The satellite might be able to target a laser that accurately, but how about the return signal from the house? There's also the complications of putting that many laser emitters on a single satellite, powering them all, and targeting them accurately when you can't mechanically aim them. Here I'd jump over to the work being done on point-to-point laser data links for orbital use, and that's in it's early stages and nowhere near what Starlink would need.
No, it's physics that's the limiting factor. Look up the Shannon-Hartley theorem, more commonly known as Shannon's Law, which lets you calculate the maximum data rate possible over a channel with a given bandwidth (width in terms of frequency, not data rate (the two get conflated often)). The maximum rate decreases as signal strength decreases, and Starlink has a low signal strength due to the small size of the satellites.and the relative lack of focus of the uplink signal.
Noise is also an issue. The more noise, the lower the maximum data rate. Other subscribers count as noise, because their signals bleed over into the channel you're using. With few subscribers in an area you can separate channels by enough to minimize noise, but the more subscribers the more channels you need and the closer you have to pack them to fit them in your allowed frequency range. Which means more interference (noise) and lower data rates. When the noise reaches a certain point the signal gets lost in it and your data rate drops to zero. You can hear this happening in radio transmissions, distant signals are weak and staticy, and that static is simply the noise on the channel becoming audible as it's amplitude approaches that of the signal.
Most customers are going to stop having an acceptable experience anyway if Starlink keeps growing. The bandwidth is strictly limited by physics, if you keep adding subscribers the bandwidth per subscriber keeps dropping. Add enough subscribers and there's not enough bandwidth for each one to even initiate connections reliably. At that point nobody gets service at all, and being asked to pay a high subscription fee plus "demand" surcharges to not get service? Not a popular idea.
If (hopefully when) Democrats gain control of Congress they need to pass a law saying that:
a) Government officials have an affirmative duty to know and understand the laws that govern them and their duties.
b) No immunity may be granted unless the official had an objectively reasonable belief were both legal and within the scope of their duties. A failure of the above affirmative duty shall not provide grounds for this belief.
Sweeny saying it's "irresponsible" for Steam to flag games made with genAI is kind of like dairies way back when saying it's "irresponsible" to flag the chalk they add to milk to improve the look.
When anyone tries to make the argument that we check ages for liquor and "adult" entertainment, ask them whether the bar is required to keep a copy of your driver's license on file for the government to check later. Ditto the strip club. That's the big difference: with all the traditional age checks they check your ID but don't keep a record of it or you. These on-line "age verification" measures don't work that way. I doubt any of the people trying to make that argument would like it if the bars and liquor stores had to keep copies of their driver's license and hand it and a record of all of their purchases over to the cops any time they asked.
Publication in a scientific journal is supposed to indicate that the article has been peer-reviewed and meets minimum standards for such things as proper methodology, validity of data and so forth. At reputable journals this is the case, and when articles get through that turn out not to meet those standards they're routinely retracted.
If Kennedy had any legitimate questions about the basis for the retraction, he'd be citing experts in the field other than the study's author supporting the position that the methodology is correct and the conclusions are supported. He doesn't because he can't.
Pre-print servers have nothing to do with this, they exist to host papers that haven't been through the complete peer-review process so experts can read and review them and add informed opinions to the peer-review process.
The abuses definitely haven't ended, since the authority 702 gives continues for the period the courts have authorized it for regardless of the state of 702 itself. Once that authorization runs out, then we'll see what happens.
Abolish the idea that the ultimate and only priority of the company must be increasing shareholder value (usually meaning share prices). Restore the corporate charter as the prime source of management's priorities.
Enforce existing UCC terms including first-sale doctrine and the default terms for retail sales. Make it clear that contracts of adhesion are not permitted without a written agreement signed before the sale is completed.
The cameras are on city property. Terminate the contract and give Flock 30 days to remove them or make arrangements for their removal. If they're still up after that, the city removes them and gives Flock 30 days to pay for the removal and either pick them up or arrange for them to be picked up. After that, the city auctions them off to pay for the removal.
How did the lawyers ever approve a contract that didn't cover termination and removal in the first place?
But those issues were put before the court intentionally when Trump filed his suit. The court has inherent authority to decide whether there's an actual controversy or not and to question the parties to determine the answer.
It's important to get all this on the record because it changes the way the DOJ's "settlement" is viewed. Without any case to settle, the question becomes whether the DOJ has the authority to create such a fund on it's own, and the answer to that is a "No." that'll be hard for even Trump loyalists on the SC to argue with. Trump might have the authority to create such a fund on his own initiative, but that's a really bad look which is why he's doing it via a backdoor. Plus of course doing it himself gives Congress a way to kill it's funding which he doesn't want either.
