Yes, it appears as a check-box (or equivalent), labeled "SmartScreen".
Who do you think knows what that means? Especially when you are setting up your computer and can't just search for what it means because the desktop is not yet available?
It sounds safe and secure, so you statistically will leave it allowed. Will you write it down for further research on whether to leave it checked, and if not how to un-check it? Statistically, no.
Users will see it, but not understand it.
Since I have already posted here, consider yourself -1 (idiot) Missing.Matter (1845576) and zenlessyank (748553) -1 (missing the point).
Too bad moderation options don't include these, so I have to reply instead.
Mine is pretty accurate, considering I have a +2 Karma bonus, so I don't need many pluses to get a 5, and usually get 15 mod points at a time, with a rare 5 from time to time.
zenlessyank's history is not informative based on the scores, because negative karma grants you anywhere from +2 to -1 automatically. It doesn't matter what a post score is. Just read the comments. I find history invaluable when moderating, because it can help when I can't determine when someone is sarcastic or genuinely idiotic.
A few insightful posts among funny ones, and you get some "benefit of the doubt". Mostly un-moderated posts, or blatant trolls, and I will at least consider keeping you karma-negative until you post something worth reading. Based purely on zenlessyank's history, I would not moderate any posts under that account at all unless they genuinely, on their own, would be obviously meta-moderated the same way.
Based on your history, I assume you have positive, but not excellent, karma, and your history scores look about like mine - except for the troll post. Given that the troll is in the context of ThinkPad (which runs Windows), and you mentioned both OS X and BSD, I'd say that's fair. Even if we grant you the Carbon pun from Apple's API, the BSD mention puts you in the *nix camp on a Windows story.
Automatic troll. Even though most Slashdot readers are probably curious whether it *can* run *nix operating systems, that's not what the story was about, and you are completely incorrect in assuming the main questions for buyers of this hardware.
I hope this post has helped you in some way, as you are the only intended audience. If I feel so inclined I will offer critiques of other peoples' history as well, in the interest of fairness, but I usually just go post-by-post.
OP rather clearly stated criteria for "good mp3 player". Here it is, since you missed it the first time: "sorts music like XMMS and since I'm used to XMMS does most everything in a similar fashion as well."
Prius does a similar thing. If you use the voice features for anything more complicated than you can do manually, most of the time it will tell you to stop the car first.
And for jittles - no, you can't disable this in a Prius without a hardware hack. And it's not something that most people who have bought the car since they disabled manually overriding it 6 years ago think about before deciding to include. Very few people know to ask, and very few have the option - either the car that's on the lot has it installed, or it doesn't - take it or leave it.
(although still dangerous enough since you pretty much can't text on a touch screen one handed).
And this is why such solutions will fail. I pretty much can't text two handed on a touch screen. I guess that means people are different.
I further infer that means this technology might be able to capture a majority of the people, but will give false positives and false negatives, which will frustrate users. I watch people touch-text while talking, not looking at their device, just like I've had people touch-type while talking. Holding both hands at the 6 o'clock position would let you comfortably touch-text and drive without being flagged.
To me, reading a text while driving is more dangerous. If you don't know what the message contains, you may take more time than you thought, like the sub-mini "novel you can't put down". Can this technology stop readers as well?
Slap "reckless endangerment" and felony imprisonment on texting while operating a vehicle, and I bet the problem will be solved without harming anyone else.
I will take that bet. We have plenty of laws against doing obviously stupid things, but people still do them. Increased cracking down on drunk drivers has gone into the law of diminishing returns area, people end up in prison despite not having hurt anyone, and people still do it. If the daily mug shot links on news aggregation sites are an indicator, the prostitution business is still around.
You won't stop a behavior by making it a punishable offense.
Just the same, any technological solution will have false positives and false negatives. Whoever is selling this idea will probably become rich, while pissing a lot of people off. I can't wait for the inevitable "it failed to stop the death of my child" lawsuit.
I was a passenger in a Prius, trying to set up Bluetooth audio. This feature is disabled if the car is going above 5 mph. You can use Bluetooth, change all kinds of things about the display, fiddle with the map, but actually setting up the BT is disabled. Up to 2005, it is something the passenger can override, but requires hardware hacking 2006+. So while I may be biased against tech solutions, I do have experiences with them being implemented incorrectly.
I'm not sure where you live, but if you are granted a fair trial and have evidence to present in your favor, what you have said is 100% false. Where I live, either a radar/laser speed result has to be entered, or the officer tailing you an attesting to matching your speed.
If you are dumb enough to let a police car, or any car for that matter, follow you long enough to establish your driving speed, get out of the left lane once in a while and let people pass you.
