So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
In some states (such as Florida), yes. Both parties have to be aware of it.
But in all states you can't be charged with a crime. The recording won't be admissible in court but there's no state law forbidding recording conversations without consent.
Yes they are, they use encrypted firmware to prevent competing software working with ipods. They also use daap to share music between itunes on local networks but encrypt it so that no other software can access the music on itunes.
Why should Apple make their product work with other software. If I make an MP3 player there's no obligation to make it support other software. If you're dedicated you can get whatever software you want on an iPod. This is more a problem of wanting a product to do something that it wasn't designed to do. As for not having access to iTunes, if you're referring to the music library there's no restriction other than needing to look up whatever folder's you keep your music in. If you're talking about the music store then, again, tough. The music store was built to support the iPod and there's no reason that Apple would open it up to access on anything but iTunes. Now that most of the music is DRM free you can buy music on iTunes and use it on any player you want (as long as the player supports AAC, or you convert to MP3). And if you're complaining about DRM, I'm with you, it's worthless and I'm glad they're phasing it out of the music. If only they'd do that for other items on the store.
Nope, itunes (and safari) are the only programs they have ported, all their multimedia software is mac only.
I'm sorry, but since when were companies required to offer their software on a competitors OS. Apple doesn't offer anything that requires the software that they make (except for iTunes, which is cross platform for 98%) and if you want the same functionality then you need to find a company that will make that software for your OS of choice. That's like saying that you like the Play Station controller so much that Sony should be required to make their controller work on XBox360. It just isn't how the competitive market works. Apple tries to make its software appealing so that people will buy their product and porting it cross platform is not in the best interest of their company.
Why do their adverts compare macs to windows then?
Well, their advertisements actually compare Macs to PCs, but the reality is most people being swayed by that advertisement don't know the difference between Windows, a PC, a Computer or a hard drive. To them it's all a computer so it doesn't really matter.
Apple want to have it both ways, if it wasn't for their pitiful market share the DOJ would be literally ripping them apart
locking high-end MP3 players to their software
locking their software to their operating system
locking their operating system to their hardware
locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)
locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems
Are you sure. In regards to software, since when has iTunes (I assume that's what you're referring to) been locked to Macs. Maybe in it's nascence. Same with the firewire on their iPod (they don't even offer it anymore). Same with their phone, it's locked to iTunes but iTunes is available to both Windows and Mac. Apple isn't the only company doing this and their not restricting other companies from making software to work with their products. You could buy a Sanyo mp3 player and use it with a Mac. If they weren't allowing that then there would be problems.
And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.
A list of these so called multitudes of unavailable products would be nice. And maybe one showing how many of those products run on Linux (I know you weren't advocating for linux but someone on/. is sure to pipe up). Seriously, most windows users want MS Office and you can get that on Mac. I can't think of any large software suite that isn't on the Mac that the typical user will need.
So 40% isn't a big segment of the market? Who would leave even 25% percent of the market untouched because it is too small? What percentage of Mac customers buy the Mac Pros?
Notice how 40% is the segment size for desktops as a whole. Let's say that only 10% (probably too high) of that market wants the Mac Pro, 15% want something like the Mini, and let's say 50% of people are going to want an iMac (because a lot of people really care to upgrade if their machine is relatively capable). That leaves 25% of 40%, or 10% of the market. Apple has decided that they're willing to let 10% of the market be left to the realm of other vendors. Lots of companies do this, just look at the automobile market. BMW doesn't make a cheap car (unless you think a $30k 1-series is cheap) and in the auto market the sub $25k market is a whole lot more than 10% and BMW seems to be doing fine.
Ah, yes. The low margins are the reason Apple won't do a mid-range desktop, not the amount of demand.
For a company like Apple, the margins are probably the deciding factor over the market segment size. It's why they don't need to capture a huge percentage of the computer market. They're sitting around 10% if I'm not mistaken and they still rack in a huge profit.
Dell Mini 9: two finger scrolling (fixed in next DellEFI update)
Apple $300 netbook: has no features because it doesn't exist!
You know who else does this, American car companies. They have this advertisement out comparing their $14k car to the competitions, which doesn't exist. Surprise surprise, it beats them hands down. But guess what, I can buy a $16k japanese car and get a car that's so much better than that $14k piece that I'll probably save over $2k in service. It was dumb when the auto maker did it and it's still dumb now. Make comparisons of semi-like products and then you'll actually have an argument. If you're mad that Apple doesn't make a cheap laptop then bitch to yourself, or write to apple.
