So if you subtract the part about arranging to help a person (a material component) join up with them and fight on their side, then you no longer have a story with a material component, and therefore he really didn't do anything wrong?
But if you subtract ISIS from the equation, what we have is someone arrested and charged primarily for talking about certain things on the internet
...so if you subtract the terrorist organization he was supporting from the picture, you no longer have a picture of someone supporting a terrorist organization, and therefore he didn't really do anything wrong?
Unfortunately, you've got the cart before the horse. Basic game theory demonstrates exactly the opposite: so long as nothing fundamentally changes in the way our elections work, the only choice is from one of two major parties.
Considering the clear pattern we've got going on for the last several administrations, in which one President screws things up, the voters get fed up with his incompetence and vote in someone from the opposite party, who then proceeds to screw things up even worse and so on, it seems clear that we're destined to vote in a Republican president next year.
I just wish there was a Republican candidate available who doesn't look like an utter moron who will perpetuate the downward cycle even further, but looking over the list of hopefuls it doesn't look likely. :(
Re: Re: What’s So Secret About Social Security Numbers, Anyway?
That's interesting. Do you have a source on that? I've heard in the past that the first 5 digits are the ZIP code where your card was originally issued, but I know that's not right because I looked up the first 5 digits of mine and they aren't a valid ZIP code.
Wi-fi signals are on lower frequencies than TV and radio stations. They have an extremely short range and are easily blocked by materials that a broadcast radio will go straight through. I know some of that's the power of the broadcast, but doesn't the wavelength play a part in it too?
Since the best solution to ignorance is correct knowledge, do we have any data about what broadcast frequencies are used in cell phones? I would imagine that they would have to be a higher frequency than wi-fi in order to get greater range, but I'm not 100% certain.
It's ONLY 1400W of radio waves (not 5,000,000), so it couldn't possibly hurt you.
That was not the claim; the claim was that it couldn't possibly cause cancer.
Microwave cooking occurs by electromagnetically heating water within organic matter. Cancer from radiation occurs through the destructive ionization of DNA. They're two completely different principles that have nothing to do with each other.
True, but that's a completely different discussion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand, which is cancer. If you don't know the difference, please at least don't continue to embarrass yourself by talking like they're the same thing.
Tanning lamps use UV light to induce a very mild (hopefully) sunburn. Before you go calling people simple-minded, it helps you not look stupid if you get your facts straight first.
Yes, except that no one's proclaiming that. What we're saying is that anyone with a basic high-school-physics-level understanding of EM radiation should know that this specific "safety risk" is flat-out impossible and does not constitute a legitimate risk to anyone's safety.
And while I'm probably the last person to buy what comes out of the CTIA's mouth, the idea that municipalities should wait for real science before terrifying the local populace and building a nation of paranoids generally seems like a good idea.
Agreed. To anyone with even the slightest inkling of understanding of the physics involved in the EM spectrum, the very idea that radio frequency radiation can cause cancer is so ridiculous that it would be funny if it weren't for all the serious people who don't get the joke.
Here's the simple version: EM radiation has a very broad spectrum, from high wavelength to low wavelength. On the high end are radio waves. In the middle is the narrow band we call visible light. On the low side you find the dangerous ionizing radiation such as UV, X-rays and gamma rays.
The higher the wavelength, the less energy is in each particle. The lower the wavelength, the more energy is in each particle. There's a strict mathematical relationship between the two. When you get into the UV-and-beyond territory, the photons of light start to have enough energy to knock electrons off of atoms, which makes the molecules they're in unstable. If they happen to do that to DNA, it can cause cancer.
Visible light, which is in between ionizing radiation and radio waves, does not have enough energy to ionize organic matter, and radio waves carry far less energy than that. Bottom line: if you won't get cancer from sitting in a room brightly lit with artificial light, which doesn't emit UV, you can't possibly get cancer from radio waves from a cellphone. And no one that I'm aware of is afraid of visible light.
I'm not trying to argue that "once something is put on the web, copyright no longer applies"; I'm pointing out that the specific argument he makes--that this JavaScript is not allowed to be copied around--is nonsensical as they are overtly requesting that people copy it by placing it on a webpage like that.
