Pretty much everything the defense "alleges" should have no bearing on the case (ex. "Sexually amorous communications with case members," a shirt with the word "CUNT" on it). Unless the Facebook contains the phrase "I am completely comfortable with the treatment I receive from my supervisor and in no way consider it a form of harassment" none of it should be admissible, and the judge should not even be investigating.
Wait, what? Why the hell should the word of the person filing the complaint be worth more than the word of the person defending?
A shirt with the word "CUNT" on it clearly has no bearing, but if it can be shown that you're having a consensual relationship with your supervisor that includes behavior that implies being comfortable with said relationship, case over. As it should be.
You're pretty much thinking about this the wrong way. The person filing the complaint should have to submit proof that they specifically voiced they were uncomfortable with the environment, and that the environment was indeed hostile, and remained hostile after the complaint. The burden of proof is on them, they're the ones making the accusation.
Exactly, one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather who fought in EU during WWII was about the Illinois Nazis, it was during the time they were suing for the right to march. I asked him if that pissed him off and he said " I support their right to march, even if I don't believe in what they are marching for. The reason we fought against the Nazis was for the right to speak your mind, even if those words are rude or hateful. True freedom isn't just protecting people saying nice things but protecting even the hateful and ignorant".
I'm sure you're already very proud of your grandfather, and you don't need a complete stranger to tell you online how much he deserves it. I would, however, like to point it out anyway: him and all World War II veterans truly deserve our respect: Not only were they fighting for our way of life, but most truly understood what that way of life was and why it was important, as demonstrated by your grandfather in the words you paraphrased above. It wasn't just, "America, Fuck Yeah!" to them, in a kind of blind nationalism. It was about freedom, even when that freedom was uncomfortable.
Uh...how are you implying I was wrong? Because I called it a "German-Russian Nonaggression Pact" instead of, quoting the article you linked, "The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union,[1] also known as the Nazi–Soviet Pact and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pac"
My apologies if the differences between "German-Russian Nonaggression Pact" and ""The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union" confused you. Of if you're implying I actually thought a moltov cocktail was a drink...well, then you're just dumb and don't understand how humans communicate.
He's saying you misspelled the name Molotov, and should have looked it up. Which, interestingly enough, you misspelled again in your reply, albeit in a different way.
Personally I'd like to see a Ronald D. Moore reboot, his take on BSG was awesome.....
Ugh. Personally, I'd like to see Ron Moore not work on anything ever again.
BSG had its great moments, but that's only because Moore uses the JJ Abrams style of writing: Continuously up the stakes to make the story interesting. The audience will want to know how it all fits together. How does it all actually fit together? Who cares, when the series ends, we'll come up with something. It won't be satisfying, it won't even make sense, but by then the series is over. The important thing was that we held on to the ratings while it was on.
If it plays 30-40 years after the original trilogy why not. They can't be that stupid to use them as protagonists.
Unless they set up Thrawn as an antagonist for a whole trilogy I doubt a single movie would do him justice.
They can't use Thrawn for a story 30-40 years after the original trilogy. Thrawn died 5 or 6 years after ROTJ. Although I would like nothing better than to see Star Wars, Episode VII: Heir to the Empire. Screw the 30 year jump, and just recast the characters. They've already recasted Obi-Wan for the prequels, nobody would care.
That's not an answer to "what do we do" but instead an apology without a position.
No, my position is very clearly a "we do nothing. Absolutely nothing.
You position is that children of bad parents get what they deserve
I'm not saying they get what they deserve. I'm saying the world isn't fair. People who don't deserve bad things happen to them will get fucked. Great people who deserve success don't achieve it. That's not something that NEEDS solving anymore than gravity needs solving. It's a fact of life. If you don't understand this, I feel sorry for you. You're not equipped to live in this world, and will end up suffering a whole lot as you witness bad things happen that you can't do anything about.
I'd argue that even you think your position is unreasonable, otherwise you'd state it and stand by it, rather than dancing around what it is you'd "do" and apologize for your position without stating it.
I don't apologize for my position. I state that trying to solve a problem without a solution doesn't solve the problem, and makes the situation worse. Banning magnetic marbles doesn't save children and takes freedom away. Learn to live with the fact that the world is imperfect, innocent people suffer and die, accept it, and move on. Don't add to the problems in a futile attempt to fix unsolvable issues and then proceed to ironically call those who have a realistic view about the world unreasonable and naive.
What would the libertarian do that would prevent dead children, or is this a eugenics thing?
It's not an eugenics thing. Nobody wants the children to die. My position is that since it's completely unreasonable for us to take over the job of parents and to place all children inside a protective bubble. Children will die. It sucks, but it will happen. It will still happen if we ban the magnet balls, because you can't protect them from all risks. In fact, it will happen to children of responsible parents, because they can't watch them 100% of the time, and sometimes people just get unlucky. Either they have the magic combination of responsible parents and luck, or they don't.
I'm not saying there should be no regulation of anything. If you have a toy that is dangerous for children, of course you shouldn't market it to children, and of course the government should enforce that. But the moment you have something that is not dangerous for the age it is intended and marketed to, you've done all you can.
Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?