Otherwise you have the right to question the condition of the device used to measure speed. Was the laser/radar/speedometer properly calibrated? If department policy was not followed, with a paper trail, you got off the hook.
You sound like someone who got caught and weren't smart enough to fight back. Do you remember as far back as April? How bout the previous April?
I have not found a reliable source to support what you said. I agree that someone can build up a tolerance so that they appear more sober than their blood alcohol level would suggest.
Where I disagree is that blood alcohol level is directly equivalent to intoxication. You are saying that a drunk's reaction time is "just as bad". I have found no evidence of that. You will probably perform worse after a few beers, but "just as bad"? I know at least one person to whom several beers is as intoxicating as a cup of coffee. Are you saying this person is physically as intoxicated as anyone else who drinks that much, or legally intoxicated as much? For the argument, I will grant you similar height, weight, and 24 hours of food intake.
Please support your statement.
The traditional difficulty with tolerance is that you feel less intoxicated than your BAC registers, making you feel okay to drive. You may be physically capable, but legally incapable. Those are vastly different things.
You said the word "average", then gave an anecdote of a single person.
I don't care what this guy does - he is far enough from me that statistically we will never meet. What I do care about are statistics, so I can judge risk.
You have given essentially zero information, just noise on the wire. What percent of severe drunks are still actively drinking, as opposed to having residual alcohol? And can you offer a citation?
Based on the graphic, it was 1720 feet right at the point where the rock fell into the water. Once it got out of the Gilbert Inlet, it hit the opposing shore with 600 feet (less than half), and very quickly dissipated. Even the Crillon Inlet, where you would expect water to be channelled, was only 200 feet.
And at the outlet, where the land should be pushing it together and therefore higher, it was only 25 to 30 feet. The maximum depth is 720 feet, but the outlet sill was only 32 feet deep.
Wait, let's fact check. Is there an eye witness?
"The wave definitely started in Gilbert Inlet, just before the end of the quake. It was not a wave at first. It was like an explosion, or a glacier sluff. The wave came out of the lower part, and looked like the smallest part of the whole thing. The wave did not go up 1,800 feet, the water splashed there."
Based on your description alone, and your lack of citations, it reads as information dispersal, not information gathering. So now I am more strongly convinced that they asked no one, and simply explained what they were going to do whether people wanted to give feedback or not.
I only found 1 PDF with problems, and that was a color-intensive full magazine. If you read black-and-white content, Kindle DX hasn't caused me problems. I mostly had used PDFs from Project Gutenberg, or PDFs made up of JPEG content. Those work great.
The magazine was a true PDF using most of the detailed layout functionality. It's not great for those. But the technical/reference books should work without issue. It does have a dictionary.
Bookmarks, annotations, and such are possible as well. Text to speech, audio books, and random MP3 files too. I turned all internet connectivity off, but it does have a web browser.
From the ruling, the police lalready suspected, or had reason to believe, that device was involved in illicit activities. Whomever the owner and/or posessor, that device was a target. Not a randomly monitored device.
And, "unreasonable search" does not apply when the contract says your information may be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant. The provider does not want to incur court costs on your behalf, so why would you expect them to?
If you use a third party of any kind, assume that it is an informant. If you have nothing to hide, the informant has nothing to divulge. If, like everyone on the planet, you do have something to hide, don't use a third party.
How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?
Your data is only private if your contract with your provider specifically says that nothing will be divulged without proper legal justification. Expect to pay a lot more for those services, and expect to pay using a cash-backed pre-paid credit card outside of your home town. Or, don't drive around with 1100 pounds of marijuana.
Or, if you are caught with 1100 pounds of marijuana, maybe you have standing to sue the FDA for failure to exercise due diligence in the last 3 requests to re-classify marijuana, and you should fight that while you have time on your hands.
Wouldn't you be playing the part of the dillwad sales clerk when you educate stakeholders? And wouldn't you also be the one with the inflexible pre-conceived notion when you enter the store with what you call a researched decision?
You may think no, there's a difference. But that's only from your perspective.
This would be helpful... if you can shrink it down to fit on a blue card.
(sadly, I could not find a link as a hint, so I'll have to explain. Programmers references used to be little cards, or fold-up paper segmented into card-sized pieces, with info such as which flags were modified by a machine code instruction. They were originally blue, goes the legend, but could be of any color)
If I have mod points, and I do, don't you think it would make sense for me to decide where they go instead of taking your opinion?
Feel free to add to it, with citations and links or at least some sort of supporting information to bolster the parent post. You may get your own damned mod points eventually that way, and you can do whatever you like with them.
"Patient has to want to change" is a shorthand/metaphor for "a patient has to accept the existence of a problem, and in order to find the cause of it so it can be treated, he or she must openly discuss the problem and the underlying issues with a trained professional".
