I don't know what a "production car" is, but the limit is 170mph. You do need quite an engine to accomplish that. It is not a practical thing to do for at least 99% of the time.
Google is cemented in the industry, they are not going anywhere. They make profits, but they have a problem. They are not Bell, or MS, they arrived too late to have a monopoly on really anything. So they built a driverless car, and Google Glass, and in 10-20 years they still have the patent and will control the patent and technology. They do not want to come late to the game like with mobile phones and have to spend billions of dollars renting licences or buying patent portfolios.
This, I watched a documentary about a crash a year ago. One instrument malfunctioned, the pilot then proceeded to ignore like 8 other instruments, and his cockpit window, and continue to slow down until he crashed and killed everyone. Pilot training has obvious gone way downhill, they are often less able to deal with instrument malfunctions than if we just put a simple non robust auto pilot in control.
Because in this day and age, people expect the government to do everything for them, and protect them from everything. Imagine if hundreds die, after the FBI gets a call that they ignore. Heads would role, major important people would get fired. So they have to treat every single suggestion of law breaking as true, as the voters do not care one wit is rights are routinely trodden on, of their police are militarized and budgets soar, they do care if there is a shooting or a bomb important enough to get news coverage.
when you give people the simplified choice of, should this tragedy have happened, or do we prevent it in the future, they will always pick the "lets prevent this in the future option". Because they are not writing the budges, they are not directly taking money out of schools or medical care. They are not deciding exactly what rights to trampled on.
Which very well might be what the Airlines are hoping for. If they can get loads of advertising and more passengers, with a modest "sale" they come out ahead.
I do not have to be a Christian to find the obvious undertones of hatred and intolerance in his tweet.
I do not see any reason to get that mad about it, but the tweet, even though it is without slurs and typically offensive language, is obviously aimed at diminutizeing Jesus. It is no coincidence that 100% of people would of though we was talking about Jesus up to the very end, because that was his purpose. The entire point of the tweet was an attack on Jesus, just because he is a smart well spoken guy that can pull it off without swear words does not change that fact.
So it is an offensive tweet, a tweet whose only purpose is to attack a specific group of people. But in the grand scheme of things is is really not a big deal.
I do not see any reason to get that mad about it, but the tweet even though it is without slurs and typically offensive language is obviously aimed at diminutizeing Jesus. It is no coincidence that 100% of people would of though we was talking about Jesus up to the very end, because that was his purpose. The entire point of the tweet was an attack on Jesus, just because he is a smart well spoken guy that can pull it off without swear words does not change that fact.
So it is an offensive tweet, a tweet whose only purpose is to attack a specific group of people. But in the grand scheme of things is is really not a big deal.
I am not saying that it would not be something you could not get around. The the average user sending the average message would be screwed. Not only is the average email unencrypted but it contained a from address, and i imagine mosy outgoing email comes directly from a gmail server, and is not ping ponged around teh world such that the sender is anonymous.
I think it would be simple enough for China to block all incoming email from Google servers/accounts. So ya, that is how the Internet works when you build a giant firewall around your country.
Actually, it does. An integral part of a trial is that the accused has access to the evidence, the means of collection, and a means to defend themselves even if it's as the people's expense. One can definitely argue that such a system still favors the rich and the prosecutor power is still very overwhelming, but that speaks more about refining the judicial process and not abandoning it in favor of a one-sided system where those who wish to "prove" guilty can manufacturer evidence and the person charged has no time or means to defend themselves.
Most of this is handled in the Cardassian version of a trial. They go over all the evidence with you, and the public, show how they got it and everything. At this point, yes your guilt has been proven, but if you actually have any information that could exonerate you (if you have the ability to defend yourself better than a lawyer) then their is nothign stopping that from happening. People get proven innocent after being found guilty all the time, there is no reason this would change if we used a different system. You are just not forced to defend yourself until very credible and damning claims have been brought against you. Instead of a system that says: "We kindof think that maybe you did something wrong, we do not have a lot of evidence but we are going to need you to prove you did not do it or you are going to jail", the Cardassian system is: "We have all this evidence that you did something wrong, actually more than enough to prove you did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. So we are going to lock you away now (but no one is stopping you (or someone else) from speaking and proving your innocence)."
Read above. Under the current system, we admittedly have the issue that people put too much faith in police and prosecutors not to lie, the believe that only people who are guilty (or seemingly very much look it) go to trial, and the system is rigged with the idea of proving guilty instead of trying to prove innocence. Yet we have a jury who has the power to question the police, a defense lawyer who can bring up issues of doubt, much greater access to the evidence* than ever presented in the Cardassian system, etc. To pretend that it's merely an ability to speak on the stand or not that's the differentiation really ignores a lot of the procedure that does grant the defense a lot more power than that. If it were as you say, then yes, our current system would already be pretty synonymous with the Cardassian one.