BMW's are hideously expensive for the level of car you get compared to the level of car you can get with a Chevy for the same price. Check for yourself.
You make a good point. The BMW and the Mac both offer something that the Chevy and the PC don't and that is free, well thought out, comprehensive service. A lot of people think the name's pretentious, and it probably is, but the genius bar is increadible, especially for those people who don't understand computers as well as most of the people on/. I remember when I bought my last PC I was offered customer service for $75 a year. I turned it down because I know how to fix a computer when it isn't working, but someone like my mother doesn't. When I was around I was the service person for the computer, but now that I'm away she's had to start dealing with Dell customer service and it just isn't worth the hassle. That's why she's thinking about getting a Mac when her computer dies (and no, I'm not gonna talk her into getting Linux because no, it's not user friendly enough for someone who doesn't know anything about computers).
The fact of the matter is, people will trash on BMWs and Macs because they are expensive. Many people don't see the point of buying something at the price when you could just spend $15k on a four banger and get the same A-B transportation ability. To some people the extra perks are worth it and to others it's not and it's always going to be that way with "luxury" items. And this is why Apple is (or should) never open up their OS to the wild world of the PC market. If they keep the hardware in house (and by in house I mean that they can choose to only purchase a select segment of the market and work out the driver kinks with those) then they can continue to purport themselves to just work and be better than PCs. By doing this they can charge more for their generic hardware because you're not purchasing the hardware, you're purchasing the whole Apple experience. And it's this fact that keeps many/.ers away, because when you can do whatever you want with your computer and you know what's going to happen you don't need the Apple experience. To/.ers it just doesn't make sense, why would you spend $1000 extra to buy a computer that doesn't offer you the same flexibility that your linux box does. Well, consider this (apologies to all you mechs out there), would you buy a beat up 1960's mustang. Probably not, because you'd have to spend a lot of time fixing it up to get it working, but if you really were into cars you'd jump at the chance to fix that bad boy up and tinker around with it.
Say that on the street asshole.
That made me laugh. Somehow I doubt the G's on the street are going to do anything at all if someone's talking trash about a Mac. And can you imagine Justin Long beating the shit out of someone for talking shit about Macs, that's a funny image.
No. It is more like some people walking in a deep forest. The creationist say: There are not trees, the forest is not proof of the existence of tress. The scientist then hangs a big fucking sign on one of the trees in the forest that says "Tree".
While I get your point and feel your frustration with creationists, the fact is, domestic dogs are not separate species (as far as evolutionary biology is concerned) and should not be treated as such just to try and break the opposition.
Perhaps at the least, we could identify domesticated dogs from that of wolves.
Hence Canis Lupus Lupus (wolves) and Canis Lupus Familiaris (domestic dogs). Then you have Canis Latrans (coyotes) and Lycaon Pictus (african wild dogs) as further distinctions under the Caninae subfamily of dog like creatures.
In the wild a wolf will tear a dog to shreds for entertainment.
Depends on the type of dog and how it was raised. A wolf is raised in the wild (more often than not it is) so it has learned that it has to take what it wants. A dog that's raised in a household will be given everything it needs and will lose its killer instinct. And when these two meet up in the wild the wolf will have its way with the dog. Now, if you raise your dog to protect your family/animals from wolves, it'll probably have that killer instinct embedded in it and it will have a fighting chance against the wolf (depends on the size of the wolf and the dog).
Hence why human races aren't even near the level of species, or any subcategory of that. As far as I know there is no way to determine the race of a person from their DNA. You can tell what their physical features might look like but you cannot determine if you've got a light skinned african or a dark skinned italian (for example).
Also, the definition of a species is NOT "can breed" but rather "will (typically) breed". Tigers and lions are perfectly able to interbreed, for example, but they won't usually do so and therefore are (rightfully) considered different species. "Can/cannot breed" is what defines a genus.
I believe a more thorough definition of species is that breeding will produce a viable offspring that can further breed. With lions and tigers, the two can produce an offspring but that offspring, be it a liger or a tigon cannot breed.
The point of the article was to make up a classification and apply it to dogs, so that they can suddenly stick that in the face of creationists and say "Nyah! Told you so! Haha loser!!!111eleven". It still doesn't fix the problem.