Not seeing a difference here. Either an antibiotic works, or it doesn't, because it's ineffective against that class of bacteria, or it's a mutant bacteria, or increased stomach acid, or you took it with something that the label says not to take it with.
Psychology, there is no way to explain why something did not work. Theories exist as to why it did work, when it is successful, but we can't investigate, measure, and fix the problem. We also cannot state as fact that a condition is resistant to all known treatments, as we can with other medical fields.
If that doesn't help, think of it this way. We have had sertraline for 40 years, and we still don't know exactly what it does, and it usually requires psychotherapy as well as medication. If it doesn't work on its own, and we can't explain what it does, and all it is supposed to be doing is restoring the balance of chemicals in the brain... shouldn't someone have figured this out by now?
It's nice to take a philosophical stance, but in reality a successful defense of a misdemeanor will probably cost $15k USD.
Court costs plus a lawyer would be affordable on their own, to most people. It's the expert witness that gets expensive. The prosecution will try to throw out enough technobabble that it sounds like you are quite obviously guilty.
Then you have to pay someone who has professional standing to refute that argument, and explain how you were doing nothing uniquely bad. And their time and travel costs are not cheap.
An example: The prosecution says if you were using encryption, which most people don't do, then obviously you were trying to hide something. Your witness has to be able to explain that everyone uses SSL when using online banking, and identity theft is not something you want to risk, and that knowledgeable people are moving towards encrypting everything. But you saying it as the defendant is not authoritative enough to undercut the prosecution's expert. You need one at least equally recognized as an expert to say the same things.
It should not be expensive, but it is. Even worse is to bankrupt yourself and still lose because you chose the wrong witness, or because the lone knowledgeable holdout on the ury gave in because they can't afford that much time off work. As long as your being principled, why not go solve world peace, and convert everyone to renewable fuel? I'm sure it's as easy as quoting a few lines from a nearly forgotten document.
Or did you have some practical insight as to keep costs low when defending yourself, without guaranteeing your loss?
DMCA and cease and desist are two completely different things. If a DMCA notice comes in, they have to remove the content until they get a counter-notice. Cease and desist is a warning of future legal action, and you can decide whether to comply or fight. This host decided to comply.
You are correct that a cease and desist notice has zero legal standing, except that they are warnings of impending legal action if not complied with, or adequately responded to. And your last phrase kinda makes my point. The host decided to fold, rather than being legally required to, because they were not formatted as a DMCA request (again, based on the information I have, unless you have something else you're not sharing).
I know of no requirement that DMCA be the only method of preventing copyright infringement. I have already discussed why it is sometimes preferable, and why a cease-and-desist warning might be preferable in different situations. Therefore your statement "That is the current federal law" is a lie of omission, assuming that there is no other option. DMCA is a current federal law, but it is not the only one. Further, the continuation "and the ISP violated it" only applies for DMCA notices.
You seem rational and thoughtful in the global warming threads. In copyright threads, you seem to make assumptions, take sides, and apparently not even bother to be informed enough beyond what you remember from slashdot posts to make your point. Almost as if two different people were posting under a single user name. Please go read up a bit, ask a lawyer, or at least think for a short time on why I might have bothered to reply to you.
Crowdsourcing is only a viable option when you only need "good enough", and you can get an informed crowd together. In this case, not only is it inadvisable, it is dangerous. I would not trust volunteers to respond. An inadequate response could very well led to an undesirable situation.
If no reply is sent, the author's representation will almost certainly file suit, so you want to ensure no response is overlooked. If you do not sufficiently address each point of a C&D, your response will be considered evidence against the person you are trying to help. If in any way the volunteer gives the impression of disdain or dismissiveness, intentional infringement will be claimed.
Keep in mind, you will win any lawsuit, because they agreed to lending as part of the publishing agreement. But paying for the defense could be expensive, especially if multiple suits are filed. One volunteer screwing up and you are probably financially ruined.
And no need to bring up the "have to be rich to get justice" garbage, it's been beaten to death. Yes, it's not fair, and yes in most cases it is true. We have discussed it to death, just leave it be.
I did not see DMCA mentioned, only "cease and desist". The "were infuriated" link contains equal parts infuration and people reminded the infuriated that lending was part of their agreement, if they checked the box to allow it.
You invented DMCA because you associate it with copyright protection. What seems to have happened, based on the information presented, is that the hosting company was inundated with C&D notices instead of DMCA. These are legally backed threats which can lead to lawsuits directly, outside of the control of the DMCA process.
In other words, the hosting company most likely had a choice between shutting down the service and responding to multiple court summons, if not full blown cases. Were I the hosting company, I would have folded, and I would have laid the responsibility of responding to the customer, just as this company did.