Read what I said again, there is nothing in the Cardassian system that at all prevents a jury or a defense lawyer. I personally am not sure that the adversarial system of defense lawyer verses prosecutor is a good one, but there is nothing in the Cardassian system that prevents that system from being used (it very well might be how they internally deliberate). And the same for a jury. There is no reason that the evidence should not be given to a random group of your peers, but unlike our system these people would not have already judged you based on the news report (As your life has not already been ruined by the media deciding your guilt before the trial).
Quite the contrary. Only in a police--ie, what you call a surveillance--state would leave the people to believe those in power have the information to determine a person's guilty without some proceeding to collect evidence.
There absolutely is a proceeding to collect evidence, the government is just not granted the power to arbitrarily detain people who are not proven to be guilty (or otherwise significantly impact their lives).
It is simply the difference in how much power you want the government to have. I say that if the government is going to punish one of its charges that it has to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person has done wrong, and show this evidence to both the accused and the public. Anything else is a tyranny.
Do you get that chance in America, or the UK?
The idea of running around solving your own crime, proving your innocence, is a fiction for films and TV
And the idea of doing anything other than paying for the best lawyer you can afford, and sitting in a chair in the courtroom as he mounts the best defense possible is not any more realistic than running around solving some murder you have been accused of. In America must buy your justice, and most people cannot afford much. You simply cannot defend yourself, not only is the law incredibly convoluted and set up in such a way that to do anything you pretty much need a team of people who have dedicated their life to knowing it, but it is almost impossible to even get advise. It is literally illegal for a non lawyer to give you advise, I have tried, and no real lawyer will do so unless they are paid.
A common misunderstanding. Yes, the your guilt is decided before the "trial", but that is the whole point.
The "trial" is an integral step where the government is required to show the populace, how it is metering out justice. To prove to them, and the accused, that justice is being done. This does not prevent a "trial" in the same sense as the West knows. They can still have a jury of your peers, if you are into that (though I do not think we were given any reason to believe that that happens on Cardassia), they still must gather evidence and have a judge judge its validity and if guilty come up with a sentence. The only thing it prevents is allowing the accused to defend/speak himself; Which really does not happen in real life anyways (Your Lawyer speaks for you, you do not run around solving your own crime, proving your innocence).
As for the surveillance state, that reminds me a whole lot more of America or the UK than any thing else, and is a separate issue. Yes, the Obsidian Order has too much power, yes they go around assassinating their own people, yes Cardassia is pretty tyrannical; But those are separable parts of its governing process.
Exactly, it is neither fair nor just to put an innocent man on trial. To make an innocent man prove his innocence. Unless the justice system can prove that you are guilty, you should not be put through that. Look at Julian Assange, stuck in an embassy for years now, because he is wanted for questioning. The officials do not have to prove anything, they do not need anything to call you down to the police station to talk, and then you never leave.
So their government can be overbearing and tyrannical, they can fabricate evidence and try innocent people. News flash, American does that all the time. At least on Cardassia you are truly innocent until proven guilty. At least on Cardassia you cannot be impassioned without a trial, you cannot be held up in courts for decades and have your resources witted away by a richer opponent. At least on Cardassia the amount of justice you get is not equal to how much you can buy.
Say all you want about innocent until proven guilty, but when when the government has the right to detain, raid, and otherwise completely interrupt/ruin your life on a whim or allegation, how is that fair? Sure they cannot send you to prison without a trial, but they can detain you in a prison until a trial. They cannot fine or punish you without a trial, but they can raid and seize evidence on almost 0 grounds.
Compare this to the Cardassian system that will not detain you, will not question you, will not release to the public any allegations, you lose 0 rights and are not even inconvenienced until your guilt is proven. They are given the burden of proving your guilt before they can do any of these things.
There is a difference between a flash based website and a website that has flash components. How do you create a website with a game or some interactive app before canvas? Flash was what we had to work with.
"just by letting in a few thousand great programmers a year."
We already do that, and more. Immigration, right now, allows you to import some of the best of the best. Any argument to make it looser is talking about letting in large numbers of average workers, workers who are comparable to talent already available.
I cannot imagine that much, if they shop through any booksellers these booksellers will already know what they like. And there are cheaper alternatives, like all the book fan sites or just ask like FB does.
Putting aside the $5000 dollar hardcore collectibles (first editions of moby dick) used books stores and patrons really do not care if someones name is written on the copyright page.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what a "production car" is, but the limit is 170mph. You do need quite an engine to accomplish that. It is not a practical thing to do for at least 99% of the time.
Proved that you can beat these things by driving insanely fast.
