No, option B would be bad. If the prosecution has some evidence it used in building its case, it has to give it to the defense. Even though it may not use the evidence at trial, such evidence may have been improperly gathered, meaning anything gathered due to what the prosecution discovered in that initial illegal search is inadmissible.
Not really 'useless.' Really, that is what copyright is all about. Its mine, so I don't want other people profiting off it.
No it's not. The stated purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works. The monopoly grant is merely the method that is used to achieve that purpose, not the purpose itself.
Concerns over potential side-effects were behind the change to a vaccine with a narrower scope, but this now appears to have contributed to the promotion of resistant strains.
Your own source undermines your argument. Had they stayed with the older vaccine regimen instead of listening to people like you, this would not have happened.
Pathogens can only mutate by having a sufficiently large population to breed in. The only reason these pathogens are getting the opportunity is because people aren't getting vaccinated.
That's because you think Government can actually do things when they can't!!!
No, I know the FAA does a damn fine job of safely managing the NAS.
They'll have to get it right or else be sued to crashing on top of someone.
That doesn't stop Taser, or any of the other contractors that supply equipment to LEOs and Military. They just get indemnification.
No company in their right mind will just throw up any old drone and cross their fingers and hope it all goes right.
Ehhhh... You should look into the safety record of currently operating UAS, and how often birds that cost tens of millions of dollars get smashed into the ground/ocean due to pilot error... (Nevermind the shockingly bad quality of some of them).
Let any company run their own small trials out in far less crowded area's. Work out all the bugs and other kinks. Come out with some Industry standard so you don't have them crashing into each other from one company to another.
No. Just... No. This isn't even a matter of theory. What you're describing is civil aviation in the first half of the 20th century. We know from experience IT DOESN'T WORK. The Federal Aviation Act was passed because of the failure of the exact sort of approach you're describing: "Well, let everyone do their own thing, no one has to be in charge, I'm sure they'll all try very hard not to hurt each other."
There is no way, be some mad rush to start flying these things everywhere just because the FAA has zero power.
You don't know how wrong you are. The DoD is desperate (for reasons I still don't understand) to fly UAS in the NAS. So is every two-bit, tin-pot Sheriff and Chief of Police in the US, who have apparently decided that having assault teams and armored vehicles isn't compensating enough for their manhood deficiency and so now they need remotely piloted spy cams. And between them are all the military contractors, rubbing their hands gleefully together with dollar signs in their eyes. You can't comprehend how quickly the FAA losing authority over this would be taken advantage of.
What is the expected benefit? And why is it worth the risk? And yes, there is a significant risk: Loss-of-Control incidents are still very common in UAS. Most of the larger platforms have automated "Lost Link" procedures they follow in such circumstance, but those don't always work--and often aren't very conducive to safety of others. Generally they're intended to make re-acquisition by the base station easier under the assumption they're operating in an area where they don't have to worry about hitting anything "friendly".
All of this is really moot, though. There are already UAS operating in the NAS under an individual Certificate of Agreement, including ones being used by the FAA primarily to study the safety problems. What benefit is there to flying them in even less realistic scenarios?
A UAS cannot meet the requirements, as they are currently written, to operate in the NAS. Either we're going to have to loosen the requirements or come to accept this is a bad idea. If we decide to loosen the requirements, then I'm moving to the Marianas Trench or something...
The way to learn to get better control over drones, and what the problems of their use is, is to allow them to fly in uncontrolled airspace, and away from built up areas. Without more experience of drone use in relatively safe areas any regulation will be based on theory, and probably not deal with the actual problems.
And what do you think I meant when I said "I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System"? That we sat around in a room and thought about what could possibly go wrong?
There are multiple active studies right now, operating in both simulated environments and "live" tests in controlled airspace. I worked on the simulators, myself, and I can assure you they're more than realistic enough to study the problem. Actually, if anything, the problem with the simulations were that they provided the UAS pilots with entirely TOO MUCH information compared to what would actually be available in the field. And it STILL resulted in unsafe operations.
I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System, primarily by the DoD. The reason the FAA is "dragging its feet" on this is because every experiment we ran showed that it's simply NOT SAFE. The DoD keeps paying for experiments, though, hoping that some tweak will improve the results... Or that we'll give up due to exhaustion, I guess?
If the DoD and FAA can't manage to do it safely, I'm not sure how a commercial operation is going to do a better job...
FYI, 2/3 of that public defender law enforcer quote is satire. Only the second paragraph, “It makes things faster, easier and better for us,” is an actual quote.
Yes, it is the point, but the problem is that home-grown solutions are rarely better, and often worse, from a security standpoint than the IT department they're trying to work around.
Honestly I've been on both sides of this argument... As an IT support person who's had to go in and take over a rogue operation after it self destructed spectacularly, and a "rogue operator" who had to deal with an IT department that grew up around our existing infrastructure and slowly tried to whittle away our autonomy. In both cases I felt my group was in the right, and I could spend hours telling you why, but I'm obviously a bit biased.
Funnily enough, the second case was a Federal agency (the FAA), and I did think some particularly unkind things at our IT...
Re: Re: Solution: Burn the computer and get another from a safe vendor
Actually, yes. They have bugs for USB cables, RJ-45 ports, keyboards, etc. They didn't get them from martians, they buy them from contractors. For someone saying "read snowden" you don't seem to have actually bothered keeping up with what's been published.
