The RFID tag does not identify your cat as yours, it identifies the cat. A central registry links the cat to you. Since there is, thankfully, no central registry of who owns what copies of what books, RFID tags are useless as a means of identifying who owns a book. Especially when there is a much cheaper and easier solution to that problem.
Hell yes. It is pretty naive to think that QR codes (or something like them) is the epitome of optically storing digital data. Some new format will come along, and within a few years people will stop creating the old format, and not too long after that new software will no longer include support for reading the old formats.
But those were probably used for tracking the books inside the library, right? They aren't used as the method of identifying the book as the library's property, are they?
Geez, I hope that is not what he wants to do. Nothing says 'friendship' like 'I am coming over with my RFID scanner to audit your book collection'.
The idea of the stickers is to a) remind the borrower who the book belongs to, and b) give info to someone who may have found a lost book. Neither of these are satisfied with any digital solution.
Show us the criminal cases where evidence that has not been collected by the police has been presented for the prosecution. We'll wait.
Show us the criminal cases where the burden of proof is NOT on the prosecution and 'preponderance of the evidence' is sufficient. Here's a hint to get you going in the right direction: there aren't any.
The drone operator may not be on trial, but the case very much hinges on HIS actions. As it turns out, his drone was destroyed because of the way HE operated it. And you are stupid enough to think he has no reason to lie?
Yes, it happens all the time. Who else is going to submit evidence?
Who else is going to submit evidence? The police. With proper chain of custody documentation, etc. You know that whole 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thing? It is real. And what could induce more doubt than evidence that just happens to turn up a few days later, but is wholly unsubstantiated?
But that would be evidence from an involved party. The state is the one who charged the man.
The police were not involved in the 'crime'. The drone operator was. I hope you can understand the difference.
You just contradicted yourself.
No, I did not. 'Accuracy' as YOU used it is referring to whether or not the sensors are reporting correctly, etc. 'Unreliable' means you can't tell if the evidence is real or not. HUGE difference.
Sure you can, you can have Boggs testify to its origins and if it was tampered with.
Ah, so the 'testimony' of one person, who has every reason to lie, outweighs the testimony of two people who presumably had no reason to lie. Makes perfect sense.
This was a CRIMINAL proceeding. Do you really think a court should accept as 'evidence' something provided by one of the parties involved? Now maybe if the cops had confiscated the drone and controller, and THEY provided the images and telemetry from the drone and it showed what you claim, then you would have a point. But only a moron would accept as 'evidence' data provided well after the fact by one of the parties.
The problem is not with the accuracy of the data, it is that the data is 100% unreliable. You have no way to prove that the data even came from the flight in dispute, or that the data was not tampered with in some way prior to being turned over.
Seriously? You know that thing you were in when you saw to $28 price? That costs actual money. You know, little things like rent, utilities, employees, shrinkage, inventory costs, etc. You know where the money to pay that comes from? From the things they sell in the store! Amazing!!
Of course, they could have the same price for in-store and online, but that means their online prices would not be competitive with Amazon, who does not have to cover the cost of having stores.
You're apparently old enough to be senile, because there never was such a time. The original cable TV (60s) was just retransmission of OTA broadcasts, including the ads. The 70s introduced premium channels like HBO. They didn't, and still dont, have ads. The 80s brought 'superstations', complete with ads, and 'cable-only' channels like MTV, which had ads from day one.
Oh, aren't you so clever coming up with an insightful statement like that! So smart!
In all of Congress (House and Senate) there was exactly ONE vote against making it illegal. That vote was from loony toon (and slashdot favorite) Ron Paul. That law isn't going anywhere.
ALL languages (purport to) fill a need that other languages cannot or they would not exist. You're not writing most of your code in assembly, are you? Remind me how you tell the C compiler that a variable contains decimal data, and that decimal instructions should be used to operate on it.
There are no 'precise specfications' for alignment. There is printing on the bin that says 'This side toward street'. My trash has been picked up this way for more than a decade, never seen any problems with it, even in snow.
This is not that difficult, although people on here certainly have problems with it.
Market cap is nothing but current stock price times number of outstanding shares. And those shares are the property of the INDIVIDUAL shareholders, NOT the collective company. There is no way for the company to get one dime of value out of those shares. Therefore, market cap means absolutely nothing to the company, and is in no way an indication of the company's ability to pay.
The actions of the company of course affects the share price, but regardless of whether the price goes up or down the company has no claim on any individuals shares.
No, it gives you absolutely no idea of the company's ability to pay. The company has no access to that money. Market cap is nothing but stock price times outstanding shares. The only way a company can raise money from stocks is by selling new shares. And in this case, that means convincing people to invest their money in a company that just completely trashed the existing share value by diluting the value of the stock, and not to support some new corporate investment that may pay off in the future , but to pay for past events. Existing market cap has nothing at all to do with that ability.
It makes no sense at all to compare the fine with the market cap. None.
The market cap is not the company's money, it is the shareholders money. What you are proposing is nothing less than taking money from the shareholders pockets. And you think that somehow a 'logical' market would accept that? No, a logical market would say 'WTF, this company apparently not only can't make a good product, they also commit a crime to hide that fact, and they expect ME to pay for it? Dump this stock as quickly as possible'. And your beloved market cap spirals towards 0.
Slashdot Mirror
Well sure, but that is still only useful inside the library. It does nothing for any person wondering who the book belongs to.
The RFID tag does not identify your cat as yours, it identifies the cat. A central registry links the cat to you. Since there is, thankfully, no central registry of who owns what copies of what books, RFID tags are useless as a means of identifying who owns a book. Especially when there is a much cheaper and easier solution to that problem.