Fraud is often said to be based on lies, and lying requires intentional untruth — which suggests one would have to know what’s true in the first place.
Which is why when dealing with legal definitions usually phrase it as "knowing it was untrue, or with reckless disregard for it's truth". Trump falls under the "reckless disregard" part. What he's saying is false, he's saying it deliberately, and whether he knows it's false or just doesn't care is a difference without a difference.
Such legalities won’t matter to con artists, grifters, and other such hack frauds. But they will matter to courts and lawyers.
Except that for the courts and lawyers to get involved means getting into court. Going through the very expensive discovery process (see "lawfare"). That's the reason a lot of people cave rather than fight copyright abuse: your average author can't afford the cost of winning.
The problem with the public domain is someone can take the work, make their own version of it, claim copyright on that and use it to block anyone else from using the public-domain version. See Disney's movies. CC-BY achieves the same result as the public domain without leaving that loophole open to exploit.
Also this needs to be limited to cases where there's no significant cost to keeping the work available. If there's a cost, like a minimum print run for a book, the copyright holder shouldn't have to choose between taking on that cost with no expectation of recovering it or losing their rights.
Real copyright reform is needed and it should be targeted directly rather than these little culturally downstream problems.
When dealing with digital works, where there's no issue of the cost of keeping it in publication when it's not selling well, perhaps go with automatic reversion. If it's unavailable for purchase for 10 years, rights automatically revert to the creator with no appeal allowed. If the creator leaves it unavailable for 10 years, it's automatically licensed under CC-BY.
Exactly. Scale matters. The 95% confidence level is right down at the bottom of what's useful for anything. In practice a 99% confidence level is the minimum for reliable predictions, and that only works where true positives are relatively common. The less common a true positive is, the higher the confidence level needed and it's not uncommon to need 99.998% confidence or higher when true positives are rare.
None of this matters to the cops or the politicians, though, and that's the problem. The false positives never cause them any negative consequences, so they don't care about them.
Oddly the cartels may have done just what's described. The normal process for manufacturing ephedrin, amphetamin and so on produces a racemic mixture (equal parts) of the dextro- and levo- chiral forms, but only the dextro- form is useful as a drug. Based on analysis of seized drug shipments, the cartels had developed a process that produced mostly the dextro- form, resulting in improved yield. Pharmaceutical chemists were rather annoyed because they'd been trying to do that for years with no success.
I think you want to double-check the law on that. The 1st Amendment might protect your right to publish those things, but it doesn't protect you from charges of practicing medicine without a license afterwards. Especially if someone followed your advice and was injured or killed because of it, and especially if you held yourself out as someone qualified to give medical advice.
I think one change to the venue rules would make a huge difference: change the question from "Is this a proper venue?" to "Is this the most appropriate venue?". Then in cases like this an obscure district could only be considered proper if the damage occurred only in that district and nowhere else. Otherwise it'd have to be either the AG's home district or the home district of the company's headquarters. Both sides could forum-shop to a degree by deciding where they'd locate themselves, but there's a lot of downsides to making that decision based solely on how favorable the court was.
The satellite might be able to target a laser that accurately, but how about the return signal from the house? There's also the complications of putting that many laser emitters on a single satellite, powering them all, and targeting them accurately when you can't mechanically aim them. Here I'd jump over to the work being done on point-to-point laser data links for orbital use, and that's in it's early stages and nowhere near what Starlink would need.
No, it's physics that's the limiting factor. Look up the Shannon-Hartley theorem, more commonly known as Shannon's Law, which lets you calculate the maximum data rate possible over a channel with a given bandwidth (width in terms of frequency, not data rate (the two get conflated often)). The maximum rate decreases as signal strength decreases, and Starlink has a low signal strength due to the small size of the satellites.and the relative lack of focus of the uplink signal. Noise is also an issue. The more noise, the lower the maximum data rate. Other subscribers count as noise, because their signals bleed over into the channel you're using. With few subscribers in an area you can separate channels by enough to minimize noise, but the more subscribers the more channels you need and the closer you have to pack them to fit them in your allowed frequency range. Which means more interference (noise) and lower data rates. When the noise reaches a certain point the signal gets lost in it and your data rate drops to zero. You can hear this happening in radio transmissions, distant signals are weak and staticy, and that static is simply the noise on the channel becoming audible as it's amplitude approaches that of the signal.
Most customers are going to stop having an acceptable experience anyway if Starlink keeps growing. The bandwidth is strictly limited by physics, if you keep adding subscribers the bandwidth per subscriber keeps dropping. Add enough subscribers and there's not enough bandwidth for each one to even initiate connections reliably. At that point nobody gets service at all, and being asked to pay a high subscription fee plus "demand" surcharges to not get service? Not a popular idea.
