This is an industrial mower. Push mowers have been obsolete in such a role for decades, at least. You might as well lament the disappearance of the horse-drawn plow.
Sounds like it was engineered just right. Bean-counters often use "over-engineered" when something is built to withstand the rare but serious malfunctions. Instead, they'd rather things be built to be "good enough" to run fine most of the time. Problem is, a minor issue can become a critical one if you don't build your devices to withstand the rare but serious issues.
For example, a failover server setup is 100% overbuilt...until the primary fails.
But it wasn't engineered this way to secure it against a partial meltdown. It was above average for reactor containment vessels actually in use at that time, and the average containment vessel would have failed. The only reason it was able to withstand it was that it happened to be on the final approach path of a former airforce base, and had originally been engineered to withstand a bomber crashing into it.
In the photos in question, two girls, Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly, are seen lying side by side in their bras. One of them is talking on a phone, while the other makes a peace sign. In the second picture, the third girl, who is not named in the lawsuit, is seen emerging from the shower, with a towel wrapped around her, below her breasts.
"The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania's crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment," the lawsuit said.
The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.
Lots of people are assholes. Many sex offenders are assholes. Being an asshole should not be sufficient to cause us to throw away our principles to crucify them. In this case, by all means, charge them with any applicable crimes. However, I, and many others, object to sex offender registries because they make it difficult or impossible for individuals to successfully re-enter society, by barring individuals from living in many areas, and for effectively punishing them beyond the time they serve in prison. So no, sex offender registries should not exist, and nobody should be put on them.
I also challenge you to put up the statute and the state where you say this pseudo-law of yours applies. I've read my state's, and there is nothing like this. There is a blocking the intersection, but it's based on expectation and concept, not going through a green light with traffic at the time moving in an orderly and proper fashion.
I'm not a lawyer, and in particular not your lawyer, so I'm not going to verify that this is actual law. The Georgia 2009 Drivers Manual, however, states, on page 39, "At intersections with traffic control lights, wait until the intersection is clear of traffic or approaching traffic before entering. Do not proceed "just because" you have the green light."
Those landings were managed by well-trained professional pilots. Given how poorly many people respond in accidents, and how little is required to bring a car to a stop (compared to an airplane), we might actually be better off designing cars to halt with all safe speed and to activate hazard lights whenever something goes wrong with the traffic around them, and until the driver manually overrides this system to confirm that the situation is safe.
You seem to be objecting to such automation proposals on the basis that they would decrease the skill of the drivers. (Alternatively, your objection may stem from a fear that the autopilot would fail in such disasters, in which case I remind you that the grand-parents proposal was not to allow the driver to sleep through their trip---merely to drive the vehicle on highways, where traffic is predictable---as is done for much of the duration of the flight of a modern airliner). I don't think this is an issue in accidents, however, as they will most often occur so rapidly that the driver has little chance to respond in an intelligent way. The drivers skill is more likely to be exercised by city driving, anyway, which was not within the scope of the proposed autopilot.
I think a highway autopilot for cars would also be supported by the logic of the article. When the autopilot disengages, the pilot or driver must be attentive---it highlights the parts of a trip which require caution.
But if you dare say "Maybe we shouldn't put automatic assault rifles into the hands of anyone with a driver's license", then the gun freaks go ape-shit.
Why is it that they'll ban and outlaw everything, except the obvious?
First of all, all legal automatic weapons require registration (including a background check, fingerprinting, etc) with the ATF, a signature from your local sheriff or chief of police, and payment of a (admittedly small) tax. They're also now obscenely expensive, as so few even exist that can even be transfered.
What can be obtained is a semi-automatic weapon---one that fires with each distinct pull of the trigger. There are few special regulations on such weapons, although California has actually done more to restrict them than most other states. For example, you can't own a rifle with a fixed magazine of greater than 10 rounds capacity.