That's my main problem with this article as well. Supporters of evolution should not be playing with semantics to convince creationists of their work. They should be coming up with more complete models, more solid theories, and if that doesn't work, just giving up and allowing the fact that some people just won't be swayed. The problem with evolution is that its time scale is beyond that of a human life and it will take centuries of data and research to fully document speciation. Right now we only have after the fact observations (which I personally believe to provide strong proof of evolution) but we don't have any observed speciation (to my knowledge) and until we do there really is no way to convince creationists that evolution is a correct theory.
Just because dogs follow instructions does not mean they are better. Just more likely to follow group think based on a pack. Cats on the other hand are solitary. Which leads to the "why the hell should I listen to you, just stick food in my bowl and I might not crap on your clothes" attitude.
Which leads to me thinking, "why don't you get your own damn food, you stupid cat." House cats need to learn a little respect, they've got too much of that napoleon syndrome, thinking they still run shit like their bad ass cousin, the tiger. A tiger has every right to be aloof, because a tiger runs the jungle. At least dogs will respect you if you show yourself to be the dominant pack leader (and no, I'm not talking about beating your dog).
Then how come nobody else has used it to scan books. All the photocopies of books I've gotten throughout the year seems to belie your statement of this being obvious.
Either way, we're terraforming Mars within several decades, if we can avoid some impending World Wars.
Really, we haven't even sent people to Mars. We haven't even got a clue on how to control our own environment, what makes you think we can create an entire environment on a far away planet?
If you were violating the law in any way (such as not having headlights on) it would be nearly impossible to convince the judge that the cop had no cause to breathalyze you. You might have forgotten to turn your lights on for a non-alcohol related reason but that doesn't keep the cop from having some cause to question.
You forgot 5, those of us who can't afford a vehicle. Yup, not everybody can afford a car and therefore have to work their schedules around the bus/subway schedules. It's a whole lot of fun, lots of waiting and getting up early and getting home late. But it sure beats trying to walk 20+ miles to get to work in the morning.
And since when did buses not run on Sundays? You must live in the lower midwest. I remember living there and thinking they had some crazy rules.
Well the problem with calculating the averages should honestly be enough to get this tossed.
That hinges on the averaging method being an incorrect method. Maybe there is some justifiable reason (biological, physical, etc) to weigh the later measurements more significantly. That is what needs to be determined (and I'll let someone else do that).
As a side note can we get back to reasonable, we need a right to drive you can not live a free life without being able to drive, removing that right should take a court order.
I beg to differ. Plenty of people get by with no cars. Instead, they use public transportation. Your argument would be more convincing if it was that people had the right to transportation. If you decide to place others in unnecessary danger then you shouldn't have the privilege to drive. Same goes with guns, if you unjustifiably shoot someone you should lose that second amendment right, because you've shown yourself to be a complete ass.
But you make a great point at the beginning of your post. The government should not have the right to declare an inherently inaccurate test correct. The law would benefit from requiring actual blood tests to validate BAC. A breathalyzer can be used to determine whether or not someone should be tested for being intoxicated but it really shouldn't be admissible in court. I'm not too up on my human biology, but, if there's similar error in urine samples (I have no idea how consistently they measure BAC) then they should also be tossed out.
Well, that's rather silly. There are many reasons your breath might reek of alcohol while the rest of your body is completely free. But seriously, what matters is BAC, not AAC (Air Alcohol Content, not the file format).
Cause of habit doesn't make up for the fact that he forgot to turn his headlights on. Maybe if he was completely sober he would've noticed right away.
This all depends on what time of night it was. If it was at the point where headlights aren't absolutely necessary then that sucks for him. But if it was at the point where lights need to be on then maybe he should've checked first.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
In some states (such as Florida), yes. Both parties have to be aware of it.
But in all states you can't be charged with a crime. The recording won't be admissible in court but there's no state law forbidding recording conversations without consent.
Yes they are, they use encrypted firmware to prevent competing software working with ipods. They also use daap to share music between itunes on local networks but encrypt it so that no other software can access the music on itunes.