It's not a mistake. Publishing did begin with the printing press, because the printing press created a wholly new concept: mass copying. Before the advent of the printing press, large-scale copying of works of non-trivial size wasn't "an expensive process thus limited to the wealthy"; it simply did not exist. Small-scale copying was an expensive process limited to the wealthy.
To give an example of the scope involved, Gutenberg produced over 200 Bibles over the course of about 5 years. Before the printing press, it could take a team of scribes months or even years to copy a single Bible. He managed to reduce the work of centuries into half a decade, and eliminate transcription errors in the process!
No, the printing press was something truly new and attempting to compare it to earlier methods of copying the written word, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is fallacious.
On the post: Virginia Teenager Charged With Providing 'Material Support' For ISIS Through Tweets, Blog Posts About Privacy And Bitcoin
Re: Re:
On the post: Virginia Teenager Charged With Providing 'Material Support' For ISIS Through Tweets, Blog Posts About Privacy And Bitcoin
...so if you subtract the terrorist organization he was supporting from the picture, you no longer have a picture of someone supporting a terrorist organization, and therefore he didn't really do anything wrong?
On the post: Federal Election Committee Tries To Shut Down 'Stop Hillary' PAC Because Donors Might Think Hillary Clinton Is Behind It
Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Election Committee Tries To Shut Down 'Stop Hillary' PAC Because Donors Might Think Hillary Clinton Is Behind It
I just wish there was a Republican candidate available who doesn't look like an utter moron who will perpetuate the downward cycle even further, but looking over the list of hopefuls it doesn't look likely. :(
On the post: Hack Of Federal Gov't Employee Info Is Much, Much Worse Than Originally Stated: Unencrypted Social Security Numbers Leaked
Re: Re: What’s So Secret About Social Security Numbers, Anyway?
On the post: DailyDirt: Keep Your Head On...
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: What's with the xkcd chart?
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was not the claim; the claim was that it couldn't possibly cause cancer.
Microwave cooking occurs by electromagnetically heating water within organic matter. Cancer from radiation occurs through the destructive ionization of DNA. They're two completely different principles that have nothing to do with each other.
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re:
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A million times zero is still zero.
If radio waves don't have the energy to ionize DNA, it doesn't matter how many of them there are, they still don't have the power to ionize DNA.
On the post: DailyDirt: Boiling Water More Efficiently
Re: Boiling water at room temperature
On the post: US CIO Orders All .Gov Websites To Require Encrypted Connections, Amazon Enters The Secure Cert Space
On the post: Wireless Carriers Sue Over Berkeley's Cell Phone Radiation Warnings
Agreed. To anyone with even the slightest inkling of understanding of the physics involved in the EM spectrum, the very idea that radio frequency radiation can cause cancer is so ridiculous that it would be funny if it weren't for all the serious people who don't get the joke.
Here's the simple version: EM radiation has a very broad spectrum, from high wavelength to low wavelength. On the high end are radio waves. In the middle is the narrow band we call visible light. On the low side you find the dangerous ionizing radiation such as UV, X-rays and gamma rays.
The higher the wavelength, the less energy is in each particle. The lower the wavelength, the more energy is in each particle. There's a strict mathematical relationship between the two. When you get into the UV-and-beyond territory, the photons of light start to have enough energy to knock electrons off of atoms, which makes the molecules they're in unstable. If they happen to do that to DNA, it can cause cancer.
Visible light, which is in between ionizing radiation and radio waves, does not have enough energy to ionize organic matter, and radio waves carry far less energy than that. Bottom line: if you won't get cancer from sitting in a room brightly lit with artificial light, which doesn't emit UV, you can't possibly get cancer from radio waves from a cellphone. And no one that I'm aware of is afraid of visible light.
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
To give an example of the scope involved, Gutenberg produced over 200 Bibles over the course of about 5 years. Before the printing press, it could take a team of scribes months or even years to copy a single Bible. He managed to reduce the work of centuries into half a decade, and eliminate transcription errors in the process!
No, the printing press was something truly new and attempting to compare it to earlier methods of copying the written word, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is fallacious.
On the post: Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re:
Next >>