Hell yes. It is pretty naive to think that QR codes (or something like them) is the epitome of optically storing digital data. Some new format will come along, and within a few years people will stop creating the old format, and not too long after that new software will no longer include support for reading the old formats.
But those were probably used for tracking the books inside the library, right? They aren't used as the method of identifying the book as the library's property, are they?
Geez, I hope that is not what he wants to do. Nothing says 'friendship' like 'I am coming over with my RFID scanner to audit your book collection'.
The idea of the stickers is to a) remind the borrower who the book belongs to, and b) give info to someone who may have found a lost book. Neither of these are satisfied with any digital solution.
45 years? Longer than that. Storage protection keys were introduced on the IBM 360/67, in August 1965.
Show us the criminal cases where evidence that has not been collected by the police has been presented for the prosecution. We'll wait.
Show us the criminal cases where the burden of proof is NOT on the prosecution and 'preponderance of the evidence' is sufficient. Here's a hint to get you going in the right direction: there aren't any.
The drone operator may not be on trial, but the case very much hinges on HIS actions. As it turns out, his drone was destroyed because of the way HE operated it. And you are stupid enough to think he has no reason to lie?
Yes, it happens all the time. Who else is going to submit evidence?
Who else is going to submit evidence? The police. With proper chain of custody documentation, etc. You know that whole 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thing? It is real. And what could induce more doubt than evidence that just happens to turn up a few days later, but is wholly unsubstantiated?
But that would be evidence from an involved party. The state is the one who charged the man.
The police were not involved in the 'crime'. The drone operator was. I hope you can understand the difference.
You just contradicted yourself.
No, I did not. 'Accuracy' as YOU used it is referring to whether or not the sensors are reporting correctly, etc. 'Unreliable' means you can't tell if the evidence is real or not. HUGE difference.
Sure you can, you can have Boggs testify to its origins and if it was tampered with.
Ah, so the 'testimony' of one person, who has every reason to lie, outweighs the testimony of two people who presumably had no reason to lie. Makes perfect sense.
This was a CRIMINAL proceeding. Do you really think a court should accept as 'evidence' something provided by one of the parties involved? Now maybe if the cops had confiscated the drone and controller, and THEY provided the images and telemetry from the drone and it showed what you claim, then you would have a point. But only a moron would accept as 'evidence' data provided well after the fact by one of the parties.
The problem is not with the accuracy of the data, it is that the data is 100% unreliable. You have no way to prove that the data even came from the flight in dispute, or that the data was not tampered with in some way prior to being turned over.
Seriously? You know that thing you were in when you saw to $28 price? That costs actual money. You know, little things like rent, utilities, employees, shrinkage, inventory costs, etc. You know where the money to pay that comes from? From the things they sell in the store! Amazing!!
Of course, they could have the same price for in-store and online, but that means their online prices would not be competitive with Amazon, who does not have to cover the cost of having stores.
Is that really that difficult to figure out?
You're apparently old enough to be senile, because there never was such a time. The original cable TV (60s) was just retransmission of OTA broadcasts, including the ads. The 70s introduced premium channels like HBO. They didn't, and still dont, have ads. The 80s brought 'superstations', complete with ads, and 'cable-only' channels like MTV, which had ads from day one.
Mir was launched 13 years after Skylab. Big surprise it was more advanced.
Oh, aren't you so clever coming up with an insightful statement like that! So smart!
In all of Congress (House and Senate) there was exactly ONE vote against making it illegal. That vote was from loony toon (and slashdot favorite) Ron Paul. That law isn't going anywhere.
The AHA does not require you to purchase any particular product from any particular seller. Try again.
Name one of those times.
ALL languages (purport to) fill a need that other languages cannot or they would not exist. You're not writing most of your code in assembly, are you? Remind me how you tell the C compiler that a variable contains decimal data, and that decimal instructions should be used to operate on it.
Sorry. A guy in Florida was fined $48000 by the FCC for operating a cell phone jammer in his car to prevent others near him from using their phones.
You may be interested in reading this before you try that: http://fox2now.com/2014/04/30/...
The same thing that happens in the real world: you do without the product, and the seller does without the revenue. Quite simple.
What does Polk have to do with any of this? He wasn't single-issue, and he neither pledged to resign nor resigned.
Emissions are measured per mile, not per gallon.
There are no 'precise specfications' for alignment. There is printing on the bin that says 'This side toward street'. My trash has been picked up this way for more than a decade, never seen any problems with it, even in snow.
This is not that difficult, although people on here certainly have problems with it.
Market cap is nothing but current stock price times number of outstanding shares. And those shares are the property of the INDIVIDUAL shareholders, NOT the collective company. There is no way for the company to get one dime of value out of those shares. Therefore, market cap means absolutely nothing to the company, and is in no way an indication of the company's ability to pay.
The actions of the company of course affects the share price, but regardless of whether the price goes up or down the company has no claim on any individuals shares.
No, it gives you absolutely no idea of the company's ability to pay. The company has no access to that money. Market cap is nothing but stock price times outstanding shares. The only way a company can raise money from stocks is by selling new shares. And in this case, that means convincing people to invest their money in a company that just completely trashed the existing share value by diluting the value of the stock, and not to support some new corporate investment that may pay off in the future , but to pay for past events. Existing market cap has nothing at all to do with that ability.
It makes no sense at all to compare the fine with the market cap. None.
The market cap is not the company's money, it is the shareholders money. What you are proposing is nothing less than taking money from the shareholders pockets. And you think that somehow a 'logical' market would accept that? No, a logical market would say 'WTF, this company apparently not only can't make a good product, they also commit a crime to hide that fact, and they expect ME to pay for it? Dump this stock as quickly as possible'. And your beloved market cap spirals towards 0.