Why should Apple make their product work with other software. If I make an MP3 player there's no obligation to make it support other software. If you're dedicated you can get whatever software you want on an iPod. This is more a problem of wanting a product to do something that it wasn't designed to do. As for not having access to iTunes, if you're referring to the music library there's no restriction other than needing to look up whatever folder's you keep your music in. If you're talking about the music store then, again, tough. The music store was built to support the iPod and there's no reason that Apple would open it up to access on anything but iTunes. Now that most of the music is DRM free you can buy music on iTunes and use it on any player you want (as long as the player supports AAC, or you convert to MP3). And if you're complaining about DRM, I'm with you, it's worthless and I'm glad they're phasing it out of the music. If only they'd do that for other items on the store.
Nope, itunes (and safari) are the only programs they have ported, all their multimedia software is mac only.
I'm sorry, but since when were companies required to offer their software on a competitors OS. Apple doesn't offer anything that requires the software that they make (except for iTunes, which is cross platform for 98%) and if you want the same functionality then you need to find a company that will make that software for your OS of choice. That's like saying that you like the Play Station controller so much that Sony should be required to make their controller work on XBox360. It just isn't how the competitive market works. Apple tries to make its software appealing so that people will buy their product and porting it cross platform is not in the best interest of their company.
Why do their adverts compare macs to windows then?
Well, their advertisements actually compare Macs to PCs, but the reality is most people being swayed by that advertisement don't know the difference between Windows, a PC, a Computer or a hard drive. To them it's all a computer so it doesn't really matter.
Apple want to have it both ways, if it wasn't for their pitiful market share the DOJ would be literally ripping them apart
locking high-end MP3 players to their software
locking their software to their operating system
locking their operating system to their hardware
locking their high-end MP3 players to their hardware (firewire only)
locking their phone to their software which is tied to certain operating systems
Are you sure. In regards to software, since when has iTunes (I assume that's what you're referring to) been locked to Macs. Maybe in it's nascence. Same with the firewire on their iPod (they don't even offer it anymore). Same with their phone, it's locked to iTunes but iTunes is available to both Windows and Mac. Apple isn't the only company doing this and their not restricting other companies from making software to work with their products. You could buy a Sanyo mp3 player and use it with a Mac. If they weren't allowing that then there would be problems.
And they tend to forgive the fact that running Apple means there is a very long list of things they can't do either because the app exists only for Windows or because Apple doesn't approve of it which is something of a puzzle to me but I guess buying into an image calls for some sacrifice to maintain that image... rather like all the trouble women go through with their hair and make-up.
A list of these so called multitudes of unavailable products would be nice. And maybe one showing how many of those products run on Linux (I know you weren't advocating for linux but someone on /. is sure to pipe up). Seriously, most windows users want MS Office and you can get that on Mac. I can't think of any large software suite that isn't on the Mac that the typical user will need.
So 40% isn't a big segment of the market? Who would leave even 25% percent of the market untouched because it is too small? What percentage of Mac customers buy the Mac Pros?
Notice how 40% is the segment size for desktops as a whole. Let's say that only 10% (probably too high) of that market wants the Mac Pro, 15% want something like the Mini, and let's say 50% of people are going to want an iMac (because a lot of people really care to upgrade if their machine is relatively capable). That leaves 25% of 40%, or 10% of the market. Apple has decided that they're willing to let 10% of the market be left to the realm of other vendors. Lots of companies do this, just look at the automobile market. BMW doesn't make a cheap car (unless you think a $30k 1-series is cheap) and in the auto market the sub $25k market is a whole lot more than 10% and BMW seems to be doing fine.
Ah, yes. The low margins are the reason Apple won't do a mid-range desktop, not the amount of demand.
For a company like Apple, the margins are probably the deciding factor over the market segment size. It's why they don't need to capture a huge percentage of the computer market. They're sitting around 10% if I'm not mistaken and they still rack in a huge profit.
Dell Mini 9: two finger scrolling (fixed in next DellEFI update)
Apple $300 netbook: has no features because it doesn't exist!
You know who else does this, American car companies. They have this advertisement out comparing their $14k car to the competitions, which doesn't exist. Surprise surprise, it beats them hands down. But guess what, I can buy a $16k japanese car and get a car that's so much better than that $14k piece that I'll probably save over $2k in service. It was dumb when the auto maker did it and it's still dumb now. Make comparisons of semi-like products and then you'll actually have an argument. If you're mad that Apple doesn't make a cheap laptop then bitch to yourself, or write to apple.