C&D is a lose-lose proposition unless you have deep enough pockets to defend yourself. DMCA covers the host well enough if tey do what they are supposed to do. Which is most likely why the authors went with C&D instead of DMCA. One is quicker, one is more effective. If you're going for the kill, as the summary says, C&D is the way to go.
I started reading him the last time a similar topic popped up in March. The shorter stories are good, but obviously thematic to the point of being repetitive. He didn't flog the horse quite to death, so they were still entertaining enough.
If your point was that he could have been quite appreciated had he lived longer and written more, I have to point out that is not the question at hand. Perhaps forgotten as was appropriate last time, but I think his appreciation is relatively well in line with what he actually wrote.
hemo_jr in the reply which should appear above mine shared your misunderstanding. An early death cannot underscore someone's under-appreciation 50 years after his death. Perhaps under-appreciation during his lifetime might have contributed to his suicide, but nothing I found suggests this was the case. His perception of being under-appreciated, as a possible but unlikely cause, is not relevant to the level of actual appreciation.
I didn't bother to click the link, but i'll reply to what's there.
Computer nerds are not designing the social sites, they are implementing it for someone who intends to make money from it. Zuckerberg is an outlier, but he stole the idea, implementing a copy of something he was asked to develop.
The people reverse-engineering social interactions are not the computer nerds designing social sites (especially since computer nerds are not doing the designing)
Recommendations are not intended to be predictive. Match.com, Netflix, Amazon, and any number of sites are trying as hard as they can, but they can only make "recommendations", not predictions. They want to open your circle as much as possible, and that includes your wallet (directly or indirectly)
You most certainly can mine my data, which is the entire point of social networking providers. But they don't care about engagement - they provide the platform by which other brands can create engagement. They don't want to help, they want to get paid for.
Social networks exist to sell you crap. I agree with this point, but it's no exception from any other website which has to offset costs, or wants to make money. OTA television exists to sell you crap, billboards, telemarketers, direct mail... I have a hard time thinking of something that doesn't want to sell you something, other than truly free (RMS approved) contributions. Software of course, or your local halfway house or women's shelter, or any number of genuinely charitable organizations.
House full of one way mirrors is entirely off base. A lot of people would love that, to be the center of attention. And most social networking is a two way mirror, aka a window, where you can communicate and get responses back. Most people just don't think about other people who can see into that window.
In the context of privacy, it is entirely un-social to spy on people who do not wish to be spied upon. But that doesn't make social networks un-social. It just makes the providers who mine the data un-social. But they provide the infrastructure to allow communication. It is the abuse of power, or more precisely the abuse of access, which is un-social, not the network itself.
Creating a permanent dossier on every user is certainly a privacy concern. But I cannot accept the premise that it is un-social in some way. I volunteer my information, I want people to see it, and I can have a social connection by using the provider. As a privacy advocate, this is an abuse of power. As an ignorant user, I see advertisements which, although are increasingly relevant to my interests, I ignore. Your dossier means nothing if I don't click, and advertisers lose revenue on worthless eyeballs.
The article specifically misses the point of social networking games, which are designed to be simple-minded and addictive, using all of the psychology casinos have employed for ages. They are usually single-player, involve micro-transations, and punish you for being away too long. This is the sole reason for many facebook users, and the sole reason for people who make plugins designed to eliminate app invitations to mafia wars or farmville.
In other words, the author does not seem to have a clue how to make a persuasive argument, and instead wants to flog a personal agenda's dead horse. Providers who offer their services for free actually get something in return. This is well known, redundant at this point, and poorly argued.
You are taking a truly long view of this - essentially an impossibility. Are you suggesting that it is possible for the entire population except you to care about the things you care about?
I was going to leave it there and let you reply, but I rarely return to read replies, leaving my comments in the hands of moderators these days.
It would be nice to be able to guide others to watch less television, or at least certain types of television. It would be nice to be able to encourage better communication skills in the people you meet. But it is impossible on an individual level (as in you being the lone person trying). If you concern yourself with the fate of the world, you are doomed to disappointment.
It is far better to encourage these things in each person you meet. Someone is sure to have a similar mindset, and the conversations you get will be far more interesting than railing against the lowest common denominator.
In the past 10 years, I have met a single person with whom I can have a truly great conversation about anything and anything. I have met two handfuls of people with whom I can discuss a subset of topics. Everyone else will remain ignorant and uninteresting regardless of whether facebook, SMS, television, or any other fad comes or goes.
That's at least 10 people with whom you will be able to have a conversation, to answer your question in a roundabout way. And there are more I haven't met - 6 billion people don't use Facebook. Twitter's retention rate is around 40% - one use and they are gone, with an estimated half billion. Even if they don't overlap, there are 5.5 billion potentially interesting people, and a goodly percentage of the last 1.5 billion who might be conversational.
