Yes, I'd love to see a laptop with a mechanical-switch keyboard. No idea how viable it is weight-wise. And since thinness is the new end-all-be-all of laptop design, it's very unlikely to ever happen.
"Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest..." No, the summary actually said threats of violence aren't required before an arrest can be made. It said nothing about whether threats of violence can lead to an arrest. And if YOU had read the article, as you recommend, you'd have seen that the boy threatened to drown the athlete.
They carried on shopping in their town and city centres. They carried on building tall buildings out of glass. They carried on riding on trains at 110MPH. They carried on cramming into crowded buses and underground train systems.
Let's see, do Americans shop in town and city centers? Yes. Do they build tall buildings out of glass? Yes. Do they ride on trains at 110 MPH? Yes, although only between Boston and D.C., because trains here generally suck. Do they cram into crowded buses and underground train systems? Yes.
My math was fine. I used half highway and half city miles in my calculation. As for "Developing a more-efficient SUV saves 300 gals in 14,000 miles, same distance for a more-efficient compact saves 127 gals. For those who need an SUV, it makes sense to improve the efficiency." Well, yeah, that was my point.
The Escalade hybrid gets 20 city/23 highway, while the normal gets 14/18. So throwing all the sophisticated technology possible at a big SUV still only gets you to ~20 MPG.
Which works out to about a 26% fuel savings, assuming same number of miles driven (not necessarily a safe assumption). Going from 30 MPH to 40 MPH only gives you a 25% fuel savings. The math is not particularly intuitive when fuel economy is expressed in MPG, but small changes in economy of less fuel efficient cars can have greater effect than bigger changes in economy of more fuel efficient cars - even when, as in my example, the change made to the more fuel efficient car is a greater relative, as well as absolute, change.
You site the CPI, so I assume you think it's 9.5 rating of New Zealand is probative of something. Yet, in the same post, you place Iran (CPI of 2.7) and the U.S. (CPI of 7.1) in the same category of corruption. In fact, the U.S. is within a point of much of the developed world" (all but 13 countries).
I'm more dubious that they call it an "underwater vehicle". It's motors are underwater. People are above water.
That's to distinguish this vehicle, which still has significant mass below the surface of the water when running at speed, from speedboats that run on a plane when at speed.
One of the primary arguments made by those opposing embryonic stem-cell research is that the benefits can be obtained by induced pluripotent stem cells. This is especially common in discussions regarding government funding of stem-cell research. The argument is that resources should be redirected from embryonic stem-cell research to induced pluripotent stem-cell research. So, yes, they very much care about the details.
Depends on how strictly OSI's trademark can be enforced. Their definition of open source precludes "Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor." It's not just semantic - it depends on what features one considers essential to open source licensing.
Gates's talking about it got Buffet to donate more than a billion dollars. There's little doubt that he has gotten others to contribute significant money, too. Jobs was well equipped to do the same, had he chosen to do so. I'm not going to knock Jobs for however he conducted his philanthropy. There are trade-offs involved in everything, and Jobs made his for reasons that presumably made sense to him. Good for him. And good for Gates for deciding to apply not just his money but his prestige to the causes he cares about.
And let's ignore that there are at least some beneficent motives for being public about charitable giving, and assume for a minute Gates is just in it for the attention. So the hell what? It means that society has found a way to channel base motivations to do impressive good. That's a good thing. I prefer a world where attention whores give billions to disease prevention and education to a world in which they do something useless or actively harmful to get attention.
Hate to bust your bubble buddy but American police as far a New Zealand or any other countries laws are concerned are nothing but bloody tourists. It is illegal to hand over evidence to visting tourists and let them take it out of the country.
Not sure what bubble you think you're bursting, but I've said exactly *nothing* about whether sending the cloned drives out of NZ was illegal or not. I was speaking about whether doing that will affect the admissibility of the evidence in an American court. Not whether it should, but whether it will.
It even gets more stupid, users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked, WTF! Just because I am not an American and not a member of the RIAA/MPAA/Obama Justice Department club for pigopolists all of a sudden my work is no longer protected by copyright, talk about bullshit. All that work on those drives is protected by copyright, so what the fuck are they talking about, just because a bunch of out of control Fucking Bloody Idiot tourists stole a copy infringing other peoples copyrights doesn't mean that work now permanently loses copyright protection.
