It's a proof of concept, not a commercial product. No-one would deploy an RPi in a production environment, they would develop a low power and much faster USB dongle with secure storage. Probably some kind of ARM based micro, although you can get dedicated ICs with a USB interface.
Three reactors melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant following the quake and tsunami, but the exact cause of the accident is still unknown. How massive amounts of radioactive materials from the reactors were dispersed is also unclear. Today was also the day when hundreds of former residents announced that they were suing TEPCO, the plant operator, and the government for additional compensation."
Throwing a flag, bullshit on the field. You see Billy there is a teeny tiny itty bitty problem with SSD that none of the companies will talk about...they shit themselves WITHOUT WARNING.
Now can a HDD shit itself without warning? Yes but frankly since the coming of SMART its pretty damned rare, instead you get what I had last week, with SMART screaming on boot and a sector scan showing sectors failing. Final result? I was able to get more than 95% of the user's data off the failing drive, with the only thing being lost that which was actually on the failed sectors themselves.
Let us compare that to an SSD failure, shall we? Oh look, all your shit is gone, NO WARNING and no chance in hell of saving anything...wow, sucks to be you huh? I'm sure you'll talk about "cloud backups" or some such bullshit, yeah with the data caps? Hope daddy gave you a trust fund because that shit isn't gonna work on your average residential line in the USA, and in a perfect world people would have backups...and I would have a billion dollars and be woken up every morning by my Alyson Hannigan sexbot who blows me while I eat steak in bed...ain't no perfect world Billy.
So until the SSD OEMs can create an SSD that gives you an "Oh shit I'm gonna die soon" warning all it takes is one person they know getting an SSD shit itself scenario before it turns off everybody they know. BTW if you can show me where I can get a 1Tb SSD for $60 I'd be grateful, as my customers (which are Joe and Jane average BTW) are going through data like crap through a goose, those little 64Gb and 128gb SSDs ain't gonna cut it. Have you SEEN the size of files the average camcorder puts out today? Camera? Hell we now have 41MP fricking smartphones dude, where all that data gonna go? Sure as hell ain't going to the cloud, not with TW/Comcrap merging, by the time the corp buyouts are done you'll be lucky if you get 50Gb a month and then ONLY to the shitty websites, gotta pay those dividends and bonuses ya know.
Seriously guys like you REALLY ought to have to work at a mom&pop shop at least one month every 5 years so that the corporate bullshit don't rot your brain. Sure when you have $100K+ storage budgets throwing several tens of thousands on fatty SSDs with RAID ain't no thing but that is about as fucking far from reality in the consumers space, which just FYI curbstomps corp when it comes to market size just FYI, than it is from here to Mars.
I've heard that explanation before, about the Great Wall of China. Even if the walls were fantastically successful at pinning and trapping escaping invaders, they failed to keep Rome secure. The barbarians kept coming past the walls, and ultimately Rome fell to them. Punishment doesn't deter invaders who are facing the worse problems of starvation or pressure at their own backs from invaders still further out. Rome needed to treat with the barbarians and understand what was driving them, then if possible address their problems, not wall them away and try to ignore them. It might not have been possible for Rome to solve the barbarians' problems, but the walls were definitely no solution. Nor was it a solution to declare that the barbarians' problems were not Rome's problems. Problems do not ask for permission before crossing national boundaries.
Walls are one of the most seductive non-solutions available. People persist in thinking that fences make their property more secure, when they often do just the opposite as they provide excellent cover for burglars! They keep dogs in and little kids out, but that's about all. One of the most infamously ineffective walls was the Maginot Line. It is as General Patton said: "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."
If you are looking down people's shirts while talking to them then you are doing it wrong. Stop sneaking up behind people and peeking to talk to them.
My son keeps a respectable pace when speaking to someone, and generally talks to them to their face so no he does not look down women's shirts to talk to them. Eye contact is critical for normal conversation.
I believe you may think cleavage is boobs though, so are confused on more than just keeping a respectable distance or where to put your eyes when talking. Perhaps you are visiting a strip club daily, work at a brothel, or some such.
Nope, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. I'm going to extract something from the Wiki here for simplicity. Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier. There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.
From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.
If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men. The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".
I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."
Persons living in the US would be considered "people" and anyone can keep and bear arms under that amendment whether citizens or not. I think you need to read some history to see who owned guns and who was in the country fighting during the Revolutionary war and even the war of 1812, wars against Indians, war with Mexico, and helk even the Civil War. Here is a hint, it was not a couple rich white guys fighting themselves in these wars.
Your last statement also contains false information. Read the US Constitution again, because person is not mentioned in limiting the Federal Governments powers. States are given authority that the Federal Government does not have.
There are few places you can make digital purchases online, most places only rent you stuff with DRM that can be revoked any time. For example you can't buy ebooks from Amazon, only rent them. You can't buy games from XBOX Live, only a limited time license to use them.
You have to understand how most consumers "back up". They go on holiday and take some photos, shoot some video. Then they get back and save their stuff to disc for viewing and safe keeping, and that's it.
For that point of view an archival grade disc is attractive. You can watch the video or look at the photos on your TV any time with a player, and you don't have to worry about the disc degrading over time if you look after it. Make two copies if it matters that much.
That's the level of sophistication that most consumers operate on. They want a machine that puts their home videos on disc and a disc that lasts forever.
Tape isn't really a good option for consumers who are used to accessing media directly. You will find tape is a hard sell for most people. Also tapes are not actually that robust, they can stretch and warp or get mangled if you do a lot of seeking and stop/start.
Even for us nerds it could be a better option if the media is cheap and it is well supported going forwards. Modern BD drives can read the 32 year old Compact Disc format perfectly, tapes not so much.
"Except that NONE of these studies say polygraphs "don't work". Instead they say they are imperfect, and often used incorrectly or even maliciously. Which is a different thing."
I concede this. So I will amend my original comment. Here is my revised version:
"Polygraphs do not work well enough to be taken seriously as indicators of truth. The government knows this, so instead it uses them as instruments of intimidation."
I agree that is a more accurate statement. Satisfied?
Those were only a few sources. You can find a great many studies if you spend a few minutes with a search engine. The upshot is: there is very little evidence that it is actually the polygraph, and not the polygraph examiner, doing the "lie detection". And that means they are not very damned good at it.
You could also find a lot of information on it yourself with a couple of minutes on Google.