While I agree that the kerfuffle over immigration is designed to distract us, it seems to me that it is most likely designed to distract us from the revelations contained in the DOJ Inspector General's report that the FBI was actively involved using its powers to promote one candidate in the 2016 Presidential election and attempting to block the other, going so far as to try to undermine the legitimacy of the winner of the election.
I strongly dislike Donald Trump, but feared that Hillary would harness the power of the Federal government to suppress opposition. The IG report released last week suggests that a Hillary victory would have been worse than I feared.
While I do not like the fact that you can only load apps onto an iphone from the app store, I do not support penalizing Apple for doing this. On the other hand, whether the app store legally qualifies as a monopoly depends on how the law is written.
And as another commenter has noted, a lower court has already ruled against Apple. If the Supreme Court did not take the case, the ruling that Apple IS a monopoly would stand. So, you should support the Supreme Court taking the case.
You did indeed hit on the great part about body cams for police officers. They protect both the police and non-police from false accusations. While almost all of the body cam footage has resulted in showing that police were falsely accused, I suspect that the presence of body cams have kept the police from making false accusations in some situations.
How do you know that they were kiddie porn websites? Oh right, people from the same organization as those that told you that having a way to delete cookies was evidence of trying to cover his tracks. In other words, you believed people who lied, or were badly mistaken about, something you had knowledge of on a subject you did not have knowledge of. In a case like you described I believe that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
NO, it is attempted murder, even if the police respond in a reasoned and appropriate manner because the person who called the police has told them that there is a situation where their lives of innocent people are in danger and where the police who respond will be in danger. No matter how well the police respond, this type of report always increases the possibility of them using deadly force inappropriately...and that is the reason the caller made the call.
No, the dog merely was a pretext for a warrant less search. The "accuser" is the evidence found by what would have been an unconstitutional search of the dog was not present.
I did not find the study the GPP referred to, but I have seen several studies indicating that drug and explosive sniffing dogs tend to signal where the handler thinks there is something to be found. Here is a link to an article about one such study: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/w... And I believe that this is the paper on the study referenced in that article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
If this technique is used solely to locate hidden devices which are known to exist, and not as an excuse to search for hidden devices which are suspected to exist, I would find it acceptable. The problem is that I am quite confident that if the handler suspects that the person has a hidden External Storage Device, the dog will signal that the person does have one, giving the handler and excuse to conduct a warrant less search of the person and/or their belongings...and if the handler finds such a device it will be admissible even if it is not in the location the dog signaled.
We will soon be able to know if this was Google's intention because, if it is, they will not send their lawyers to defend their patent submission. However, the opposite appears to be the case: Google appears to be fighting the European finding that their patent is invalid.
Further, if Google was doing as you suggest I would think they would take a better PR stance...something along the lines of, "We believe that Duda's algorithm was non-patentable, but we have developed an extension to that which is patentable. However, we will be perfectly content if the USPTO or courts rule that we are mistaken."
The government spends its money on things which encourage people to give the government more power. IF you think that Fossil Fuel companies spend a larger share of their revenue on arguing against AGW than the share of its budget the U.S. government spends arguing that AGW requires more government regulation you have no concept of how businesses operate.
So, basically the Fossil Fuel companies are smaller than the U.S. deficit. I think that makes it pretty clear that the money in climate change is in getting grants from the government.
Back when Intel was trying to sell Itanium as the 64 bit successor to the x86 instruction set, AMD came out with what is now known as x86-64. It was worlds better than Itanium and Intel was forced to license it from AMD in order to stay in business (Of course, AMD had no choice but to offer Intel such a license on reasonable terms because it was built on the x86 architecture which AMD licensed from Intel).
That would not work because "Microsoft" is trademarked. HOWEVER, naming it something like "Marvelous Software Virtual File System" generally referred to as MS VFS would do the trick.
All of those socialist countries which are "doing better than the USA" have smaller, relatively homogeneous populations. Additionally, before Obamacare (I have not seen the numbers recently), the five year prognosis for someone diagnosed with a life threatening illness was significantly better than in any of them.
Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?
However, the GP post was not referring to the U.S. number being deflated. They were referring to the probability that China's number was significantly inflated.
I am pretty sure that if storage space became an issue they would turn the diamonds they have into something they could sell for the industrial diamond market.
I suspect that you do not even know what the Monroe Doctrine is,, because I doubt you think that Latin America would be better off if the U.S. had allowed European countries to do the things you claim the U.S. has done in Latin America (which it more or less has).
I would like to point out that the current U.S. government is striving to get rid of NAFTA, while the current Mexican government is fighting to keep it.
I had never heard of Bird scooters before today and it was not until I got to the 2nd paragraph that I realized this was about California navel peering, not something that might be interesting going on in Italy. The reason I thought it might be interesting was because I figured that for something from Italy to make Slashdot it would have to be interesting.
I am aware of the existence of Venice, CA., but that is not what I think of first when I read "Venice".
I am not going to bother debating someone who has drunk that much of the Democratic Part koolaid, but I will point out that it is not an "anti-immigration" platform. It is an anti-illegal immigration policy.
I will also point out that illegal immigration harms those whom the Democratic Party claims to work on behalf of. Illegal immigration harms those at the bottom of the economic pile, those who are better off benefit from illegal immigration (which explains why Democrats so vociferously fight for illegal immigration).
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that the kerfuffle over immigration is designed to distract us, it seems to me that it is most likely designed to distract us from the revelations contained in the DOJ Inspector General's report that the FBI was actively involved using its powers to promote one candidate in the 2016 Presidential election and attempting to block the other, going so far as to try to undermine the legitimacy of the winner of the election.
