Why? I have 6 I7 PCs, about 20 Raspberries, 4 PineA64s, and about a dozen others, and I am retired. Depending on the problem I am working on, all of the I7s and the Pines can be working on it at the same time. The others are just there for data gathering, actuator control and development.
Keeping track of the weather world wide is important to the navy, and probably eats all the CPU cycles from several super computers. Many of which are clustered PCs. A lot of other disciplines eat computers by the shipping container load.
Trump appears to have no internal self other than lashing out at anyone who he perceives as being a threat or insulting. Putting together various Trumpisms, it would appear that he sees the presidency as the ultimate means to destroy his enemies. Other than that, there is nothing to the man.
OTOH, Hillary is quite the miscreant. Biliary seem to have enriched themselves rather incredibly. Another wretch who has slithered her way around immoral and criminal acts. Her disdain for the application of the law to her behavior is an exemplar of sociopaths.
I will vote for Hillary, not because I have any appreciation for the woman, but rather because she obviously prepares her ploys in advance, and they are thought out. Trump acts and then reacts. No apparent thought involved. No perception of consequences, just the exercise of power by making others suffer.
I wish that there was someone worthy of being president. It is difficult to believe that in a nation of some 315 million that these are the best available. Makes me nauseous.
What is a sensor? That usage of that terminology is field dependent. It is also technology dependent. A cell spoofer accepts data, manipulates it, decides if it is relevant, and hopefully throws away the chaff.
Would you call a DS18B20 a sensor? Many years ago I would have called it a microcontroller. These days I call it a sensor. It accepts analog data, converts it to digital, possibly it to ASCII, decides if it has a valid reading, sends back an error message if not, and otherwise returns values, allows the user to specify resolution and more.
Human skin is among other things a multitude of sensors connected to a very complex computer. It can decide whether the impulse is pain or pleasure, if so, which sub variety. Even the intent of a stroking (good, bad) is in part first interpreted at the sensor level.
But I did make a mistake. I was really referring to the device that an agent roamed the halls with trying to pinpoint the location of the signal by sensing its strength.
I understand the point of claiming the NDA is an umbrella. What I don't understand is how they can withstand a judges order, or even a defense attorney's subpoena. I do know that several cases were dropped by the Department of (In)justice rather than cough up such documentation. But some have been adjudicated guilty as the fruit of this poisonous tree.
Unbreakable algorithms have been know for many years. With the advent of the PC one time pads have been trivial to create. A simple XOR, or possibly a more complex mutation, based on two numbers is unbreakable.
One specifying a particular CD, the other the starting bit. This trivializes the bane of prePC one time pads -- the complexity of passing on the pad definition.
Terrorists do lots of things. Generally wear shoes, eat, breath and possibly use encryption. Are we willing to ban shoes, food, and air to Americans because terrorist may use those things.
Terrorists win by inducing the leaders to exert more and more restrictions on the citizenry, and creating irrational fears in the population. I have reason to be more afraid of police and other LEOs than I do of terrorists. Police will kill far more people in the US this year than terrorists will. Indeed, including the deaths from 2001, police have killed more people, many innocents, in five years than terrorists have killed in the last 15.
IANAL, but can someone explain why an NDA is of greater legal power than the right of the defense to question the use of a device that has never gone through Daubert.
Or why, according to SCOTUS, a thermal imaging device can not be used without a warrant, but a cell site simulator can? After all they are both sensors for exactly the same electromagnet waves, just at different frequencies/energies? Might be different if the suspect was out in public, but he was in his home, while the LEO was in effect trespassing.
Or why judges have developed such an incredible desire to destroy the Fourth Amendment in particular when we have crime rates that are historically very low. And the number of LEOs has skyrocketed.
The FBI laboratories have always been held up as a shining example of outstanding forensic work. Having spent my career in the sciences, I am ashamed of what these mendacious reprobates do in the pursuit of convictions. Time after time their methods and "invented" tests could not survive a Daubert challenge were it not for the FBIs ability to force publication in journals.
Their perjuries at trial are pathological, and performed even when there was no reason to add to the mountain of evidence. The FBI claimed that its laboratories could discriminate between fertilizer lots at the trial of McVeigh. And that analysis of the residuals found at the scene tied to the lot that was purchased. Yet the test that was used could not distinguish between urine and fertilizer, nevermind lots of fertilizer.
Other tests have been "invented" and used at trial, when at least one of then could have been refuted by a high school algebra student a month or two into the course.
It varies from state to state. There is a difference between detention and arrest. Detention is only for a short period, and the individual can not be significantly moved. Once the police move an individual to say a police station, a short period has passed - probably 90 minutes in most cases, then the detention turns into an arrest.
In some states you can be arrested and held on a policeman's say so for 24 or 72 hours without charges being filed. But the rights of the accused vary between detention and arrest.
The purpose here is not so much to get catch this particular drug dealer, but rather a part of the continual expansion of the police state. Between LEOs who believe that there actions have no boundaries, and complicit judges who are more interested in the destruction of the Constitution than dispensing justice, the nations rulers will be called "the blue shirts."
Then there was also the false arrest of the guy who posted the storekeepers personal video to the net, without which this would have gone down just like the cops wanted it to. So the retaliated in order to keep their honor, and the fear of the community intact.
I know what SCOTUS said about the cops not being held to the legal standard that the citizenry is. But why bother to train cops if they can't be held to a standard? Just give them an M2, and have them vacuum up the streets.
The so called evidence was not at the crime scene, but at least 20' away. Do the police have the right to detain anyone at any distance from a crime?
According to SCOTUS, after being detained for 90 minutes, the detention becomes an arrest. There was no basis for this arrest, nor questioning him without the presence of a lawyer. The store owner had no obligation to talk to the police whatsoever. His arrest was therefore quite illegal.
Again, according to SCOTUS, it is only under the rarest of circumstances that police have the right to remand an involved person's property, in particular a picture or video. And we know that any video that the police don't like is probably going to disapear.
There are more ways for LEOs to invent new crimes, or simply commit old ones, than there are ways for the citizenry to take a decade long trip to SCOTUS to attempt to obtain relief. Especially when there is little chance of any LEOs being held responsible for even the most egregious of acts of violence, sexual attack, murder. theft, kidnapping and more.
The racial divide is fostered by the powers that be because it ignores that more whites, though a lower percentage, are killed by cops. But that propaganda works out well for those who would keep us divided by race, and hence less a threat to their using human targets for shooting and beating practice.
Exoneration in court means nothing when a cop is on trial. Jurors just see what the prosecution tells them to see most of the time. Even where video has totally demonstrated that the cop was in the wrong, the cops have been acquitted. Too many people just do not want to believe that the cop in their neighborhood is a killer.