If you want to be concerned, feel free. But if I were you, I would concentrate on influencing the people you actually meet. Otherwise, make an appointment with a very good psychiatrist. Skip the psychologist - I tried to reason with you.
You missed the point completely. "Communicate" does not mean making sure the recipient got the message. Especially in the context of gp's post.
"I'm important, look at what I'm doing" and subsequent replies are most of what I remember from facebook. Seldom were there any messages of organization, or any time sensitive data. It's a "status" message, what you're doing now. Not ensuring your message is read.
The closest I have ever seen is "Anyone up for [activity] tonite?" And the people who already know it's going to happen reply, even though the original poster knows they will be there.
You are communicating, to whomever decides not to hide posts from you, that your activities and intentions should be known. It is not reliable, or error-free, or time-sensitive. But it allows people to communicate to each other in the most natural way possible - egocentically.
Forget what you know about TCP/IP, message delivery, routing around censorship, and anything else that has a non-human aspect to it. Most users want to send a message, and a smaller subset want to live vicariously or otherwise spy on what everyone else is doing. In the truly human sense, it is the most efficient method of communication we have. Everyone who wants to hear you can, with your permission, and anyone who doesn't want to can tune in to something that *does* interest them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it appears as a check-box (or equivalent), labeled "SmartScreen".
Who do you think knows what that means? Especially when you are setting up your computer and can't just search for what it means because the desktop is not yet available?
It sounds safe and secure, so you statistically will leave it allowed. Will you write it down for further research on whether to leave it checked, and if not how to un-check it? Statistically, no.
Users will see it, but not understand it.
Since I have already posted here, consider yourself -1 (idiot) Missing.Matter (1845576) and zenlessyank (748553) -1 (missing the point).
Too bad moderation options don't include these, so I have to reply instead.
Mine is pretty accurate, considering I have a +2 Karma bonus, so I don't need many pluses to get a 5, and usually get 15 mod points at a time, with a rare 5 from time to time.
zenlessyank's history is not informative based on the scores, because negative karma grants you anywhere from +2 to -1 automatically. It doesn't matter what a post score is. Just read the comments. I find history invaluable when moderating, because it can help when I can't determine when someone is sarcastic or genuinely idiotic.
A few insightful posts among funny ones, and you get some "benefit of the doubt". Mostly un-moderated posts, or blatant trolls, and I will at least consider keeping you karma-negative until you post something worth reading. Based purely on zenlessyank's history, I would not moderate any posts under that account at all unless they genuinely, on their own, would be obviously meta-moderated the same way.
Based on your history, I assume you have positive, but not excellent, karma, and your history scores look about like mine - except for the troll post. Given that the troll is in the context of ThinkPad (which runs Windows), and you mentioned both OS X and BSD, I'd say that's fair. Even if we grant you the Carbon pun from Apple's API, the BSD mention puts you in the *nix camp on a Windows story.
Automatic troll. Even though most Slashdot readers are probably curious whether it *can* run *nix operating systems, that's not what the story was about, and you are completely incorrect in assuming the main questions for buyers of this hardware.
I hope this post has helped you in some way, as you are the only intended audience. If I feel so inclined I will offer critiques of other peoples' history as well, in the interest of fairness, but I usually just go post-by-post.
OP rather clearly stated criteria for "good mp3 player". Here it is, since you missed it the first time: "sorts music like XMMS and since I'm used to XMMS does most everything in a similar fashion as well."
Prius does a similar thing. If you use the voice features for anything more complicated than you can do manually, most of the time it will tell you to stop the car first.
And for jittles - no, you can't disable this in a Prius without a hardware hack. And it's not something that most people who have bought the car since they disabled manually overriding it 6 years ago think about before deciding to include. Very few people know to ask, and very few have the option - either the car that's on the lot has it installed, or it doesn't - take it or leave it.
And this is why such solutions will fail. I pretty much can't text two handed on a touch screen. I guess that means people are different.
I further infer that means this technology might be able to capture a majority of the people, but will give false positives and false negatives, which will frustrate users. I watch people touch-text while talking, not looking at their device, just like I've had people touch-type while talking. Holding both hands at the 6 o'clock position would let you comfortably touch-text and drive without being flagged.
To me, reading a text while driving is more dangerous. If you don't know what the message contains, you may take more time than you thought, like the sub-mini "novel you can't put down". Can this technology stop readers as well?
I will take that bet. We have plenty of laws against doing obviously stupid things, but people still do them. Increased cracking down on drunk drivers has gone into the law of diminishing returns area, people end up in prison despite not having hurt anyone, and people still do it. If the daily mug shot links on news aggregation sites are an indicator, the prostitution business is still around.