Google is cemented in the industry, they are not going anywhere. They make profits, but they have a problem. They are not Bell, or MS, they arrived too late to have a monopoly on really anything. So they built a driverless car, and Google Glass, and in 10-20 years they still have the patent and will control the patent and technology. They do not want to come late to the game like with mobile phones and have to spend billions of dollars renting licences or buying patent portfolios.
On second thought, I think he actually just continued to descend until he smashed into the ground. I think it was one of the altitude meters.
This, I watched a documentary about a crash a year ago. One instrument malfunctioned, the pilot then proceeded to ignore like 8 other instruments, and his cockpit window, and continue to slow down until he crashed and killed everyone. Pilot training has obvious gone way downhill, they are often less able to deal with instrument malfunctions than if we just put a simple non robust auto pilot in control.
Because in this day and age, people expect the government to do everything for them, and protect them from everything. Imagine if hundreds die, after the FBI gets a call that they ignore. Heads would role, major important people would get fired. So they have to treat every single suggestion of law breaking as true, as the voters do not care one wit is rights are routinely trodden on, of their police are militarized and budgets soar, they do care if there is a shooting or a bomb important enough to get news coverage.
when you give people the simplified choice of, should this tragedy have happened, or do we prevent it in the future, they will always pick the "lets prevent this in the future option". Because they are not writing the budges, they are not directly taking money out of schools or medical care. They are not deciding exactly what rights to trampled on.
Which very well might be what the Airlines are hoping for. If they can get loads of advertising and more passengers, with a modest "sale" they come out ahead.
Why would this ever be cheaper?
I do not have to be a Christian to find the obvious undertones of hatred and intolerance in his tweet.
I do not see any reason to get that mad about it, but the tweet, even though it is without slurs and typically offensive language, is obviously aimed at diminutizeing Jesus. It is no coincidence that 100% of people would of though we was talking about Jesus up to the very end, because that was his purpose. The entire point of the tweet was an attack on Jesus, just because he is a smart well spoken guy that can pull it off without swear words does not change that fact.
So it is an offensive tweet, a tweet whose only purpose is to attack a specific group of people. But in the grand scheme of things is is really not a big deal.
I do not see any reason to get that mad about it, but the tweet even though it is without slurs and typically offensive language is obviously aimed at diminutizeing Jesus. It is no coincidence that 100% of people would of though we was talking about Jesus up to the very end, because that was his purpose. The entire point of the tweet was an attack on Jesus, just because he is a smart well spoken guy that can pull it off without swear words does not change that fact.
So it is an offensive tweet, a tweet whose only purpose is to attack a specific group of people. But in the grand scheme of things is is really not a big deal.
I am not saying that it would not be something you could not get around. The the average user sending the average message would be screwed. Not only is the average email unencrypted but it contained a from address, and i imagine mosy outgoing email comes directly from a gmail server, and is not ping ponged around teh world such that the sender is anonymous.
I think it would be simple enough for China to block all incoming email from Google servers/accounts. So ya, that is how the Internet works when you build a giant firewall around your country.
Actually, it does. An integral part of a trial is that the accused has access to the evidence, the means of collection, and a means to defend themselves even if it's as the people's expense. One can definitely argue that such a system still favors the rich and the prosecutor power is still very overwhelming, but that speaks more about refining the judicial process and not abandoning it in favor of a one-sided system where those who wish to "prove" guilty can manufacturer evidence and the person charged has no time or means to defend themselves.
Most of this is handled in the Cardassian version of a trial. They go over all the evidence with you, and the public, show how they got it and everything. At this point, yes your guilt has been proven, but if you actually have any information that could exonerate you (if you have the ability to defend yourself better than a lawyer) then their is nothign stopping that from happening. People get proven innocent after being found guilty all the time, there is no reason this would change if we used a different system. You are just not forced to defend yourself until very credible and damning claims have been brought against you. Instead of a system that says: "We kindof think that maybe you did something wrong, we do not have a lot of evidence but we are going to need you to prove you did not do it or you are going to jail", the Cardassian system is: "We have all this evidence that you did something wrong, actually more than enough to prove you did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. So we are going to lock you away now (but no one is stopping you (or someone else) from speaking and proving your innocence)."
Read above. Under the current system, we admittedly have the issue that people put too much faith in police and prosecutors not to lie, the believe that only people who are guilty (or seemingly very much look it) go to trial, and the system is rigged with the idea of proving guilty instead of trying to prove innocence. Yet we have a jury who has the power to question the police, a defense lawyer who can bring up issues of doubt, much greater access to the evidence* than ever presented in the Cardassian system, etc. To pretend that it's merely an ability to speak on the stand or not that's the differentiation really ignores a lot of the procedure that does grant the defense a lot more power than that. If it were as you say, then yes, our current system would already be pretty synonymous with the Cardassian one.
