 KB/s is fair. "No limits" would be better, but it's important to keep in mind that prioritization is different from artificial limits. If you have a VoIP connection open, it's fine to prioritize that over your BitTorrent traffic, even if that effectively limits your BitTorrent bandwidth. What shouldn't be acceptable is having a limit of X KB/s for BitTorrent, no matter how much available bandwidth there is.
Net Neutrality, though, has a somewhat different primary goal. Net Neutrality isn't as much about prioritizing or limiting bandwidth based on protocol, but based on endpoints. Prioritizing Comcast's VoIP traffic over Skype's VoIP traffic is clearly anti-competitive, and that's what needs to be stopped first.
Why shouldn't VOIP and traffic from playing video games be given higher priority than, say, bittorrent traffic?
It can be. That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality though.
If another start-up came along and ran another set of cables to every house, they would go bankrupt. In this case of natural monopoly, having more than one set of wires running to each home is simply less efficient than having only one.
It's not just more expensive and/or less efficient for a company trying to enter the market. There are two bigger issues. First, there's limited physical space. For fiber and cable, this isn't a major problem, since there's enough space for dozens of lines, but for things like water, electricity, sewage, and roads, it's just not physically possible to have open competition. Second, a new entry into the market is highly disruptive to the residents of the area. It might only take a few days of having half a road closed to run new fiber, but imagine how annoying it would be to have your road torn up once a month so that some new company can bury sewage pipes.
aerial unidentified vehicles, possibly military, were signaled to have landed
If the summary is correct, the article also said that the vehicles were piloted by 3-meter-tall creatures. I know there's a lot of cultural hatred amongst various groups in that part of the world, but I don't think a report about a military invasion by a neighboring country would go quite that far.
I honestly believe that what you wrote there reflects an artificially narrow concept of strength.
Or, ya know, maybe they were only talking about physical strength. Context is a useful thing; you may want to read up on it some time.
That's actually very easy, and happens naturally all the time. Natural decay is what makes radioactive substances radioactive. The hard part is separating out the enriched uranium. Once you do that it's very easy to make a bomb out of it.
My apologies for stating the bleeding obvious here, but "splitting an atom" usually refers to fission, not alpha, beta, or gamma decay. Fission and decay are two very different things.
So what you're saying is that it's impossible to enjoy something without being addicted to it?
Some biochemists might say so, since "enjoying" something is because of the neurochemicals released. Many addictive substances cause the production of those same chemicals. This is why cigarettes are addictive. The other chemicals that are added to cigarettes greatly increase the addictiveness beyond what you would get only from tobacco.
You are forgetting that some of us smoke because ::gasp:: we enjoy it.
Yeah, in the medical field that's called "addiction".
Best. Comment. Ever. :)
Fixed that for you.
If the government weren't there, they'd just pay for security if the land is worthwhile and productive.
Until someone else pays for an armed force that's stronger than that security. Maybe it's just me, but living in a society where day-to-day life is determined by who has the biggest guns doesn't seem much fun.
The dominant religions on this planet teach that there will be a world-ending apocalypse but the faithful will be whisked away to a better place.
Does Islam have any concept of an Apocalypse? The only small bits of Jewish text that get close to such an idea are generally ignored, so if Islam doesn't have it, I think it's pretty much just Christianity.
And I absolutely agree with you. One of the worst things to happen to this world has been the progression from "If I'm a good person and pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I'm an evil person and pray to Jesus, I'll get in to Heaven" to "If I'm an evil person and pray to Jesus just once the week before I die, I'll get in to Heaven".
I'm sure the "slavery" will be allowed for the non-profits.
Unpaid work for a non-profit is usually called "volunteering". It's more acceptable because your labor isn't being used to increase the wealth of the shareholders, but doing something to help improve the world (for varying definitions of improve).
Same, I thought interns were unpaid by definition - i.e. if you're getting paid it's not an internship. That at least seems to be the understanding in my neck of the woods.
A lot of places use the term "co-op" instead of "intern", precisely because it's often assumed that interns aren't paid.
So Pfizer breaks the law, and the government is afraid to apply the prescribed penalties for the infraction and your solution is for the government to than break the law or rather selectively apply it and not enforce their IP rights.
How would it be any different from imprisoning or fining a person that breaks the law?
Please, show me the standard a PERL CGI script adheres to
Gee, I dunno, maybe this one?
Slightly OT, but just out of interest, "Also, simply being in the same premises as the forbidden item is not considered possession." - how does that work with drug busts, or similar? - "What, that? - thats not *my* 10 kilos, it just sits there in the corner usually, honest Officer.."
Presumably, "simply being in the same premises" means you have no control and/or knowledge over the illegal item. If your roommate gets busted for having cocaine in his sock drawer, you haven't committed any crime. If your roommate gets busted for having cocaine sitting on his desk next to his keyboard, you might get in trouble for failing to report a crime, but you aren't in possession of cocaine just because you live in the same apartment.
It's clearly not obvious because there is no prior art.
I'm glad you aren't responsible for patent law, because this statement is completely false.
...seems like your saying that if accused you need to prove your innocence. Where is the presumption of innocence...
It's in criminal courts where it actually applies.
Demonstrating non-infringing use can only prevent having your site shut down completely after the judge rules against you for not removing copyrighted material after being notified.