BMW's are hideously expensive for the level of car you get compared to the level of car you can get with a Chevy for the same price. Check for yourself.
You make a good point. The BMW and the Mac both offer something that the Chevy and the PC don't and that is free, well thought out, comprehensive service. A lot of people think the name's pretentious, and it probably is, but the genius bar is increadible, especially for those people who don't understand computers as well as most of the people on /. I remember when I bought my last PC I was offered customer service for $75 a year. I turned it down because I know how to fix a computer when it isn't working, but someone like my mother doesn't. When I was around I was the service person for the computer, but now that I'm away she's had to start dealing with Dell customer service and it just isn't worth the hassle. That's why she's thinking about getting a Mac when her computer dies (and no, I'm not gonna talk her into getting Linux because no, it's not user friendly enough for someone who doesn't know anything about computers).
The fact of the matter is, people will trash on BMWs and Macs because they are expensive. Many people don't see the point of buying something at the price when you could just spend $15k on a four banger and get the same A-B transportation ability. To some people the extra perks are worth it and to others it's not and it's always going to be that way with "luxury" items. And this is why Apple is (or should) never open up their OS to the wild world of the PC market. If they keep the hardware in house (and by in house I mean that they can choose to only purchase a select segment of the market and work out the driver kinks with those) then they can continue to purport themselves to just work and be better than PCs. By doing this they can charge more for their generic hardware because you're not purchasing the hardware, you're purchasing the whole Apple experience. And it's this fact that keeps many /.ers away, because when you can do whatever you want with your computer and you know what's going to happen you don't need the Apple experience. To /.ers it just doesn't make sense, why would you spend $1000 extra to buy a computer that doesn't offer you the same flexibility that your linux box does. Well, consider this (apologies to all you mechs out there), would you buy a beat up 1960's mustang. Probably not, because you'd have to spend a lot of time fixing it up to get it working, but if you really were into cars you'd jump at the chance to fix that bad boy up and tinker around with it.
Say that on the street asshole.
That made me laugh. Somehow I doubt the G's on the street are going to do anything at all if someone's talking trash about a Mac. And can you imagine Justin Long beating the shit out of someone for talking shit about Macs, that's a funny image.
No. It is more like some people walking in a deep forest. The creationist say: There are not trees, the forest is not proof of the existence of tress. The scientist then hangs a big fucking sign on one of the trees in the forest that says "Tree".
While I get your point and feel your frustration with creationists, the fact is, domestic dogs are not separate species (as far as evolutionary biology is concerned) and should not be treated as such just to try and break the opposition.
Perhaps at the least, we could identify domesticated dogs from that of wolves.
Hence Canis Lupus Lupus (wolves) and Canis Lupus Familiaris (domestic dogs). Then you have Canis Latrans (coyotes) and Lycaon Pictus (african wild dogs) as further distinctions under the Caninae subfamily of dog like creatures.
In the wild a wolf will tear a dog to shreds for entertainment.
Depends on the type of dog and how it was raised. A wolf is raised in the wild (more often than not it is) so it has learned that it has to take what it wants. A dog that's raised in a household will be given everything it needs and will lose its killer instinct. And when these two meet up in the wild the wolf will have its way with the dog. Now, if you raise your dog to protect your family/animals from wolves, it'll probably have that killer instinct embedded in it and it will have a fighting chance against the wolf (depends on the size of the wolf and the dog).
Well human races can interbreed.
Hence why human races aren't even near the level of species, or any subcategory of that. As far as I know there is no way to determine the race of a person from their DNA. You can tell what their physical features might look like but you cannot determine if you've got a light skinned african or a dark skinned italian (for example).
Also, the definition of a species is NOT "can breed" but rather "will (typically) breed". Tigers and lions are perfectly able to interbreed, for example, but they won't usually do so and therefore are (rightfully) considered different species. "Can/cannot breed" is what defines a genus.
I believe a more thorough definition of species is that breeding will produce a viable offspring that can further breed. With lions and tigers, the two can produce an offspring but that offspring, be it a liger or a tigon cannot breed.
The point of the article was to make up a classification and apply it to dogs, so that they can suddenly stick that in the face of creationists and say "Nyah! Told you so! Haha loser!!!111eleven". It still doesn't fix the problem.
