15155

5 ms·

1.
by 15155 4d ago
Yes, a motivated actor can move a naive receiver somewhere different than where it thinks it is by some small amount - ideally outside of the CEP of whatever weapons system is targeting, but that's much different than precisely control
2.
by 15155 5d ago
> resistance training Yes, but what about sedentary individuals?
3.
by 15155 5d ago
The question is: does it increase muscle nuclei or just water volume?
4.
by 15155 5d ago
Iraq saw massive desertion amongst all non-mercenary ranks during Desert Storm and OIF.
5.
by 15155 5d ago
Automated kill chains and domestic surveillance are happening regardless of what one corporation wants. These technologies will never be inaccessible to the government or government contractors who already have zero issues navigating red ta
6.
by 15155 5d ago
Jamming them is easy, replaying them so as to trick unacquainted receivers is easy, but "faking" a network of signals so as to precisely control present a specific location is not easy or feasible. "Overpowering" (as to
7.
by 15155 5d ago
A valid appeal to authority is normally accompanied by a specific expert's name or working group rather than some abstract "scientists." Also, these appeals to authority normally cite an expert in a field that has an existenc
8.
by 15155 6d ago
This is known as an "appeal to authority." "Scientists" and "their lives" are doing a lot of work here.
9.
by 15155 7d ago
I remember it being called "Cedarpunk" on account of its rendering issues.
10.
by 15155 7d ago
I'm well aware of these cases (and have commented about the specific statute in question in the past here.) The originally-purported analogy of a "public Flock" that you can "actually use" is completely different th
11.
by 15155 7d ago
> it's not necessarily legal to use information to dox if that can be construed as harassment. This is an incorrect understanding of the issue, these individuals are protected using a unique and unusual statute. In a mass broadcast
12.
by 15155 7d ago
Enough private businesses abut major thoroughfares that this is a non-issue.
13.
by 15155 9d ago
Remove the AC coupling capacitor connecting the antenna to the transceiver.
14.
by 15155 9d ago
What's even crazier is that those brokers typically won't sell to members of the general public; there exists basically no reasonable ability to obtain most case law in most states.
15.
by 15155 10d ago
It's not speculation, it's simple fact. Both Lexis and Westlaw already have LLM integration that smokes the frontier models in this regard. The best legal professionals, just like the best software engineers, have wholly embraced
16.
by 15155 10d ago
You presume opposing counsel isn't using GPT-6 and other, legal-specific models trained on data ChatGPT will never gain access to. Hint: they are. Regardless of advice quality, legal proceedings aren't free-to-play, and the advers
17.
by 15155 12d ago
> In theory this would allow for devices to use the full bandwidth of 3.0 + the full bandwidth of 2.0, but as far as I know no device does that. Not as a single device (no XHCI controllers allow this), but yes if you presented two device
18.
by 15155 14d ago
This took months to investigate and was only detectable because the defendant did it along the same route each day. Random, sporadic jamming is essentially not prosecutable.
19.
by 15155 14d ago
> How is additional paperwork supposed to help? Additional paperwork reduces the likelihood (in actual, observable practice) that unintentional interferers exist to impact your critical-to-life application. Furthermore, by moving your cr
20.
by 15155 14d ago
> Not sure what makes an antenna/sensor ITAR restricted, Intentionally-designed anti-jam features (active-nulling and electronically-steerable receivers made for this purpose) marketed towards GNSS applications are EAR items (and ar
21.
by 15155 14d ago
> These antennas have a very good idea of where the signal is coming from, due to delay measurements "These antennas" is doing an impossibly large amount of work. What you are describing here is a delay-calibrated coherent rece
22.
by 15155 14d ago
> Instead those examples you gave just end up being an _excuse_ How is an insurance company provision an excuse? Do you propose self-insurance? If so, would that be advisable from a fiduciary responsibility standpoint for most small comp
23.
by 15155 15d ago
So as a business owner, I'm not allowed to know where my $100,000 asset is? My insurance carrier requires me to track the vehicle as a condition of coverage, they also require a dashcam be operating at all times.
24.
by 15155 16d ago
Good luck with your theories. Think twice before punching people, tough guy.
25.
by 15155 16d ago
I have no opinion one way or the other on restrictions on government use - whether they be judicial or legislative. I only care that the rights of private individuals and companies be preserved. Carpenter didn't stop these companies fr
26.
by 15155 16d ago
There are two separate issues here: the government itself being restricted, and the right of the people to collect and disseminate information (in this case, information that is quite arguably in the public interest.) The government can cer
27.
by 15155 16d ago
This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting
28.
by 15155 16d ago
> Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Maybe in liberal California (where your 80 year old grandmother has a duty to retreat),
29.
by 15155 17d ago
> making it illegal to possess DIY guns is not enough. This would be an unconstitutional law, per Bruen.
30.
by 15155 18d ago
> They have a toy, they’re increasingly abusing it, then trying to dodge from it being taken away. This isn't uncommon - this is how NY deals with any compelling case involving their infringing gun control statutes. If a defendant h

More ›