In response to your.sig (I'm an agnostic, don't get touchy) I would like to point out that in principle "Thou shalt not kill" is a good idea. I also freely admit that that is far outweighed by the bad stuff that came from religion.
Or, in other words, I would not pursue you for copyright infringement in the event I ever actually get a copyright for the works you find, that may or may not be created by me.
I'm not that familiar with the US legal system, but can't anyone sue for copyright infringement?
Wow, he looks hideous in that pic (cue slashdot effect). It just goes to show the NYT is a lot less certain that he's the messiah then they were in 2008 (G.W.Bush's images were always ugly; Hillary's were nice, until she ran, at which point she suddenly uglified a whole lot, and now she's beautiful again; etc.).
1) How about a calibrated sample of 'air' containing known quantities of ketones? If the breathlyzer reports the same level of alchol that we put in the sample, we're good.
You can save the memory and still do it correctly by just re-weighting the "running average".
This would be a valid design, however, if the variance of the hardware improved (decreased) as the samples came in, in which case the recent samples should get more weight. I doubt that this is the case, but it may have a reason behind it.
This seems to make sense to me. The breathalizer is supposed to measure the blood alcohol content, and this is done by measuring the alcohol content in air expelled by the *lungs* (with a knowlege of partial pressures).
Actually, it measures presence/absence of ketones in the air. Also, they have you blow "continuously" for several seconds (the mouth doesn't hold that much). Finally,.08 is considerably drunk, but it isn't you're-falling-over-how-could-you-possibly-think-you-could-drive drunk.
Quick, while they're not looking, somebody run off to the USPTO and file a patent for "technical protection measures," then refuse to license it! We'll be rid of this nonsense forever! (or just until the judge throws the patent out, anyway)
Slashdot Mirror
My sort will totally beat yours!
To put it another way, here in the U.S., we are completely free to shout "FIRE!" in a theater all we like - we just aren't immune to the consequences.
IANAL. You're example is outdated. We now use "imminent lawless action" instead of "clear and present danger".
The IWF accidentally prevented most/all UK people from editing of Wikipedia over some picture it called kiddie porn... except that it actually wasn't.
Okay!
eww, a .rar!
And the downloads would be fast and lossless.
*calls reality police*
In response to your .sig (I'm an agnostic, don't get touchy) I would like to point out that in principle "Thou shalt not kill" is a good idea. I also freely admit that that is far outweighed by the bad stuff that came from religion.
Or, in other words, I would not pursue you for copyright infringement in the event I ever actually get a copyright for the works you find, that may or may not be created by me.
I'm not that familiar with the US legal system, but can't anyone sue for copyright infringement?
Only if they own the copyright. IANAL.
Wow, he looks hideous in that pic (cue slashdot effect). It just goes to show the NYT is a lot less certain that he's the messiah then they were in 2008 (G.W.Bush's images were always ugly; Hillary's were nice, until she ran, at which point she suddenly uglified a whole lot, and now she's beautiful again; etc.).
What is there to compare the tests with?
1) How about a calibrated sample of 'air' containing known quantities of ketones? If the breathlyzer reports the same level of alchol that we put in the sample, we're good.
[snip]
There, fixed that for you.
Better yet, get two Real Programmers (i.e. gratuitous GOTO users) to work on the same code. They will shoot each other in the foot (feet?).
*Pulls plu-(*&*%[NO CARRIER]
Strange as it looks, "his" is the correct singular, gender-neutral, third person possessive pronoun.
Speak English, please (also removed a wrong comma -- it's not a serial comma because there was no "and", "or", or similar).
You can save the memory and still do it correctly by just re-weighting the "running average".
This would be a valid design, however, if the variance of the hardware improved (decreased) as the samples came in, in which case the recent samples should get more weight. I doubt that this is the case, but it may have a reason behind it.
Is that reason backed by law? IANAL.
This seems to make sense to me. The breathalizer is supposed to measure the blood alcohol content, and this is done by measuring the alcohol content in air expelled by the *lungs* (with a knowlege of partial pressures).
Actually, it measures presence/absence of ketones in the air. Also, they have you blow "continuously" for several seconds (the mouth doesn't hold that much). Finally, .08 is considerably drunk, but it isn't you're-falling-over-how-could-you-possibly-think-you-could-drive drunk.
Quick, while they're not looking, somebody run off to the USPTO and file a patent for "technical protection measures," then refuse to license it! We'll be rid of this nonsense forever! (or just until the judge throws the patent out, anyway)
Doing in the other order sends internal information (server names) over the public network.
I'm not an expert. Isn't such information usually not routable (did I spell that right?) anyway?
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Maybe they should hire competent rent-a-cops (how do you pluralize that?).
Read the EULA.
but it may use 20,000 HD VOD slots if the people all want to see it at about the same time but not all at the exact same time.
Is that supposed to mean something?
The search function tends to suck compared to TiVo, but otherwise yes.
IANAL. If you live in California, there are generous anti-SLAPP provisions.
Besides, it's criminal; was it a mistrial or an acquittal?
Probably something about search and seizure, and the ninth and tenth amendments (the anti-elastic clauses).
For those who(m?) were never in the army (including myself), SOP==standard operating procedure. I know this from English class.