It does not appear that the data on the drives shipped via fedex contains files uploaded to Megaupload. The uploaded files was stored on servers in America, and was seized pursuant to a warrant. I'm sure there will be proceedings later challenging that warrant, but if the warrant is upheld, copyright will not prevent the data seized from the servers from being copied or used in court.
First, chain of custody refers to the ability to prove that the materials presented in court were seized by the police at a particular time and place. It is different from the question of whether the means to seize the evidence or move it from one country to another is legal. If someone can attest to the movement of the evidence, then chain of custody is satisfied, even if normal procedures are not followed. Of course, if normal procedures are not followed, then the defense can put that before the finder of fact and argue the evidence is unreliable. But to be admissible, it is only necessary that the prosecution offer evidence to show where and when a particular item was seized.
Moreover, even if the chain of custody was broken, fruit of the poisonous tree would not apply to derivative evidence unless the same chain of custody problem infected that new evidence. So, for example, if chain of custody problems keep a gun from being used, it is still possible in many situations to admit evidence seized under a warrant for which probable cause is supported by that gun. Not always - some chain of custody problems would quash the warrant - but there are many situations where the gun would out but fruits of the warrant would be in.
Also, if I was the NZ government, I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"
To which the response would be, "FedEx does not have a legal duty to randomly open customer's packages, booting hard drives found therein, and telepathically determining if the material on those drives is subject to legal export restrictions."
Never Use a Hamburger Press
on
Grilling For Geeks
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Hamburgers should not be made in a press. If you're going to do that, you might as well use pre-formed patties. They should be carefully formed, with as little pressure as possible from 4 to 5 ounces of beef - 6 at the most. The center should be slightly thinner than the edges - use your thumb to make a small depression on each side. Mashing the burger together in a press will make it harder to break apart on the grill, but a little care and a CLEAN grill will make it unnecessary without sacrificing texture and juiciness. If you want to be really obsessive about it, line up the strands of ground beef vertically in a ring mold and then press them lightly together, but that can be a bit of a pain.
We'd need to know a lot more than "90 percent accuracy" - a basically meaningless statistic in this context without breaking it down to the rates of false positives and false negatives. But, if we assume both rates are 10%, then a randomly chosen person with a positive test result has about a 0.1% chance of actually having pancreatic cancer (based on disease prevalence of 12.1 per 100,000). Such a test can be useful, but only in conjunction with another form of independent test.
Still, pretty impressive for a 15-year old, but probably a long ways from a useful test.
Hearing about such destruction of recordings makes me think of the doctrine of spoliation. The underlying principle is that when a party intentionally destroys evidence, there's reason to infer the evidence would hurt them, not help them. Seems doubly important when the police are involved.
You do not have to be incorporated to operate a business. If you use your real name, you don't even have to register (although you still need to comply with licensing and tax laws). See sole proprietorship.
The courts in the U.S. enforce foreign judgments* on a regular basis. The big question here will be whether the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether there's some other defect to the fairness of the judgment. For example, if the defendant could show that she had no notice to defend the suit in Australia, then she could raise that as a defense in the U.S. court. See the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act , a version of which has been passed in many states, for more information.
*In the U.S., "foreign judgment" can refer to either a judgment rendered in a foreign country or a a judgment rendered in another U.S. state.
The Microsoft-backed piracy watchdog generates a quarter of its cases by offering employees cash rewards for informing on their own employer.
I don't like the BSA, and I'm pretty neutral about Microsoft, but what is the point of saying the BSA is "Microsoft-backed"? They're also Adobe-, Apple-, and Dell- backed, among many others.
What's to defend? The price has gone up. MS stock is traded in relatively high volume. Therefore, a significant portion of the market (read, "a lot of people") think that denis-The-menace's assessment about the future of Microsoft is wrong. The reason why lots of people think MS's stock is worth 20% more now isn't relevant to the question of whether lots of people do, in fact, think that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the best you've got? To accuse someone who disagrees with you of being a paid, "shameless" shill?
Yes, I'd love to see a laptop with a mechanical-switch keyboard. No idea how viable it is weight-wise. And since thinness is the new end-all-be-all of laptop design, it's very unlikely to ever happen.
"Threats of violence actually are NOT enough to lead to arrest..." No, the summary actually said threats of violence aren't required before an arrest can be made. It said nothing about whether threats of violence can lead to an arrest. And if YOU had read the article, as you recommend, you'd have seen that the boy threatened to drown the athlete.
Since the parts I called out as erroneous were the support for this phony conclusion, I did.
Nowhere in America can you walk into Wal-Mart and buy a machine gun.
They carried on shopping in their town and city centres. They carried on building tall buildings out of glass. They carried on riding on trains at 110MPH. They carried on cramming into crowded buses and underground train systems.
Let's see, do Americans shop in town and city centers? Yes. Do they build tall buildings out of glass? Yes. Do they ride on trains at 110 MPH? Yes, although only between Boston and D.C., because trains here generally suck. Do they cram into crowded buses and underground train systems? Yes.
My math was fine. I used half highway and half city miles in my calculation. As for "Developing a more-efficient SUV saves 300 gals in 14,000 miles, same distance for a more-efficient compact saves 127 gals. For those who need an SUV, it makes sense to improve the efficiency." Well, yeah, that was my point.
The Escalade hybrid gets 20 city/23 highway, while the normal gets 14/18. So throwing all the sophisticated technology possible at a big SUV still only gets you to ~20 MPG.
Which works out to about a 26% fuel savings, assuming same number of miles driven (not necessarily a safe assumption). Going from 30 MPH to 40 MPH only gives you a 25% fuel savings. The math is not particularly intuitive when fuel economy is expressed in MPG, but small changes in economy of less fuel efficient cars can have greater effect than bigger changes in economy of more fuel efficient cars - even when, as in my example, the change made to the more fuel efficient car is a greater relative, as well as absolute, change.
You site the CPI, so I assume you think it's 9.5 rating of New Zealand is probative of something. Yet, in the same post, you place Iran (CPI of 2.7) and the U.S. (CPI of 7.1) in the same category of corruption. In fact, the U.S. is within a point of much of the developed world" (all but 13 countries).
I'm more dubious that they call it an "underwater vehicle". It's motors are underwater. People are above water.
That's to distinguish this vehicle, which still has significant mass below the surface of the water when running at speed, from speedboats that run on a plane when at speed.
One of the primary arguments made by those opposing embryonic stem-cell research is that the benefits can be obtained by induced pluripotent stem cells. This is especially common in discussions regarding government funding of stem-cell research. The argument is that resources should be redirected from embryonic stem-cell research to induced pluripotent stem-cell research. So, yes, they very much care about the details.
Depends on how strictly OSI's trademark can be enforced. Their definition of open source precludes "Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor." It's not just semantic - it depends on what features one considers essential to open source licensing.
Gates's talking about it got Buffet to donate more than a billion dollars. There's little doubt that he has gotten others to contribute significant money, too. Jobs was well equipped to do the same, had he chosen to do so. I'm not going to knock Jobs for however he conducted his philanthropy. There are trade-offs involved in everything, and Jobs made his for reasons that presumably made sense to him. Good for him. And good for Gates for deciding to apply not just his money but his prestige to the causes he cares about.
And let's ignore that there are at least some beneficent motives for being public about charitable giving, and assume for a minute Gates is just in it for the attention. So the hell what? It means that society has found a way to channel base motivations to do impressive good. That's a good thing. I prefer a world where attention whores give billions to disease prevention and education to a world in which they do something useless or actively harmful to get attention.
Hate to bust your bubble buddy but American police as far a New Zealand or any other countries laws are concerned are nothing but bloody tourists. It is illegal to hand over evidence to visting tourists and let them take it out of the country.
Not sure what bubble you think you're bursting, but I've said exactly *nothing* about whether sending the cloned drives out of NZ was illegal or not. I was speaking about whether doing that will affect the admissibility of the evidence in an American court. Not whether it should, but whether it will.
It even gets more stupid, users can have their files back as long as access to copyrighted files is blocked, WTF! Just because I am not an American and not a member of the RIAA/MPAA/Obama Justice Department club for pigopolists all of a sudden my work is no longer protected by copyright, talk about bullshit. All that work on those drives is protected by copyright, so what the fuck are they talking about, just because a bunch of out of control Fucking Bloody Idiot tourists stole a copy infringing other peoples copyrights doesn't mean that work now permanently loses copyright protection.