As for why they don't ban guns outright, I refer you to District of Columbia v. Heller. To paraphrase, the basic conclusion of the supreme court was that individuals have a natural right to self defense, and that a ban of an entire class of weapons suitable for self defense is unconstitutional.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of economics can explain where I go wrong.
It seems to me that the cellular companies already charge so as to result in the maximum profit. They would be fools not to. Thus either increasing or decreasing their prices would result in lower profits for them---the former as customers leave, and the later as not enough customers join to make up for the lower price. If this is so, then how is it possible for them to pass the costs on to customers?
We have only had the legal concept of IP for a few hundred years now. Are you saying social structures didn't work before then? I think the ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and many other civilizations too numerous to mention would probably disagree with you on that one.
They also lacked a way to efficiently copy information. IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.
No.
We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking.
It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.
Do you care to explain why? I think it is perfectly reasonable to drive down someone's driveway, and unless they tell me to leave, post notices prohibiting it, or make the drive inaccessible. There are certainly harmless and perfectly legitimate reasons to enter another's property. Why institute a blanket prohibition?
They also called the batting order for the 1930's New York Yankees "Murderers' Row" but as far as I know, none of them stood trial for capital crimes.
The Yankees were uninvolved in murder, however. The Pirate Bay (as much as I love it), is inarguably involved in copyright infringement. It exists to tell individuals where they may find files, and yes, most of those are copyrighted files that cannot be otherwise obtained. Sure, that's probably legal in Sweden, but you can't seriously deny that they are intentionally aiding copyright infringement, can you? Note that in addition to the name, note that their Favicon features a cassette tape, suggesting a commitment to providing trackers for music. Note also that in the categories they divide their torrents into---the categories presumably created by TPB, and not by users---they include games for the PS2, XBox 360, and Wii, systems for which there exist few (no?) free titles. Including such categories does seem to imply that they are knowingly assisting copyright infringement---they must know that those will be useful categories only if their trackers refer to copyrighted files. Additionally, on their "Doodles" page, they state "The Greens made a great pro piracy commercial and we of course promote that!" (The commercial in question is found at http://www.iwouldntsteal.net/).
To put it bluntly, you're delusional if you think their purpose is anything but aiding piracy.
I don't aim to disagree with you. My point is simply that a reader can take the "State" to mean the US government, which gives the misleading impression that this is a serious effort to impose this on the entire US.
Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.
IANAS, however, this seems to me like a very limited and expensive toy. It's not able to recover wounded by itself, rather it allows them to be monitored even before they can be extracted from the battlefield. Yet extraction is the critical step---it's not going to be able to save anyone who can't get medical help. Furthermore, I doubt it can gather a whole lot of useful information: if someone is shot, it will be reasonably obvious where. It's only purpose seems to be to pinpoint who is alive and who is dead, so that medics can focus their efforts properly. But it seems like this could be done more easily with miniature "dogtags" which wirelessly signal whether their wearer has a pulse or not.
First of all, I believe that bug was fixed a while ago. I'm running 3.0.5, and it displays fine.
Second, no, they're not going to record what sites people visit. They're planning to keep hashes of the sites to determine how many times you visit the same place. So no, if your favorite site has a bug, installing Test Pilot and visiting that site 500 times isn't going to do anything but skew their results.
It's worth noting that the sample was found at Hanford, a dedicated nuclear site. It's a radioactive mess, and the sample was not contained safely, but it's not as if they found it at a typical municipal dump.
It doesn't matter if they look similar. Favicons are tiny, and nobody is going to use them to identify a product. If there were potential for confusion, think of the chaos we would see, with thousands of sites not using favicons!
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
Maybe not. Wikipedia says the following, but provides no citation.
In some situations, business owners post signs that appear to prohibit guns, but because the signs do not meet State or local law defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign, the sign does not carry the force of law and a permit holder can legally ignore it.
In Texas, for example, the specifications of a Section 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry are clearly defined, and only a sign meeting the specifications carries the force of the section. A sign, for example, that depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED", is too small, has incorrect text, or is not placed prominently can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. Many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, but such is explicitly taught by the state licensed concealed carry instructors.
