This guy is showing ignorance of the law. He gave them a reason to believe he did something wrong, and then wants a warrant? First, the warrant will be rubberstamped based upon his comments, but second, they don't need a warrant once that is established.
They need a warrant to search the contents of the computer. They do not need a warrant to confiscate and hold the equipment while they decide what to do.
If the seller is to get the money then the bar code must be unique to that seller, so it's not the general bar code of the magazine that's getting scanned.
The phone then reports this seller's ID to some central server. Does it also report geolocation data? (Is there any non-free-software app nowadays that doesn't?) How many people get this data? Google and the magazine company (and any government agency that asks for it)?
So smartphone users are being used to report homeless people's movements around the city. Or at the very least, it's open to that type of abuse.
Am I wrong?
Or maybe the government is exploiting homeless people to keep track of you??
The real sixth extinction is what man is doing to the planet right now. Species are going extinct at way higher than background rates, and we are largely to blame.
Nah. That would be the seventh extinction. We're getting good at causing these mass extinction events. And here we thought he had only laid waste to the earth 5 times.
They told me that they were checking to see if people were wearing their seat belts and their licenses were not expired.
Funny...
I remember when they were putting in the mandatory "wear your seatbelt" laws, in order to get them passed in many states, they said specifically that you could NOT get pulled over for not wearing one, that it could not be a primary offense for stopping you.
Now, of course..it is.
And people wonder why I tend to be hesitant to grant the police/govt any new powers over me and new regulations.
I can't hardly think of a law passed that later wasn't expanded or used in creative new ways other than it was intended or sold to the public, in order to get it passed.
You realize I'm not asking "can Nvidia do those things". Nvidia had "Twinview(tm)" when I last used them which allowed multiple monitors and was compatible with Xinerama on an API level.
That just meant you could extend your desktop across two monitors and when you maximize something it only maximizes in the monitor it is displayed in. It doesn't stretch across the whole virtual desktop splitting itself between the two screens.
However.. since it was only an Nvidia proprietary thing which was emulating Xinerama that meant utilites meant for configuring Xinerama didn't work with Nvidia cards.
Here's why that matters.
If you were using for example KDE (and I am assuming Gnome was similar) you could go into the control panel and change how your multiple monitors are set up. You could switch between desktop stretching vs cloning. You could swap left/right, etc... It was very easy and tidy... very Windows like.
BUT if you had an Nvidia card.. nope! You still have those functions in your control panel... but... THEY DON'T WORK! Instead you had to load this proprietary Nvidia app which then makes edits to your xorg.conf for you. Then.. it would restart X! So... all your applications you had open... now are closed.
I just did a Google search for Nvidia and Xinerama. The first result was an Ubuntu page about using Twinview. I take that to mean that your "years and years" comment is wrong and you are just assuming everything is ok because yes.. you can have two monitors.
Two monitors? Hell, I've run 12 monitors on Linux using the NVidia drivers. You can edit the xorg.conf file yourself, also. You do have to restart X, though.
You could, but the connector is only rated for 60 matings.
60 matings is much better than most of the readers on slashdot will ever hope to achieve!
Congratulations, you won todays "Race to the Bottom", your prize of a fetid pile of turds can be collected from your local Republitard office.
Lighten up Francis.....
Kenya sure has a lot of 'human-like' creatures !
Hmm.....do any of the found tools have the family moniker of "Obama"?
You do realise you're just telling everyone you are massively insecure with your sexuality, right?
It has nothing to do with insecurity, I"m quite happy with my heterosexuality. And frankly I don't care what consenting adults do on their own behind closed doors.
But if a homosexual makes a pass at me or gropes me, I have no problem decking them. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can do what you want to do amongst yourselves, but leave me out of it. Period.
Well, if it was a chick doing this groping to me, fine.
For the dude doing it...what's the penalty again for punching out a TSA idiot?
Guantanamo.
For some dude fondling my junk....might be worth it.
For the dude doing it...what's the penalty again for punching out a TSA idiot?
You barely survived bullying, so you should know better than most that many people don't. That's plenty of reason not to tolerate bullying.
Look at it this way: survival of the fittest is already being changed by modern medicine; would you withhold penicillin from a child with pneumonia because he's too weak to survive? By extension, we owe the same level of concern to people with psychological problems.
No, it's pre-crime if they've done no harm at the time they're banned.
The triggers or flags the algorithm recognizes are not themselves the offenses. They are just attributes of posts from people who in the past have exhibited similar early behavior; this algorithm knows how to recognize that pattern.
Let's say that you categorize a thousand historical troll posts, and study their metrics (I'm going to make up some fake metrics here for example.) The average number of posts before they actually get to spewing the bile might be 15. Of those 15, an average of two of them might contain the misspelled phrase "your wrong". Another indicator might be writing five posts within the first hour of registering a new ID. None of those posts contain an actual troll message, but 75% of the time someone matches that behavior, they will have written a troll by their 10th-20th post.
Pre-crime would be banning people based on matching this pattern without waiting for the actual troll post to be made. It would ban 100% of pattern-matchers, but of those, only 75% would statistically have gone on to actually troll. The other 25% would be unfairly banned for their poor spelling and bad timing.
"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben
