Posts by Charles 9

Re: Oh great!

I tend to use nvpn. It provides SOCKS5 servers, port forwarding, and a wide range of servers and countries.

Re: Probably fine, handled badly

"Since they (mostly) don't own the domains how can they collect and retain any data?"

Because all the traffic has to go through their servers first (remember, they're a VPN, meaning they stand between you and the supposed destination). Furthermore, since they're an encryption endpoint, they can operate "outside the envelope" and are free to sniff the request before passing it on.

Re: Both sides?

Unless there's an actual Federal law that stipulates how certain classes of potentially-dangerous products can be used. Like, say, the Consumer Product Safety Act, for starters...

As I read it, yes, there IS such a thing as 0 (Zero) Avenue located just north of the international border. It starts just east of the Pacific Highway Border Crossing (WA 543/BC 15) and actually runs quite a ways--all the way to the next official crossing to the east: the Lynden–Aldergrove crossing at WA 539/BC 13.

Roads hugging the US border are not unheard of, especially at places where municipalities meet at the border. You'll find plenty such roads in upstate New York, for example.

PS. As for the judgment, I'm surprised he wasn't ordered to at least erect a fence (at least waist-high) at his northern boundary, to at least indicate that boundary is not meant to be crossed casually.

Re: Biometrics do not protect

IOW, how do you change your fingerprint if someone manages to copy it (and we KNOW it's possible to duplicate a fingerprint enough to create a gummi-print that can fool even the most sophisticated sensors (even the heat-sensitive ones by way of placing the copy on an actual finger)?

Re: Doesn't compute

You're linking it to the "booby-trapped safe" argument. I don't know if there's been a precedent set where someone can be compelled by court order to open a physical safe only they can safely open (say it's booby-trapped to explode if cracked), but I hear there are pertinent rulings.

Re: You can pry my password from my cold, dead lips. -- Feature Request

Which as analysts have noted won't work because once they know of a deniable encryption system, they'll just KEEP rubber-hosing you until you disclose the part they really want. The ol' "Now the other password" problem.

Re: You seem to have conflated the Supreme Court with Congress

And similarly, the ability of one to transit freely must be balanced against the safety of the rest of the citizenry (as people getting killed strips them of their rights). Thus the qualification unreasonable search and seizure. Thing is, circumstances can change what constitutes what's reasonable or not, thus it cannot be set in stone.

"The 4th Amendment contains NO exception, NO exemptions, and NO limitations of the rights of the citizens to its protect.....(accept in times of war or armed insurrection)"

Neither does the FIRST Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Yet the Supreme Court managed to legally make one in the US v. Schenck decition: the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" justification. Simply put, they put other people's rights in the way, which creates a clash that automatically (by the construction of the original Constitution) places limits on those rights (the "Your Right to Throw a Punch Ends at My Nose" argument).

Re: Forced password entry not possible

And if it turns out the guy is a masochist (gets off on pain) or a wimp (faints before you get started)?

Re: Not an item for debate

Or a good friend up top. There's something to be said about connections...

Re: Biometrics do not protect

Then they just take you by surprise. If you don't have the time to press the panic code, they've got you dead to rights.

And as for sticking to passwords, what if you have a bad memory? Was it "correcthorsebatterystaple" or "donkeyenginepaperclipwrong"?

Re: Not an item for debate

Which in turn get appealed to the highest court which can overturn the overturn AND set nationwide precedent. AND it's a lot easier to put friendly faces in a single Court of Last Resort.

A little kid could climb a shelf, get a good grip, push off it and flip into the basket while still keeping a grip on the brake. Plus it'll likely be more prone to abuse which could eventually result in brake failure.

You have to keep it from building up any significant speed to begin with (as the mass and velocity translate into momentum). Even with a braking bar, if it's going at a running pace, the force of impact (the mass times the sudden deceleration) is still going to be too much even for padding. Sorta like how padding don't mean too much when strapped to a 300-pound man trained to still be able to run 40 yards in under five seconds.

Re: Tesla's vision is fine but re autonomous driving

IOW, there's no real solution to a Trolley Problem, so it's extremely hard to pick between two such scenarios because each case can be different. Say you say run over the old last but what if the next situation involves your gran? Pick the mother, then it's your wife and baby next time.