You won't stop a behavior by making it a punishable offense.
Just the same, any technological solution will have false positives and false negatives. Whoever is selling this idea will probably become rich, while pissing a lot of people off. I can't wait for the inevitable "it failed to stop the death of my child" lawsuit.
I was a passenger in a Prius, trying to set up Bluetooth audio. This feature is disabled if the car is going above 5 mph. You can use Bluetooth, change all kinds of things about the display, fiddle with the map, but actually setting up the BT is disabled. Up to 2005, it is something the passenger can override, but requires hardware hacking 2006+. So while I may be biased against tech solutions, I do have experiences with them being implemented incorrectly.
I'm not sure where you live, but if you are granted a fair trial and have evidence to present in your favor, what you have said is 100% false. Where I live, either a radar/laser speed result has to be entered, or the officer tailing you an attesting to matching your speed.
If you are dumb enough to let a police car, or any car for that matter, follow you long enough to establish your driving speed, get out of the left lane once in a while and let people pass you.
Otherwise you have the right to question the condition of the device used to measure speed. Was the laser/radar/speedometer properly calibrated? If department policy was not followed, with a paper trail, you got off the hook.
You sound like someone who got caught and weren't smart enough to fight back. Do you remember as far back as April? How bout the previous April?
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/15/0158250/the-laws-of-physics-trump-traffic-laws
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/04/21/1847238/speed-tickets-challenged-based-on-timestamped-photos
I have not found a reliable source to support what you said. I agree that someone can build up a tolerance so that they appear more sober than their blood alcohol level would suggest.
Where I disagree is that blood alcohol level is directly equivalent to intoxication. You are saying that a drunk's reaction time is "just as bad". I have found no evidence of that. You will probably perform worse after a few beers, but "just as bad"? I know at least one person to whom several beers is as intoxicating as a cup of coffee. Are you saying this person is physically as intoxicated as anyone else who drinks that much, or legally intoxicated as much? For the argument, I will grant you similar height, weight, and 24 hours of food intake.
Please support your statement.
The traditional difficulty with tolerance is that you feel less intoxicated than your BAC registers, making you feel okay to drive. You may be physically capable, but legally incapable. Those are vastly different things.
You said the word "average", then gave an anecdote of a single person.
I don't care what this guy does - he is far enough from me that statistically we will never meet. What I do care about are statistics, so I can judge risk.
You have given essentially zero information, just noise on the wire. What percent of severe drunks are still actively drinking, as opposed to having residual alcohol? And can you offer a citation?
A splash.
Based on the graphic, it was 1720 feet right at the point where the rock fell into the water. Once it got out of the Gilbert Inlet, it hit the opposing shore with 600 feet (less than half), and very quickly dissipated. Even the Crillon Inlet, where you would expect water to be channelled, was only 200 feet.
And at the outlet, where the land should be pushing it together and therefore higher, it was only 25 to 30 feet. The maximum depth is 720 feet, but the outlet sill was only 32 feet deep.
Wait, let's fact check. Is there an eye witness?
Yup, a splash, from rocks falling 3000 feet.
Based on your description alone, and your lack of citations, it reads as information dispersal, not information gathering. So now I am more strongly convinced that they asked no one, and simply explained what they were going to do whether people wanted to give feedback or not.
I only found 1 PDF with problems, and that was a color-intensive full magazine. If you read black-and-white content, Kindle DX hasn't caused me problems. I mostly had used PDFs from Project Gutenberg, or PDFs made up of JPEG content. Those work great.
The magazine was a true PDF using most of the detailed layout functionality. It's not great for those. But the technical/reference books should work without issue. It does have a dictionary.
Bookmarks, annotations, and such are possible as well. Text to speech, audio books, and random MP3 files too. I turned all internet connectivity off, but it does have a web browser.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200375680
From the ruling, the police lalready suspected, or had reason to believe, that device was involved in illicit activities. Whomever the owner and/or posessor, that device was a target. Not a randomly monitored device.
And, "unreasonable search" does not apply when the contract says your information may be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant. The provider does not want to incur court costs on your behalf, so why would you expect them to?
If you use a third party of any kind, assume that it is an informant. If you have nothing to hide, the informant has nothing to divulge. If, like everyone on the planet, you do have something to hide, don't use a third party.
How many times do we have to learn the same lesson?
Your data is only private if your contract with your provider specifically says that nothing will be divulged without proper legal justification. Expect to pay a lot more for those services, and expect to pay using a cash-backed pre-paid credit card outside of your home town. Or, don't drive around with 1100 pounds of marijuana.
Or, if you are caught with 1100 pounds of marijuana, maybe you have standing to sue the FDA for failure to exercise due diligence in the last 3 requests to re-classify marijuana, and you should fight that while you have time on your hands.