Conversely, the intent of posting such a sign may only be to discourage entry while carrying by those unfamiliar with the law, which (almost by definition) typically includes only those not licensed to carry concealed handguns. Because a licensee is trained to recognize a valid sign and differentiate it from a nonbinding sign, posting an invalid sign for this purpose serves as a form of doublespeak, reassuring patrons who oppose concealed carry while at the same time not actually prohibiting concealed carry.
The summary claims Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, has a high impact factor. The blog linked to, however, does not assert this, and I see no source for it. He does also co-edit the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, which the blog asserts "flaunt its high 'impact factor'." The link to the IJNSNS praising him is broken, so I can't confirm that.
It looks to me like some crackpot got a journal. However, it doesn't seem particularly devastating. Nobody has based work on his articles purely on the basis of the "Impact Factor." I don't think anyone else is taking him seriously. At worst, libraries have paid to subscribe.
If the system blocks only competing ads, they'll probably be quite happy. Adblock plus doesn't seem to block Google's ads, at least with the filters I'm using. I suspect they'd get in legal trouble if they tried to actively block competitors ads, but they're free to let the community do it for them.
It is not a prank if it costs me money. It is not a prank when it is malicious. I wouldn't argue for jail time, but they certainly should be charged criminally for it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an industrial mower. Push mowers have been obsolete in such a role for decades, at least. You might as well lament the disappearance of the horse-drawn plow.
Sounds like it was engineered just right. Bean-counters often use "over-engineered" when something is built to withstand the rare but serious malfunctions. Instead, they'd rather things be built to be "good enough" to run fine most of the time. Problem is, a minor issue can become a critical one if you don't build your devices to withstand the rare but serious issues. For example, a failover server setup is 100% overbuilt...until the primary fails.
But it wasn't engineered this way to secure it against a partial meltdown. It was above average for reactor containment vessels actually in use at that time, and the average containment vessel would have failed. The only reason it was able to withstand it was that it happened to be on the final approach path of a former airforce base, and had originally been engineered to withstand a bomber crashing into it.
In the photos in question, two girls, Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly, are seen lying side by side in their bras. One of them is talking on a phone, while the other makes a peace sign. In the second picture, the third girl, who is not named in the lawsuit, is seen emerging from the shower, with a towel wrapped around her, below her breasts.
"The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania's crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment," the lawsuit said.
source
So you're pretty much completely correct. It remains to be seen whether the courts will accept this argument.
The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.
Lots of people are assholes. Many sex offenders are assholes. Being an asshole should not be sufficient to cause us to throw away our principles to crucify them. In this case, by all means, charge them with any applicable crimes. However, I, and many others, object to sex offender registries because they make it difficult or impossible for individuals to successfully re-enter society, by barring individuals from living in many areas, and for effectively punishing them beyond the time they serve in prison. So no, sex offender registries should not exist, and nobody should be put on them.
I also challenge you to put up the statute and the state where you say this pseudo-law of yours applies. I've read my state's, and there is nothing like this. There is a blocking the intersection, but it's based on expectation and concept, not going through a green light with traffic at the time moving in an orderly and proper fashion.
I'm not a lawyer, and in particular not your lawyer, so I'm not going to verify that this is actual law. The Georgia 2009 Drivers Manual, however, states, on page 39, "At intersections with traffic control lights, wait until the intersection is clear of traffic or approaching traffic before entering. Do not proceed "just because" you have the green light."
If the far side of the intersection is not clear, you're not supposed to enter. So yes, it's sort of fair.
Those landings were managed by well-trained professional pilots. Given how poorly many people respond in accidents, and how little is required to bring a car to a stop (compared to an airplane), we might actually be better off designing cars to halt with all safe speed and to activate hazard lights whenever something goes wrong with the traffic around them, and until the driver manually overrides this system to confirm that the situation is safe.
