Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."
Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio: Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
etc
The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.
The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability;.. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
If you're here, then you should know that \\shindex\search has a fully indexed codebase for all branches.
As for getting acquainted with the code - find places that need improvement, learn them, learn how they interact with their immediate dependencies and neighbors, continue up and out. 30-40k lines is tiny in the grand scheme of code.
"Debugging in the one area where Visual Studio is very good, but well-written tests with good test coverage, and decent logging/error reporting should remove most of the need for debugging."
That sounds like a case of "let's not bother debugging, we'll throw some more printf in there and see where it goes wrong." Debugging is much more powerful than simple test coverage and incorrect output - it allows you to do things like verify your error handling code paths work as expected, check why a program that works on one system but not another is failing (without having to recompile and deploy new binaries), and other stuff. Logging/error reporting is a poor substitute for proper debugging, especially in any non-trivial program.
Exactly. At the time of launch, Apple was charging $1 PER PORT for firewire licensing. A few months later they reduced that to $.25 per system, but by then the damage had been done.
I know about copyright law, and the wording of that law is not what I am addressing here. However, it seems you don't know what "punitive damages" are. Statutory penalties designed to discourage an action through monetary compensation are punitive. They mean to punish, and by punishment, set an example or reform.
That was not what I was addressing. Instead, I was saying that he has a good argument that the application of that particular law in this case is unconstitutional, because the damages are far out of line with even the "worst case" potential harm (in the form of financial loss) to the RIAA. The legislative intent of that law is clearly to discourage those who profit from knowingly duplicating a copyrighted work and punish those who have done so by returning the profits + additional compensation (meant to be in line with damages caused, decided by judge). I was simply pointing out that, even if the RIAA earned 100% of the comparable sale of 100% of the total POSSIBLE copies of the song made via file sharing, the user would have had to been perfectly infringing for 6+months to equal that level of monetary damage. It's ridiculous to argue that the punishment is anywhere near in line with the actual tort committed.
The damages claimed seem unreasonably high no matter how I see it spun.
Most US people have, at most, 1/4 megabyte/second upload on their home connections (2 megabits/second up). In my experience, compressed songs average approximately 6 megabytes for so-so quality, 8 megabytes for good quality.
Assuming the defendant had their computer sharing 24/7 at absolute maximum speed, every day they would be capable of sharing 3,600 songs (and not use their internet connection for any other purpose). At $1/song, and punitive damages of $675,000, the defendant would have to be uploading for 187.5 days straight at maximum utilization. That's over half a year of not using the computer, no internet outages, no ISP throttling due to uploading, et cetera. That also assumes that there were that many downloads from this single user over such a time.
More seriously: make sure you're okay with yourself if you do decide to appear on certain guitar in the shower websites. You never know which xkcd reading coworkers will say "hey, didn't you appear on..." and be correct.
No. In fact, high dpi mode kicks in automatically for monitors, and can be scaled as needed. Most people, however, only know to "make resolution smaller for a bigger picture."
In win7 (and possibly vista, though it may be through a different path), just press windows key, type "small text" and open the "Make text and other items larger or smaller". Choose a size (100, 125, 150%). In vista you reboot, in win7 you log out and back in. Ta da! scaled up everything at native resolution.
Slashdot Mirror
And is often the best way to get the job done.
Why are you looking at me like that?
Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."
Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio:
Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
etc
The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.
Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm
The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
Not most states, only 24 have stop & identify statutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes
Because iPad doesn't sound like a female sanitary product?
They're only worth 1 point, why bother?
There are 4
If you're here, then you should know that \\shindex\search has a fully indexed codebase for all branches.
As for getting acquainted with the code - find places that need improvement, learn them, learn how they interact with their immediate dependencies and neighbors, continue up and out. 30-40k lines is tiny in the grand scheme of code.
It was quite active during the engineering of Win7. Post-RTM perhaps it should be called the Windows7SE (sustained engineering) blog.