On the post: CIA Put In Charge Of Declassifying Senate's Report That Condemns The CIA's Torture Program
Drop the Microphone
Now it's up to Wyden or Udall to take the floor of the Senate and enter the entire document into the Congressional Record.
On the post: DOJ Flips Out That Evidence Gathered Via FISA Orders Might Be Made Available To Defendants
Re: Time for an ultimatum it would seem
On the post: New Case By Notorious B.I.G. Estate May Finally Test Question Of Sampling Fair Use
Re: Re: Wait, what?!
On the post: New Case By Notorious B.I.G. Estate May Finally Test Question Of Sampling Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
No it's not. The stated purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works. The monopoly grant is merely the method that is used to achieve that purpose, not the purpose itself.
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: Re: Re: Vaccination Benefits Society, Not The Individual
You're not even wrong.
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: Vaccination Benefits Society, Not The Individual
And with that in mind, I depend on other people to do the responsible thing and get vaccinated to protect people like me who can't.
On the post: Thanks Anti-Vax Loons: The Return Of The Measles And The Backlash Against Jenny McCarthy
Re: one more
Your own source undermines your argument. Had they stayed with the older vaccine regimen instead of listening to people like you, this would not have happened.
Pathogens can only mutate by having a sufficiently large population to breed in. The only reason these pathogens are getting the opportunity is because people aren't getting vaccinated.
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
No, I know the FAA does a damn fine job of safely managing the NAS.
That doesn't stop Taser, or any of the other contractors that supply equipment to LEOs and Military. They just get indemnification.
Ehhhh... You should look into the safety record of currently operating UAS, and how often birds that cost tens of millions of dollars get smashed into the ground/ocean due to pilot error... (Nevermind the shockingly bad quality of some of them).
No. Just... No. This isn't even a matter of theory. What you're describing is civil aviation in the first half of the 20th century. We know from experience IT DOESN'T WORK. The Federal Aviation Act was passed because of the failure of the exact sort of approach you're describing: "Well, let everyone do their own thing, no one has to be in charge, I'm sure they'll all try very hard not to hurt each other."
You don't know how wrong you are. The DoD is desperate (for reasons I still don't understand) to fly UAS in the NAS. So is every two-bit, tin-pot Sheriff and Chief of Police in the US, who have apparently decided that having assault teams and armored vehicles isn't compensating enough for their manhood deficiency and so now they need remotely piloted spy cams. And between them are all the military contractors, rubbing their hands gleefully together with dollar signs in their eyes. You can't comprehend how quickly the FAA losing authority over this would be taken advantage of.
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
I'm serious.
What is the expected benefit? And why is it worth the risk? And yes, there is a significant risk: Loss-of-Control incidents are still very common in UAS. Most of the larger platforms have automated "Lost Link" procedures they follow in such circumstance, but those don't always work--and often aren't very conducive to safety of others. Generally they're intended to make re-acquisition by the base station easier under the assumption they're operating in an area where they don't have to worry about hitting anything "friendly".
All of this is really moot, though. There are already UAS operating in the NAS under an individual Certificate of Agreement, including ones being used by the FAA primarily to study the safety problems. What benefit is there to flying them in even less realistic scenarios?
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
Re: Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
A UAS cannot meet the requirements, as they are currently written, to operate in the NAS. Either we're going to have to loosen the requirements or come to accept this is a bad idea. If we decide to loosen the requirements, then I'm moving to the Marianas Trench or something...
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
And what do you think I meant when I said "I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System"? That we sat around in a room and thought about what could possibly go wrong?
There are multiple active studies right now, operating in both simulated environments and "live" tests in controlled airspace. I worked on the simulators, myself, and I can assure you they're more than realistic enough to study the problem. Actually, if anything, the problem with the simulations were that they provided the UAS pilots with entirely TOO MUCH information compared to what would actually be available in the field. And it STILL resulted in unsafe operations.
On the post: FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
The FAA Is Right
If the DoD and FAA can't manage to do it safely, I'm not sure how a commercial operation is going to do a better job...
On the post: 20 Years Ago 2 Live Crew, A Rude Rap Song And The Supreme Court Helped Clear The Way For The Modern Internet
Re: Wait...
Amazon might publish your fanfic, though. :P
On the post: The Supreme Court Has Just Given The Police Another Way To Search Your House Without A Warrant
On the post: Valve: No, Our Gaming Anti-Cheat System Isn't Tracking Your Voracious Porn Habits
Slashdot Anonymous Coward Response:
On the post: Nielsen Backs Off Reporting Data On Cord Cutters Because The Cable Industry Prefers Fantasyland
Re:
On the post: Man Bravely Saves His Xbox From Burning House
Re: Re: WHAT?
On the post: Feds Own Cybersecurity Efforts Are A Joke: Employees Have 'Gone Rogue' To Avoid 'Ineptitude' Of IT Staff
Re: Say what?
Honestly I've been on both sides of this argument... As an IT support person who's had to go in and take over a rogue operation after it self destructed spectacularly, and a "rogue operator" who had to deal with an IT department that grew up around our existing infrastructure and slowly tried to whittle away our autonomy. In both cases I felt my group was in the right, and I could spend hours telling you why, but I'm obviously a bit biased.
Funnily enough, the second case was a Federal agency (the FAA), and I did think some particularly unkind things at our IT...
On the post: NSA Interception In Action? Tor Developer's Computer Gets Mysteriously Re-Routed To Virginia
Re: Re: Solution: Burn the computer and get another from a safe vendor
Next >>