You seem to be objecting to such automation proposals on the basis that they would decrease the skill of the drivers. (Alternatively, your objection may stem from a fear that the autopilot would fail in such disasters, in which case I remind you that the grand-parents proposal was not to allow the driver to sleep through their trip---merely to drive the vehicle on highways, where traffic is predictable---as is done for much of the duration of the flight of a modern airliner). I don't think this is an issue in accidents, however, as they will most often occur so rapidly that the driver has little chance to respond in an intelligent way. The drivers skill is more likely to be exercised by city driving, anyway, which was not within the scope of the proposed autopilot.
I think a highway autopilot for cars would also be supported by the logic of the article. When the autopilot disengages, the pilot or driver must be attentive---it highlights the parts of a trip which require caution.
But if you dare say "Maybe we shouldn't put automatic assault rifles into the hands of anyone with a driver's license", then the gun freaks go ape-shit. Why is it that they'll ban and outlaw everything, except the obvious?
First of all, all legal automatic weapons require registration (including a background check, fingerprinting, etc) with the ATF, a signature from your local sheriff or chief of police, and payment of a (admittedly small) tax. They're also now obscenely expensive, as so few even exist that can even be transfered.
What can be obtained is a semi-automatic weapon---one that fires with each distinct pull of the trigger. There are few special regulations on such weapons, although California has actually done more to restrict them than most other states. For example, you can't own a rifle with a fixed magazine of greater than 10 rounds capacity.
As for why they don't ban guns outright, I refer you to District of Columbia v. Heller. To paraphrase, the basic conclusion of the supreme court was that individuals have a natural right to self defense, and that a ban of an entire class of weapons suitable for self defense is unconstitutional.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of economics can explain where I go wrong.
It seems to me that the cellular companies already charge so as to result in the maximum profit. They would be fools not to. Thus either increasing or decreasing their prices would result in lower profits for them---the former as customers leave, and the later as not enough customers join to make up for the lower price. If this is so, then how is it possible for them to pass the costs on to customers?
We have only had the legal concept of IP for a few hundred years now. Are you saying social structures didn't work before then? I think the ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and many other civilizations too numerous to mention would probably disagree with you on that one.
They also lacked a way to efficiently copy information. IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.
No. We can not afford to continue down the vein of 'If it isn't locked, then you deserve what happens to you' line of thinking. It's crap, it's harmful, and it only empowers criminals, and insurance companies...but I repeat myself.
Do you care to explain why? I think it is perfectly reasonable to drive down someone's driveway, and unless they tell me to leave, post notices prohibiting it, or make the drive inaccessible. There are certainly harmless and perfectly legitimate reasons to enter another's property. Why institute a blanket prohibition?
They also called the batting order for the 1930's New York Yankees "Murderers' Row" but as far as I know, none of them stood trial for capital crimes.
The Yankees were uninvolved in murder, however. The Pirate Bay (as much as I love it), is inarguably involved in copyright infringement. It exists to tell individuals where they may find files, and yes, most of those are copyrighted files that cannot be otherwise obtained. Sure, that's probably legal in Sweden, but you can't seriously deny that they are intentionally aiding copyright infringement, can you? Note that in addition to the name, note that their Favicon features a cassette tape, suggesting a commitment to providing trackers for music. Note also that in the categories they divide their torrents into---the categories presumably created by TPB, and not by users---they include games for the PS2, XBox 360, and Wii, systems for which there exist few (no?) free titles. Including such categories does seem to imply that they are knowingly assisting copyright infringement---they must know that those will be useful categories only if their trackers refer to copyrighted files. Additionally, on their "Doodles" page, they state "The Greens made a great pro piracy commercial and we of course promote that!" (The commercial in question is found at http://www.iwouldntsteal.net/).
To put it bluntly, you're delusional if you think their purpose is anything but aiding piracy.
In the 1969 movie, which the grand-parent linked to, that part of the movie was set in Turin.
I don't aim to disagree with you. My point is simply that a reader can take the "State" to mean the US government, which gives the misleading impression that this is a serious effort to impose this on the entire US.