That's my main problem with this article as well. Supporters of evolution should not be playing with semantics to convince creationists of their work. They should be coming up with more complete models, more solid theories, and if that doesn't work, just giving up and allowing the fact that some people just won't be swayed. The problem with evolution is that its time scale is beyond that of a human life and it will take centuries of data and research to fully document speciation. Right now we only have after the fact observations (which I personally believe to provide strong proof of evolution) but we don't have any observed speciation (to my knowledge) and until we do there really is no way to convince creationists that evolution is a correct theory.
Just because dogs follow instructions does not mean they are better. Just more likely to follow group think based on a pack. Cats on the other hand are solitary. Which leads to the "why the hell should I listen to you, just stick food in my bowl and I might not crap on your clothes" attitude.
Which leads to me thinking, "why don't you get your own damn food, you stupid cat." House cats need to learn a little respect, they've got too much of that napoleon syndrome, thinking they still run shit like their bad ass cousin, the tiger. A tiger has every right to be aloof, because a tiger runs the jungle. At least dogs will respect you if you show yourself to be the dominant pack leader (and no, I'm not talking about beating your dog).
Then how come nobody else has used it to scan books. All the photocopies of books I've gotten throughout the year seems to belie your statement of this being obvious.
they patented this new 3D barcode system.
Really, I've never seen a 3D barcode on anything. maybe 2D, but definitely no 3D barcodes on my packages.
Either way, we're terraforming Mars within several decades, if we can avoid some impending World Wars.
Really, we haven't even sent people to Mars. We haven't even got a clue on how to control our own environment, what makes you think we can create an entire environment on a far away planet?
If you were violating the law in any way (such as not having headlights on) it would be nearly impossible to convince the judge that the cop had no cause to breathalyze you. You might have forgotten to turn your lights on for a non-alcohol related reason but that doesn't keep the cop from having some cause to question.
You forgot 5, those of us who can't afford a vehicle. Yup, not everybody can afford a car and therefore have to work their schedules around the bus/subway schedules. It's a whole lot of fun, lots of waiting and getting up early and getting home late. But it sure beats trying to walk 20+ miles to get to work in the morning.
And since when did buses not run on Sundays? You must live in the lower midwest. I remember living there and thinking they had some crazy rules.
The difference between 0.74 and 0.87, in many cases is "Have a nice day, sir" and "Time for the full body cavity search, sir".
Actually the difference between 0.74 and 0.87 is the severity of the coma that you're in.
Well the problem with calculating the averages should honestly be enough to get this tossed.
That hinges on the averaging method being an incorrect method. Maybe there is some justifiable reason (biological, physical, etc) to weigh the later measurements more significantly. That is what needs to be determined (and I'll let someone else do that).
As a side note can we get back to reasonable, we need a right to drive you can not live a free life without being able to drive, removing that right should take a court order.
I beg to differ. Plenty of people get by with no cars. Instead, they use public transportation. Your argument would be more convincing if it was that people had the right to transportation. If you decide to place others in unnecessary danger then you shouldn't have the privilege to drive. Same goes with guns, if you unjustifiably shoot someone you should lose that second amendment right, because you've shown yourself to be a complete ass.
But you make a great point at the beginning of your post. The government should not have the right to declare an inherently inaccurate test correct. The law would benefit from requiring actual blood tests to validate BAC. A breathalyzer can be used to determine whether or not someone should be tested for being intoxicated but it really shouldn't be admissible in court. I'm not too up on my human biology, but, if there's similar error in urine samples (I have no idea how consistently they measure BAC) then they should also be tossed out.
some (e.g. UK) use breath alcohol content instead
Well, that's rather silly. There are many reasons your breath might reek of alcohol while the rest of your body is completely free. But seriously, what matters is BAC, not AAC (Air Alcohol Content, not the file format).
Yes, but in WA you can be convicted under DUI with 0% BAC.
The "influence" does not have to be alcohol, nor an identifiable chemical intoxicant.
Driving erratically is evidence enough of being "influenced".
I believe that every state has this law. It's sometimes called reckless driving, reckless endangerment, attempted use of a deadly weapon...
Cause of habit doesn't make up for the fact that he forgot to turn his headlights on. Maybe if he was completely sober he would've noticed right away.
This all depends on what time of night it was. If it was at the point where headlights aren't absolutely necessary then that sucks for him. But if it was at the point where lights need to be on then maybe he should've checked first.