Read what I said again, there is nothing in the Cardassian system that at all prevents a jury or a defense lawyer. I personally am not sure that the adversarial system of defense lawyer verses prosecutor is a good one, but there is nothing in the Cardassian system that prevents that system from being used (it very well might be how they internally deliberate). And the same for a jury. There is no reason that the evidence should not be given to a random group of your peers, but unlike our system these people would not have already judged you based on the news report (As your life has not already been ruined by the media deciding your guilt before the trial).
Quite the contrary. Only in a police--ie, what you call a surveillance--state would leave the people to believe those in power have the information to determine a person's guilty without some proceeding to collect evidence.
There absolutely is a proceeding to collect evidence, the government is just not granted the power to arbitrarily detain people who are not proven to be guilty (or otherwise significantly impact their lives).
It is simply the difference in how much power you want the government to have. I say that if the government is going to punish one of its charges that it has to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person has done wrong, and show this evidence to both the accused and the public. Anything else is a tyranny.
Do you get that chance in America, or the UK?
The idea of running around solving your own crime, proving your innocence, is a fiction for films and TV
And the idea of doing anything other than paying for the best lawyer you can afford, and sitting in a chair in the courtroom as he mounts the best defense possible is not any more realistic than running around solving some murder you have been accused of. In America must buy your justice, and most people cannot afford much. You simply cannot defend yourself, not only is the law incredibly convoluted and set up in such a way that to do anything you pretty much need a team of people who have dedicated their life to knowing it, but it is almost impossible to even get advise. It is literally illegal for a non lawyer to give you advise, I have tried, and no real lawyer will do so unless they are paid.
A common misunderstanding. Yes, the your guilt is decided before the "trial", but that is the whole point. The "trial" is an integral step where the government is required to show the populace, how it is metering out justice. To prove to them, and the accused, that justice is being done. This does not prevent a "trial" in the same sense as the West knows. They can still have a jury of your peers, if you are into that (though I do not think we were given any reason to believe that that happens on Cardassia), they still must gather evidence and have a judge judge its validity and if guilty come up with a sentence. The only thing it prevents is allowing the accused to defend/speak himself; Which really does not happen in real life anyways (Your Lawyer speaks for you, you do not run around solving your own crime, proving your innocence).
As for the surveillance state, that reminds me a whole lot more of America or the UK than any thing else, and is a separate issue. Yes, the Obsidian Order has too much power, yes they go around assassinating their own people, yes Cardassia is pretty tyrannical; But those are separable parts of its governing process.
That is not a justice system, that is a military command structure.
Exactly, it is neither fair nor just to put an innocent man on trial. To make an innocent man prove his innocence. Unless the justice system can prove that you are guilty, you should not be put through that. Look at Julian Assange, stuck in an embassy for years now, because he is wanted for questioning. The officials do not have to prove anything, they do not need anything to call you down to the police station to talk, and then you never leave.
So their government can be overbearing and tyrannical, they can fabricate evidence and try innocent people. News flash, American does that all the time. At least on Cardassia you are truly innocent until proven guilty. At least on Cardassia you cannot be impassioned without a trial, you cannot be held up in courts for decades and have your resources witted away by a richer opponent. At least on Cardassia the amount of justice you get is not equal to how much you can buy.
Say all you want about innocent until proven guilty, but when when the government has the right to detain, raid, and otherwise completely interrupt/ruin your life on a whim or allegation, how is that fair? Sure they cannot send you to prison without a trial, but they can detain you in a prison until a trial. They cannot fine or punish you without a trial, but they can raid and seize evidence on almost 0 grounds.
Compare this to the Cardassian system that will not detain you, will not question you, will not release to the public any allegations, you lose 0 rights and are not even inconvenienced until your guilt is proven. They are given the burden of proving your guilt before they can do any of these things.
There is a difference between a flash based website and a website that has flash components. How do you create a website with a game or some interactive app before canvas? Flash was what we had to work with.
Well being able to work with what once was a major part of the web, is a selling point.
"just by letting in a few thousand great programmers a year."
We already do that, and more. Immigration, right now, allows you to import some of the best of the best. Any argument to make it looser is talking about letting in large numbers of average workers, workers who are comparable to talent already available.
If I am not mistaken you can do the same thing in Haxe, and that includes Flash development as well.
I cannot imagine that much, if they shop through any booksellers these booksellers will already know what they like. And there are cheaper alternatives, like all the book fan sites or just ask like FB does.
Putting aside the $5000 dollar hardcore collectibles (first editions of moby dick) used books stores and patrons really do not care if someones name is written on the copyright page.