Of course, it's already in practice for federal crimes anyway.
Note that this is a proposed law in Washington State, not the whole country. Not that we should just forget about the rights of Washington's citizens, but I suspect a quite a few people will misunderstand the summary as it stands now.
IANAS, however, this seems to me like a very limited and expensive toy. It's not able to recover wounded by itself, rather it allows them to be monitored even before they can be extracted from the battlefield. Yet extraction is the critical step---it's not going to be able to save anyone who can't get medical help. Furthermore, I doubt it can gather a whole lot of useful information: if someone is shot, it will be reasonably obvious where. It's only purpose seems to be to pinpoint who is alive and who is dead, so that medics can focus their efforts properly. But it seems like this could be done more easily with miniature "dogtags" which wirelessly signal whether their wearer has a pulse or not.
Maybe they'll make displaying it not suck...?
First of all, I believe that bug was fixed a while ago. I'm running 3.0.5, and it displays fine.
Second, no, they're not going to record what sites people visit. They're planning to keep hashes of the sites to determine how many times you visit the same place. So no, if your favorite site has a bug, installing Test Pilot and visiting that site 500 times isn't going to do anything but skew their results.
It's worth noting that the sample was found at Hanford, a dedicated nuclear site. It's a radioactive mess, and the sample was not contained safely, but it's not as if they found it at a typical municipal dump.
A Browser will be bundled with virtually all preinstalled systems by the OEM.
There's an idle tag, but honestly, I think this is below the bar, even for idle.
I disagree. While this may not be newsworthy, it's at least (apparently) accurate. Idle is often incorrect or simply moronic.
The summary could have included a link to the portrait, though.
It doesn't matter if they look similar. Favicons are tiny, and nobody is going to use them to identify a product. If there were potential for confusion, think of the chaos we would see, with thousands of sites not using favicons!
Except that they enter private property in direct violation of the posted conditions for entry. IANAL, but I think that makes 'em trespassers.
Maybe not. Wikipedia says the following, but provides no citation.
In some situations, business owners post signs that appear to prohibit guns, but because the signs do not meet State or local law defining the appearance, placement, or verbiage of the sign, the sign does not carry the force of law and a permit holder can legally ignore it. In Texas, for example, the specifications of a Section 30.06 sign prohibiting concealed carry are clearly defined, and only a sign meeting the specifications carries the force of the section. A sign, for example, that depicts the silhouette of a gun with a red circle and slash (similar to other signs prohibiting an action), that simply says "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED", is too small, has incorrect text, or is not placed prominently can technically be ignored as it doesn't fulfill the requirements to ban permit holders from carrying concealed. Many of these points of law have yet to be tested in court, but such is explicitly taught by the state licensed concealed carry instructors. Conversely, the intent of posting such a sign may only be to discourage entry while carrying by those unfamiliar with the law, which (almost by definition) typically includes only those not licensed to carry concealed handguns. Because a licensee is trained to recognize a valid sign and differentiate it from a nonbinding sign, posting an invalid sign for this purpose serves as a form of doublespeak, reassuring patrons who oppose concealed carry while at the same time not actually prohibiting concealed carry.
The summary claims Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, has a high impact factor. The blog linked to, however, does not assert this, and I see no source for it. He does also co-edit the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, which the blog asserts "flaunt its high 'impact factor'." The link to the IJNSNS praising him is broken, so I can't confirm that.
It looks to me like some crackpot got a journal. However, it doesn't seem particularly devastating. Nobody has based work on his articles purely on the basis of the "Impact Factor." I don't think anyone else is taking him seriously. At worst, libraries have paid to subscribe.
If the system blocks only competing ads, they'll probably be quite happy. Adblock plus doesn't seem to block Google's ads, at least with the filters I'm using. I suspect they'd get in legal trouble if they tried to actively block competitors ads, but they're free to let the community do it for them.
It is not a prank if it costs me money. It is not a prank when it is malicious. I wouldn't argue for jail time, but they certainly should be charged criminally for it.