Wouldn't you be playing the part of the dillwad sales clerk when you educate stakeholders? And wouldn't you also be the one with the inflexible pre-conceived notion when you enter the store with what you call a researched decision?
You may think no, there's a difference. But that's only from your perspective.
This would be helpful... if you can shrink it down to fit on a blue card.
(sadly, I could not find a link as a hint, so I'll have to explain. Programmers references used to be little cards, or fold-up paper segmented into card-sized pieces, with info such as which flags were modified by a machine code instruction. They were originally blue, goes the legend, but could be of any color)
If I have mod points, and I do, don't you think it would make sense for me to decide where they go instead of taking your opinion?
Feel free to add to it, with citations and links or at least some sort of supporting information to bolster the parent post. You may get your own damned mod points eventually that way, and you can do whatever you like with them.
Not seeing a difference here. Either an antibiotic works, or it doesn't, because it's ineffective against that class of bacteria, or it's a mutant bacteria, or increased stomach acid, or you took it with something that the label says not to take it with.
Psychology, there is no way to explain why something did not work. Theories exist as to why it did work, when it is successful, but we can't investigate, measure, and fix the problem. We also cannot state as fact that a condition is resistant to all known treatments, as we can with other medical fields.
If that doesn't help, think of it this way. We have had sertraline for 40 years, and we still don't know exactly what it does, and it usually requires psychotherapy as well as medication. If it doesn't work on its own, and we can't explain what it does, and all it is supposed to be doing is restoring the balance of chemicals in the brain... shouldn't someone have figured this out by now?
It's nice to take a philosophical stance, but in reality a successful defense of a misdemeanor will probably cost $15k USD.
Court costs plus a lawyer would be affordable on their own, to most people. It's the expert witness that gets expensive. The prosecution will try to throw out enough technobabble that it sounds like you are quite obviously guilty.
Then you have to pay someone who has professional standing to refute that argument, and explain how you were doing nothing uniquely bad. And their time and travel costs are not cheap.
An example: The prosecution says if you were using encryption, which most people don't do, then obviously you were trying to hide something. Your witness has to be able to explain that everyone uses SSL when using online banking, and identity theft is not something you want to risk, and that knowledgeable people are moving towards encrypting everything. But you saying it as the defendant is not authoritative enough to undercut the prosecution's expert. You need one at least equally recognized as an expert to say the same things.
It should not be expensive, but it is. Even worse is to bankrupt yourself and still lose because you chose the wrong witness, or because the lone knowledgeable holdout on the ury gave in because they can't afford that much time off work. As long as your being principled, why not go solve world peace, and convert everyone to renewable fuel? I'm sure it's as easy as quoting a few lines from a nearly forgotten document.
Or did you have some practical insight as to keep costs low when defending yourself, without guaranteeing your loss?
DMCA and cease and desist are two completely different things. If a DMCA notice comes in, they have to remove the content until they get a counter-notice. Cease and desist is a warning of future legal action, and you can decide whether to comply or fight. This host decided to comply.
You are correct that a cease and desist notice has zero legal standing, except that they are warnings of impending legal action if not complied with, or adequately responded to. And your last phrase kinda makes my point. The host decided to fold, rather than being legally required to, because they were not formatted as a DMCA request (again, based on the information I have, unless you have something else you're not sharing).
I know of no requirement that DMCA be the only method of preventing copyright infringement. I have already discussed why it is sometimes preferable, and why a cease-and-desist warning might be preferable in different situations. Therefore your statement "That is the current federal law" is a lie of omission, assuming that there is no other option. DMCA is a current federal law, but it is not the only one. Further, the continuation "and the ISP violated it" only applies for DMCA notices.
You seem rational and thoughtful in the global warming threads. In copyright threads, you seem to make assumptions, take sides, and apparently not even bother to be informed enough beyond what you remember from slashdot posts to make your point. Almost as if two different people were posting under a single user name. Please go read up a bit, ask a lawyer, or at least think for a short time on why I might have bothered to reply to you.
Crowdsourcing is only a viable option when you only need "good enough", and you can get an informed crowd together. In this case, not only is it inadvisable, it is dangerous. I would not trust volunteers to respond. An inadequate response could very well led to an undesirable situation.
If no reply is sent, the author's representation will almost certainly file suit, so you want to ensure no response is overlooked. If you do not sufficiently address each point of a C&D, your response will be considered evidence against the person you are trying to help. If in any way the volunteer gives the impression of disdain or dismissiveness, intentional infringement will be claimed.
Keep in mind, you will win any lawsuit, because they agreed to lending as part of the publishing agreement. But paying for the defense could be expensive, especially if multiple suits are filed. One volunteer screwing up and you are probably financially ruined.
