The overall responses to the entire article are ludicrous at best. The intent is not to bring police dogs to your local post office or airport to sniff out memory sticks. The intent is that police can find hidden memory when implementing a search warrant. The search warrant will still require probable cause. A friend of mine was conducting a search of a house and it turned out that there was a NAS in the attic. It would have been found quicker had a memory dog been available.
We have two? I only see one from here...
In name we have two. In reality we have factions of one.
So the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 doesn't count as legislation?
Actually, they have. It falls under other rules for model aircraft. FAA limits model aircraft to a height of 500 feet and, if within 5 miles of an airport, the airport must be notified. Many commercial fireworks go as high as a 1000 feet. My guess is that the copter flew to at least 1100 feet for some of the shots.
Yes, I meant 18,000.
1800 fps is at 192x96 resolution according to http://edgertronic.com/camera/....
According to this article, there are roughly twice as many gay men than there are lesbians. Regardless, the argument of homosexuals skewing the results is nearly baseless. The number of homosexuals in the US is about 3.4% so that for every 100 people, less than four would be homosexual. Granted San Francisco has a higher homosexual population per capita, but I am not sure that there are more homosexuals applying for jobs with Amazon.
So anecdotal then. Neither Google or a peer reviewed publication shows that Google News presents a purely unbiased look that ignores my preference for articles. The articles that are presented to me again focus on topics that Google believes I am interested in. The closest you get to unbiased selection is from the spotlight and editor's picks -- and those are necessarily biased, particularly the editor's picks.
Can you offer proof or is it anecdotal?
Search engines are already implicitly biased based on their search and display algorithms. Google provides results on your past search history attempting to identify those items that you're more likely to read. If you're liberal, you are more likely to get results that include MSN, CNN, etc. Conservatives are more likely to get Fox, etc. These results are already helping to polarize us politically because more inclined to read things we agree with.
What about for those students who won't read?
With the exception of an app used to allow tethering on my iPhone ($15), I have a few 99 apps. I think I once bought a $5 game.
Gotcha. I see what you were saying. I read it as you thought I was astroturfing or something else. I guess reading comments (I know, I know, don't read the comments) on sites makes me assume that everyone's on the attack.
Not at all. This is a legitimate line of traffic between Wikipedia and me. I probably should have deleted the ad link, but it didn't cross my mind at the time. Unfortunately, I can not edit my entry so there it is... Out of curiosity, how could this be used to get someone to do my end-of-semester paper? For grins, I teach at a college; I am not a student there.