It does not appear that the data on the drives shipped via fedex contains files uploaded to Megaupload. The uploaded files was stored on servers in America, and was seized pursuant to a warrant. I'm sure there will be proceedings later challenging that warrant, but if the warrant is upheld, copyright will not prevent the data seized from the servers from being copied or used in court.
First, chain of custody refers to the ability to prove that the materials presented in court were seized by the police at a particular time and place. It is different from the question of whether the means to seize the evidence or move it from one country to another is legal. If someone can attest to the movement of the evidence, then chain of custody is satisfied, even if normal procedures are not followed. Of course, if normal procedures are not followed, then the defense can put that before the finder of fact and argue the evidence is unreliable. But to be admissible, it is only necessary that the prosecution offer evidence to show where and when a particular item was seized.
Moreover, even if the chain of custody was broken, fruit of the poisonous tree would not apply to derivative evidence unless the same chain of custody problem infected that new evidence. So, for example, if chain of custody problems keep a gun from being used, it is still possible in many situations to admit evidence seized under a warrant for which probable cause is supported by that gun. Not always - some chain of custody problems would quash the warrant - but there are many situations where the gun would out but fruits of the warrant would be in.
Also, if I was the NZ government, I would be asking FedEx some pretty hard questions. Like: "Considering that you helped a foreign power conspire to break NZ law, why should we allow you to continue to work in our country?"
To which the response would be, "FedEx does not have a legal duty to randomly open customer's packages, booting hard drives found therein, and telepathically determining if the material on those drives is subject to legal export restrictions."
There's a TomTom app for Android now?
Hamburgers should not be made in a press. If you're going to do that, you might as well use pre-formed patties. They should be carefully formed, with as little pressure as possible from 4 to 5 ounces of beef - 6 at the most. The center should be slightly thinner than the edges - use your thumb to make a small depression on each side. Mashing the burger together in a press will make it harder to break apart on the grill, but a little care and a CLEAN grill will make it unnecessary without sacrificing texture and juiciness. If you want to be really obsessive about it, line up the strands of ground beef vertically in a ring mold and then press them lightly together, but that can be a bit of a pain.
You do know Armenia isn't actually in the U.S., right?
We'd need to know a lot more than "90 percent accuracy" - a basically meaningless statistic in this context without breaking it down to the rates of false positives and false negatives. But, if we assume both rates are 10%, then a randomly chosen person with a positive test result has about a 0.1% chance of actually having pancreatic cancer (based on disease prevalence of 12.1 per 100,000). Such a test can be useful, but only in conjunction with another form of independent test.
Still, pretty impressive for a 15-year old, but probably a long ways from a useful test.
Hearing about such destruction of recordings makes me think of the doctrine of spoliation. The underlying principle is that when a party intentionally destroys evidence, there's reason to infer the evidence would hurt them, not help them. Seems doubly important when the police are involved.
You do not have to be incorporated to operate a business. If you use your real name, you don't even have to register (although you still need to comply with licensing and tax laws). See sole proprietorship.
The courts in the U.S. enforce foreign judgments* on a regular basis. The big question here will be whether the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether there's some other defect to the fairness of the judgment. For example, if the defendant could show that she had no notice to defend the suit in Australia, then she could raise that as a defense in the U.S. court. See the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act , a version of which has been passed in many states, for more information.
*In the U.S., "foreign judgment" can refer to either a judgment rendered in a foreign country or a a judgment rendered in another U.S. state.
The Microsoft-backed piracy watchdog generates a quarter of its cases by offering employees cash rewards for informing on their own employer.
I don't like the BSA, and I'm pretty neutral about Microsoft, but what is the point of saying the BSA is "Microsoft-backed"? They're also Adobe-, Apple-, and Dell- backed, among many others.
What's to defend? The price has gone up. MS stock is traded in relatively high volume. Therefore, a significant portion of the market (read, "a lot of people") think that denis-The-menace's assessment about the future of Microsoft is wrong. The reason why lots of people think MS's stock is worth 20% more now isn't relevant to the question of whether lots of people do, in fact, think that way.