And no need to bring up the "have to be rich to get justice" garbage, it's been beaten to death. Yes, it's not fair, and yes in most cases it is true. We have discussed it to death, just leave it be.
I did not see DMCA mentioned, only "cease and desist". The "were infuriated" link contains equal parts infuration and people reminded the infuriated that lending was part of their agreement, if they checked the box to allow it.
You invented DMCA because you associate it with copyright protection. What seems to have happened, based on the information presented, is that the hosting company was inundated with C&D notices instead of DMCA. These are legally backed threats which can lead to lawsuits directly, outside of the control of the DMCA process.
In other words, the hosting company most likely had a choice between shutting down the service and responding to multiple court summons, if not full blown cases. Were I the hosting company, I would have folded, and I would have laid the responsibility of responding to the customer, just as this company did.
C&D is a lose-lose proposition unless you have deep enough pockets to defend yourself. DMCA covers the host well enough if tey do what they are supposed to do. Which is most likely why the authors went with C&D instead of DMCA. One is quicker, one is more effective. If you're going for the kill, as the summary says, C&D is the way to go.
I started reading him the last time a similar topic popped up in March. The shorter stories are good, but obviously thematic to the point of being repetitive. He didn't flog the horse quite to death, so they were still entertaining enough.
If your point was that he could have been quite appreciated had he lived longer and written more, I have to point out that is not the question at hand. Perhaps forgotten as was appropriate last time, but I think his appreciation is relatively well in line with what he actually wrote.
hemo_jr in the reply which should appear above mine shared your misunderstanding. An early death cannot underscore someone's under-appreciation 50 years after his death. Perhaps under-appreciation during his lifetime might have contributed to his suicide, but nothing I found suggests this was the case. His perception of being under-appreciated, as a possible but unlikely cause, is not relevant to the level of actual appreciation.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/03/07/0056225/ask-slashdot-good-forgotten-fantasy-science-fiction-novels
I didn't bother to click the link, but i'll reply to what's there.
In other words, the author does not seem to have a clue how to make a persuasive argument, and instead wants to flog a personal agenda's dead horse. Providers who offer their services for free actually get something in return. This is well known, redundant at this point, and poorly argued.
You are taking a truly long view of this - essentially an impossibility. Are you suggesting that it is possible for the entire population except you to care about the things you care about?
I was going to leave it there and let you reply, but I rarely return to read replies, leaving my comments in the hands of moderators these days.
It would be nice to be able to guide others to watch less television, or at least certain types of television. It would be nice to be able to encourage better communication skills in the people you meet. But it is impossible on an individual level (as in you being the lone person trying). If you concern yourself with the fate of the world, you are doomed to disappointment.
It is far better to encourage these things in each person you meet. Someone is sure to have a similar mindset, and the conversations you get will be far more interesting than railing against the lowest common denominator.
In the past 10 years, I have met a single person with whom I can have a truly great conversation about anything and anything. I have met two handfuls of people with whom I can discuss a subset of topics. Everyone else will remain ignorant and uninteresting regardless of whether facebook, SMS, television, or any other fad comes or goes.
That's at least 10 people with whom you will be able to have a conversation, to answer your question in a roundabout way. And there are more I haven't met - 6 billion people don't use Facebook. Twitter's retention rate is around 40% - one use and they are gone, with an estimated half billion. Even if they don't overlap, there are 5.5 billion potentially interesting people, and a goodly percentage of the last 1.5 billion who might be conversational.
If you want to be concerned, feel free. But if I were you, I would concentrate on influencing the people you actually meet. Otherwise, make an appointment with a very good psychiatrist. Skip the psychologist - I tried to reason with you.
You missed the point completely. "Communicate" does not mean making sure the recipient got the message. Especially in the context of gp's post.
"I'm important, look at what I'm doing" and subsequent replies are most of what I remember from facebook. Seldom were there any messages of organization, or any time sensitive data. It's a "status" message, what you're doing now. Not ensuring your message is read.
The closest I have ever seen is "Anyone up for [activity] tonite?" And the people who already know it's going to happen reply, even though the original poster knows they will be there.
You are communicating, to whomever decides not to hide posts from you, that your activities and intentions should be known. It is not reliable, or error-free, or time-sensitive. But it allows people to communicate to each other in the most natural way possible - egocentically.
Forget what you know about TCP/IP, message delivery, routing around censorship, and anything else that has a non-human aspect to it. Most users want to send a message, and a smaller subset want to live vicariously or otherwise spy on what everyone else is doing. In the truly human sense, it is the most efficient method of communication we have. Everyone who wants to hear you can, with your permission, and anyone who doesn't want to can tune in to something that *does* interest them.