Comment Re:Don't ask, don't tell (Score 1) 114
Of course not. If we prosecute them the terrorists will run amok.
Of course not. If we prosecute them the terrorists will run amok.
Don't you people have any sense of humor anymore?
I think the problem is that he does have a sense of humor. If he didn't have one, then he would be politely laughing at the stupid posts, waiting for someone smarter than him to come along and let slip a clue that explains the joke. Little would such a humorless person realize, that there is no clue to give, because there isn't much of a joke to explain.
If you want to know whose ass that is, and why they're farting, then keep reading today's posts and maybe you'll get your answers amidst the day's deepening plot and theme. For the rest of us, though, Slashdot appears to be down today.
This ruling doesn't even have anything to do with planting a tracking device. It is in regards to an individual who has been convicted of multiple sexual offences who has served his time and is being required by the State of North Carolina to wear a GPS anklet for the rest of his life. He challenged that on 4th amendment grounds. NC argued successfully (at the state level) that this requirement is not a search. The SCOTUS disagreed and sent the case back to NC.
Jeez, RTFA.
Combative much? Let me rearrange your words so you can see how it relates to my original point, and you tell me how I did it wrong, and then I'll let you deal with the fact that you're chasing your own tail while barking at me...
NC argued [that] wear[ing] a GPS anklet
The SCOTUS disagreed
First line of the article:
If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a search—and is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Jeez, what as that about reading the article again?
Probably not, since this ruling had nothing to do with Stingray.
I guess planting a GPS device to track someone and hijacking their phone to track them are completely different.
So are all StingRay units shut down now? Or is an NDA a good enough reason to ignore the 4th amendment?
Would it kill you to explain even vaguely what this thing does in the summary?
It save data so your Chrome browsing can be analyzed.
when that doesn't work (because the door is in "locked" state), the terrorist just threatens the (co)pilot inside to cabin to unlock or he'll kill the pilot and/or everyone else... At which point the pilot opens the door anyway.
He might open the door if he's armed (with the intent to come out blasting), but otherwise I don't think that's very likely.
Having a "Locked" position is idiotic to the extreme.
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
Giving one pilot (in the cockpit) the means to basically lock himself in with no ability for the other pilot to enter is too great a danger.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
Weird, I've never seen it with an S in there, only as LOC and xK LOC. I though maybe it was something different than the LOC counts I'd seen before. Of course, I've never dealt with projects that were in the millions either, so maybe that's why I've never heard the S variations.
As soon as I can get my DSLR out of its case!
Let's take the simplest of all the detection problems. How many lines of code does it take to reliably and safely detect the lane markings of a road? Nobody knows, because nobody has done it yet. Yes, there are prototypes that can handle some sub sets of all cases. The best I've seen handles 90% of the cases. That takes 1 MSLOC and still counting.
What's an emslock?
Inertia mainly - I stopped writing JEs regularly, and lost the drive to write them. Not sure what (if anything) would kick me back into any kind of regularity on them again. Though I suppose once every 18 months isn't too aggressive of a schedule to shoot for!
It is unacceptable that Iceland need to take up large part of European legislation through a business agreement without getting representatives or audience.
Those crazy Icelandic nutcases!
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