If (hopefully when) Democrats gain control of Congress they need to pass a law saying that: a) Government officials have an affirmative duty to know and understand the laws that govern them and their duties. b) No immunity may be granted unless the official had an objectively reasonable belief were both legal and within the scope of their duties. A failure of the above affirmative duty shall not provide grounds for this belief.
Sweeny saying it's "irresponsible" for Steam to flag games made with genAI is kind of like dairies way back when saying it's "irresponsible" to flag the chalk they add to milk to improve the look.
When anyone tries to make the argument that we check ages for liquor and "adult" entertainment, ask them whether the bar is required to keep a copy of your driver's license on file for the government to check later. Ditto the strip club. That's the big difference: with all the traditional age checks they check your ID but don't keep a record of it or you. These on-line "age verification" measures don't work that way. I doubt any of the people trying to make that argument would like it if the bars and liquor stores had to keep copies of their driver's license and hand it and a record of all of their purchases over to the cops any time they asked.
Fundamental rule of contracts and law: "In writing with signatures or it didn't happen."
Publication in a scientific journal is supposed to indicate that the article has been peer-reviewed and meets minimum standards for such things as proper methodology, validity of data and so forth. At reputable journals this is the case, and when articles get through that turn out not to meet those standards they're routinely retracted. If Kennedy had any legitimate questions about the basis for the retraction, he'd be citing experts in the field other than the study's author supporting the position that the methodology is correct and the conclusions are supported. He doesn't because he can't. Pre-print servers have nothing to do with this, they exist to host papers that haven't been through the complete peer-review process so experts can read and review them and add informed opinions to the peer-review process.
The abuses definitely haven't ended, since the authority 702 gives continues for the period the courts have authorized it for regardless of the state of 702 itself. Once that authorization runs out, then we'll see what happens.
The cameras are on city property. Terminate the contract and give Flock 30 days to remove them or make arrangements for their removal. If they're still up after that, the city removes them and gives Flock 30 days to pay for the removal and either pick them up or arrange for them to be picked up. After that, the city auctions them off to pay for the removal. How did the lawyers ever approve a contract that didn't cover termination and removal in the first place?
But those issues were put before the court intentionally when Trump filed his suit. The court has inherent authority to decide whether there's an actual controversy or not and to question the parties to determine the answer. It's important to get all this on the record because it changes the way the DOJ's "settlement" is viewed. Without any case to settle, the question becomes whether the DOJ has the authority to create such a fund on it's own, and the answer to that is a "No." that'll be hard for even Trump loyalists on the SC to argue with. Trump might have the authority to create such a fund on his own initiative, but that's a really bad look which is why he's doing it via a backdoor. Plus of course doing it himself gives Congress a way to kill it's funding which he doesn't want either.
The problem with the public domain is someone can take the work, make their own version of it, claim copyright on that and use it to block anyone else from using the public-domain version. See Disney's movies. CC-BY achieves the same result as the public domain without leaving that loophole open to exploit. Also this needs to be limited to cases where there's no significant cost to keeping the work available. If there's a cost, like a minimum print run for a book, the copyright holder shouldn't have to choose between taking on that cost with no expectation of recovering it or losing their rights.
Exactly. Scale matters. The 95% confidence level is right down at the bottom of what's useful for anything. In practice a 99% confidence level is the minimum for reliable predictions, and that only works where true positives are relatively common. The less common a true positive is, the higher the confidence level needed and it's not uncommon to need 99.998% confidence or higher when true positives are rare. None of this matters to the cops or the politicians, though, and that's the problem. The false positives never cause them any negative consequences, so they don't care about them.
Oddly the cartels may have done just what's described. The normal process for manufacturing ephedrin, amphetamin and so on produces a racemic mixture (equal parts) of the dextro- and levo- chiral forms, but only the dextro- form is useful as a drug. Based on analysis of seized drug shipments, the cartels had developed a process that produced mostly the dextro- form, resulting in improved yield. Pharmaceutical chemists were rather annoyed because they'd been trying to do that for years with no success.
I think you want to double-check the law on that. The 1st Amendment might protect your right to publish those things, but it doesn't protect you from charges of practicing medicine without a license afterwards. Especially if someone followed your advice and was injured or killed because of it, and especially if you held yourself out as someone qualified to give medical advice.
I think one change to the venue rules would make a huge difference: change the question from "Is this a proper venue?" to "Is this the most appropriate venue?". Then in cases like this an obscure district could only be considered proper if the damage occurred only in that district and nowhere else. Otherwise it'd have to be either the AG's home district or the home district of the company's headquarters. Both sides could forum-shop to a degree by deciding where they'd locate themselves, but there's a lot of downsides to making that decision based solely on how favorable the court was.