Two other situations bear considering. First, snap object recognition, which even humans can fail at (You can tell the difference between a brick and a bag? Fine, how about a brick in a bag?).

Second, intuitive situations that humans solve without conscious recognition. Since we don't know we're even doing it, we don't know HOW we're doing it, and without the knowledge of how we do it, it's impossible to teach it to another human, let alone a machine.

I'm waiting for someone to prove a few of these serious automation problems to be physically intractable (except for the Trolley Problem, as that's a dilemma and has no real solution by design).

Re: It’s not about becoming obsolete.

"As such, we need to start sharing jobs. People will work 50% of what they do today."

You forget, that means they get paid 50% less, meaning they start missing the bills, they lose their homes meaning they have no place to cook. People work TWO jobs, even work nearly every waking hour, and yet they STILL can't pay their spartan bills.

And as for the O-word, there's always the dreaded retort, "Care to be first?"

So if their faces are frozen numb, they were orphans who never knew their mothers, bachelor(ette)s, and once worked on live wires so are numb to shocks, what then?

But tends to have an adverse effect in the innocent casualty rate as no one can really handle getting blindsided by someone too oblivious to care. After all, we have a limited field of view and faulty memory; there's always a blind spot.

Re: I find it amusing ...

You've never been to an American Fraternity Row then, have you? When I was in college, I spent nights with a campus police station, spending half the night running the dispatch phone and the other half doing building walks (mostly to make sure they were empty). The most common call at the dispatch phone came from someone at Frat Row, and the most common sight during the walks, especially near the dorms, was the small group of college guys hooting and hollering at the top of their lungs, obviously drunk as a skunk and without a care in the world. This carefree attitude carried over to the following morning, when they seem glad to have hangovers, even as midterms and finals loomed.

Re: Ban flights altogether.

Why MUST there be something? Look at the core: hot as hell and there's no life there to dissipate it. And what about Venus, which is even hotter on the surface?

Re: Bah!

"Also, note that the 9th Circuit's decision only applies to the 9th Circuit. And since there are conflicting decisions from other circuits, there's no clear precedent set here."

Yes it does, actually. It's called a Circuit Split, and it pretty much means the Supreme Court MUST step in as the only agency capable of resolving a circuit split, provided someone from one of the split circuits appeals. Remember, it was a circuit split that forced the issue of LGBT discrimination in front of them (they usually agree to hear circuit splits). Perhaps the ruling was intentional on the part of the 9th Circuit to create a circuit split and force a final confrontation.

Re: I think it's a slippery road to assert the underlying terrain has jurisdiction

Why would that be a step too far? Trains that cross state lines fall under it. So do trucks. Why not planes? And don't give the cargo excuse because Amtrak and Greyhound are train and road transports for humans.

Re: Other escalator laws

The problem is that it could interfere with other standing laws accommodating of disabled people (seeing eye dogs for the blind, signal dogs for the deaf, and guard dogs for epileptics, all covered under the American ADA, does Canada have an equivalent?).

Re: Why the urge to dumb everything down?

"First rule in sailing, NEVER leave the boat."

Even if the boat's ON FIRE and can't be put out? Then I would think it's either burn or swim. Plus, if the boat is sinking, you don't really have much choice in the matter...

Re: Why the urge to dumb everything down?

Only if you're willing to accept that you may likely never work in this or any other town again. And the job markets elsewhere aren't all that promising, either.

Re: and here we go again

Sounds nice until you end up with a stupid linchpin. Take HIM out and he takes the rest of us with him. See the problem?

Re: and here we go again

But then you can extend that logic. Without a cure for gross stupidity, that stupidity is bound to take the rest of us with them. So what do you do? Find the cure or throw up your hands?

Re: Why the urge to dumb everything down?

Not possible. You're told all or nothing and JFDI. And jumping ship is probably not an option.

Re: Cronyism

But I would argue that it would've happened at some point. It's just happening right now.

Re: Cronyism

Then they ARE doing their job. Problem is, the job they're doing now isn't the job WE want them to do. Sorta like the difference between what we want and what we really need (but can't recognize).

Put simply, we're humans. We're kinda stuck with it.

Re: Do they even have a clue what's wrong with this?

Not necessarily. And why can't they be mounted in a way that trying to remove them can compromise the chassis and render it at risk?