It's an engineering blog, not a general consumer blog. Purportedly, you should be smart enough to understand it if you're seeking it out to read.
"Debugging in the one area where Visual Studio is very good, but well-written tests with good test coverage, and decent logging/error reporting should remove most of the need for debugging."
That sounds like a case of "let's not bother debugging, we'll throw some more printf in there and see where it goes wrong." Debugging is much more powerful than simple test coverage and incorrect output - it allows you to do things like verify your error handling code paths work as expected, check why a program that works on one system but not another is failing (without having to recompile and deploy new binaries), and other stuff. Logging/error reporting is a poor substitute for proper debugging, especially in any non-trivial program.
They'd know it was a lie. He doesn't work here any more...
Exactly. At the time of launch, Apple was charging $1 PER PORT for firewire licensing. A few months later they reduced that to $.25 per system, but by then the damage had been done.
What about with a guitar in the shower? I still got hired...
Raffles, however, are not. Make it a prize instead of cash.
I know about copyright law, and the wording of that law is not what I am addressing here. However, it seems you don't know what "punitive damages" are. Statutory penalties designed to discourage an action through monetary compensation are punitive. They mean to punish, and by punishment, set an example or reform.
That was not what I was addressing. Instead, I was saying that he has a good argument that the application of that particular law in this case is unconstitutional, because the damages are far out of line with even the "worst case" potential harm (in the form of financial loss) to the RIAA. The legislative intent of that law is clearly to discourage those who profit from knowingly duplicating a copyrighted work and punish those who have done so by returning the profits + additional compensation (meant to be in line with damages caused, decided by judge). I was simply pointing out that, even if the RIAA earned 100% of the comparable sale of 100% of the total POSSIBLE copies of the song made via file sharing, the user would have had to been perfectly infringing for 6+months to equal that level of monetary damage. It's ridiculous to argue that the punishment is anywhere near in line with the actual tort committed.
The damages claimed seem unreasonably high no matter how I see it spun.
Most US people have, at most, 1/4 megabyte/second upload on their home connections (2 megabits/second up). In my experience, compressed songs average approximately 6 megabytes for so-so quality, 8 megabytes for good quality.
Assuming the defendant had their computer sharing 24/7 at absolute maximum speed, every day they would be capable of sharing 3,600 songs (and not use their internet connection for any other purpose). At $1/song, and punitive damages of $675,000, the defendant would have to be uploading for 187.5 days straight at maximum utilization. That's over half a year of not using the computer, no internet outages, no ISP throttling due to uploading, et cetera. That also assumes that there were that many downloads from this single user over such a time.
In all jurisdictions, assault is *never* physical. The moment something becomes physical it is "battery."
Assault is the threat of committing harm. Battery is the carrying out of that threat.
More seriously: make sure you're okay with yourself if you do decide to appear on certain guitar in the shower websites. You never know which xkcd reading coworkers will say "hey, didn't you appear on..." and be correct.
I'm sure you're just trolling, because this issue was recently decided in Heller.
I'm just a poor boy nobody loves me
So it's less used, but after a few iterations, superior in every way to the predominant market holder? :)
No. In fact, high dpi mode kicks in automatically for monitors, and can be scaled as needed. Most people, however, only know to "make resolution smaller for a bigger picture."
In win7 (and possibly vista, though it may be through a different path), just press windows key, type "small text" and open the "Make text and other items larger or smaller". Choose a size (100, 125, 150%). In vista you reboot, in win7 you log out and back in. Ta da! scaled up everything at native resolution.
It's twitter, but he got so tired of being -1 that he's stopped bothering logging in to any of his sockpuppets. It's... truly amazing.
It must be very difficult if you cannot click the link under "rules"
#
Programs that attempt to cheat will be disqualified
1.
Bots must disable the perfect information flag in tournaments 1,2 and 4