I strongly dislike Donald Trump, but feared that Hillary would harness the power of the Federal government to suppress opposition. The IG report released last week suggests that a Hillary victory would have been worse than I feared.
While I do not like the fact that you can only load apps onto an iphone from the app store, I do not support penalizing Apple for doing this. On the other hand, whether the app store legally qualifies as a monopoly depends on how the law is written.
And as another commenter has noted, a lower court has already ruled against Apple. If the Supreme Court did not take the case, the ruling that Apple IS a monopoly would stand. So, you should support the Supreme Court taking the case.
You did indeed hit on the great part about body cams for police officers. They protect both the police and non-police from false accusations. While almost all of the body cam footage has resulted in showing that police were falsely accused, I suspect that the presence of body cams have kept the police from making false accusations in some situations.
How do you know that they were kiddie porn websites? Oh right, people from the same organization as those that told you that having a way to delete cookies was evidence of trying to cover his tracks. In other words, you believed people who lied, or were badly mistaken about, something you had knowledge of on a subject you did not have knowledge of. In a case like you described I believe that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
NO, it is attempted murder, even if the police respond in a reasoned and appropriate manner because the person who called the police has told them that there is a situation where their lives of innocent people are in danger and where the police who respond will be in danger. No matter how well the police respond, this type of report always increases the possibility of them using deadly force inappropriately...and that is the reason the caller made the call.
No, the dog merely was a pretext for a warrant less search. The "accuser" is the evidence found by what would have been an unconstitutional search of the dog was not present.
I did not find the study the GPP referred to, but I have seen several studies indicating that drug and explosive sniffing dogs tend to signal where the handler thinks there is something to be found. Here is a link to an article about one such study: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/w...
And I believe that this is the paper on the study referenced in that article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
If this technique is used solely to locate hidden devices which are known to exist, and not as an excuse to search for hidden devices which are suspected to exist, I would find it acceptable. The problem is that I am quite confident that if the handler suspects that the person has a hidden External Storage Device, the dog will signal that the person does have one, giving the handler and excuse to conduct a warrant less search of the person and/or their belongings...and if the handler finds such a device it will be admissible even if it is not in the location the dog signaled.
We will soon be able to know if this was Google's intention because, if it is, they will not send their lawyers to defend their patent submission. However, the opposite appears to be the case: Google appears to be fighting the European finding that their patent is invalid.
Further, if Google was doing as you suggest I would think they would take a better PR stance...something along the lines of, "We believe that Duda's algorithm was non-patentable, but we have developed an extension to that which is patentable. However, we will be perfectly content if the USPTO or courts rule that we are mistaken."
So, you think that because I think that people arrange their activities according to their self-interest that I think there are conspiracies?
The government spends its money on things which encourage people to give the government more power. IF you think that Fossil Fuel companies spend a larger share of their revenue on arguing against AGW than the share of its budget the U.S. government spends arguing that AGW requires more government regulation you have no concept of how businesses operate.
So, basically the Fossil Fuel companies are smaller than the U.S. deficit. I think that makes it pretty clear that the money in climate change is in getting grants from the government.
Copyright is supposed to be for a LIMITED time. As understood by the Framers of the Constitution, over 100 years is not limited.
This is not a blow to the critics. It is a blow to democracy in Brazil.
Primarily because legacy x86 software needed to be run in an emulator in order to run on it.
Has everyone forgotten AMD64?
Back when Intel was trying to sell Itanium as the 64 bit successor to the x86 instruction set, AMD came out with what is now known as x86-64. It was worlds better than Itanium and Intel was forced to license it from AMD in order to stay in business (Of course, AMD had no choice but to offer Intel such a license on reasonable terms because it was built on the x86 architecture which AMD licensed from Intel).
That would not work because "Microsoft" is trademarked. HOWEVER, naming it something like "Marvelous Software Virtual File System" generally referred to as MS VFS would do the trick.
All of those socialist countries which are "doing better than the USA" have smaller, relatively homogeneous populations. Additionally, before Obamacare (I have not seen the numbers recently), the five year prognosis for someone diagnosed with a life threatening illness was significantly better than in any of them.
So, you are saying that five years is too short a time frame for Obamacare to have changed the trajectory of life expectancy in the U.S.?
If that is the case, what caused the trajectory of increasing life expectancy to reverse course?
Yes, isn't it interesting that Obamacare resulted in healthy life expectancy in the U.S. going down?
However, the GP post was not referring to the U.S. number being deflated. They were referring to the probability that China's number was significantly inflated.
I am pretty sure that if storage space became an issue they would turn the diamonds they have into something they could sell for the industrial diamond market.
I suspect that you do not even know what the Monroe Doctrine is,, because I doubt you think that Latin America would be better off if the U.S. had allowed European countries to do the things you claim the U.S. has done in Latin America (which it more or less has).
I would like to point out that the current U.S. government is striving to get rid of NAFTA, while the current Mexican government is fighting to keep it.
Well, that was another reason it would have been interesting if this was referring to Venice, Italy
I had never heard of Bird scooters before today and it was not until I got to the 2nd paragraph that I realized this was about California navel peering, not something that might be interesting going on in Italy. The reason I thought it might be interesting was because I figured that for something from Italy to make Slashdot it would have to be interesting.
I am aware of the existence of Venice, CA., but that is not what I think of first when I read "Venice".
He could say it, but it only means anything if Congress passes it into law.
I am not going to bother debating someone who has drunk that much of the Democratic Part koolaid, but I will point out that it is not an "anti-immigration" platform. It is an anti-illegal immigration policy.
I will also point out that illegal immigration harms those whom the Democratic Party claims to work on behalf of. Illegal immigration harms those at the bottom of the economic pile, those who are better off benefit from illegal immigration (which explains why Democrats so vociferously fight for illegal immigration).