My toy isn't endangering any child. I don't have children. There are no children in my house, nor in my office. I have other things in my house that would be dangerous to children, like knives.
If you have children, don't buy the damn thing, and if you do, keep it away from them. That's my point about personal responsibility. I'm not responsible for your children, and the company selling me magnets are not responsible for your children. It's your job to keep them safe, and if you don't want to do that job, don't fucking have children.
The FCC also requires every cable provider to give you a set-top box (STB) that gives unencrypted access via a firewire (IEEE 1394) port. Look it up. Write down the requirement number. Call up your provider and tell them to give you a box with IEEE-1394 access to an unencrypted feed.
Yes, but cable shows can be flagged to not be sent unencrypted across the firewire port. The only requirement they have is to pass through the OTA shows via that port. Which means you haven't solved anything.
And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise,
That's because you seem to be a good example of a naive libertarian. If only everybody could see the world in your same neat and tidy little way, all of our problems would be solved.
Well, real life is more complicated than that. Most people realize this, and that's why libertarian politicians routinely receive at most low single-digit vote counts decade after decade.
My hat's off to you, sir. I didn't realize you were trolling right up until now, when, faced with my giving up on the conversation, you went back to the original statement that set me off, in an attempt to keep going.
The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets.
No, this is exactly the problem. This is the outcome that needs to be avoided.
You're being short-sighted. There are hundreds of things that can kill a child. If the parents aren't willing to take responsibility for the safety of their children, even if I thought it was the government's job to try to do it for them (which I don't), it can't be done. If it's not magnetic balls the kids are swallowing, it'll be the drano the parents left opened after they used it under the sink where the kids could get to it.
You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.
Irrelevant. Instead, the whole above stated problem is avoided by banning the magnets.
No, it is not, as I've stated above. Irresponsible parents will still allow their children to come to danger. We should not be trying to remove all danger from the world. It's not feasible, and it results in the erosion of the freedoms that responsible people deserve.
If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence.
But the parents aren't the only one responsible. The manufacturers of these dangerous toys share in the liability. They would need to be arrested, too. However, it's probably safe to assume that they'd rather just close that particular line of business than rot in prison.
The parents are the only ones responsible. You can have the government request a warning about the dangers of the magnets be placed on the box. You can have the government force them to slap a 14+ label on it. That's the only burden that can be placed on the company. The products are not defective, nor are they dangerous when used responsibly. If the parents hand them to kids that are too young, or fail to talk to their kids about the dangers, there is not a single other person that is responsible. And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise, so if you don't see that, we have to just agree to disagree, because we have fundamentally different beliefs about the nature of personal freedom and accompanying responsibility, and we're not going to agree with one another.
The parent feeling bad or not is none of my concern. The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets. The problem was that the parents were irresponsible. You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.
If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence. I personally think getting your kid hurt is enough of a punishment, but if you insist something more needs to be done, at least aim it in the right direction.
I merely stated like hunting and guns, don't let unsupervised kids do it.
I guess I was really responding the the "limiting it to 18" part of your post. I don't see why we need to regulate the age at all. Just clearly label the dangers and let the parents figure it out.
Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes?
Because they don't.
They never have, and they never will. No matter how much naive libertarians wish for it.
It's not naivete. We don't think they will. We just want them to pay the consequences for not doing so, instead of making the rest of us pay.
If give a bunch of supermagnets to your kids, don't supervise them, don't teach them about the dangers, and then they swallow a couple and die...congratulations: You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?
Actually 12 year olds are a decent size group that is eating these. They use them to simulate tongue, cheek and labret piercings.
Or, you could just put the blame where it lies. Parents who don't teach their children the dangers of incredibly strong magnets before giving it to them as a toy.
If you take your kid hunting, and don't teach them proper gun safety, it's not the fault of the guns when an accident happens. It's the same issue here. Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes? What's next? People blaming mcdonalds that their super-sized fries are making them fat? Oh, wait...
How do you handle a situation where a voter looks at the receipt and it doesn't have what the voter expected? What if the voter just wants to changer his mind?
Same thing that happens with paper ballots, when you screw it up. You call over an official, request to do it over again, he destroys your receipt in front of you, uses his key to undo the voting session in your machine, and off you go. If the machine consistently produces the wrong receipt, you take it offline. If you don't trust that the machine undo is being performed correctly or ethically, it doesn't matter, if any candidate requests a recount, only the paper receipts count anyway. It requires no trust in the machine.
What if the voter doesn't deposit the receipt but instead sticks it in his pocket?
Ever tried walking out with a ballot instead of putting it in the ballot box? There are people there whose job it is to make sure you don't do that.
That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.
Looking up online later, absolutely. The proposals for a receipt, at least the ones I've seen, you may be talking about something else, don't allow you to take the receipt home with you.
Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.
First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Well, they do test these things, with built prototypes, not just computer models. For every plane Boeing builds, they do a wing break test where they bend the wings until they break. The wings on the 787 could be bent more than the wings on any of their aluminum built frames.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs..
I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines, and thought they had upgraded me to business class, based on how much space I had at my seats, and having only experienced flight in the US up until that point. They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes. Good service too.
Musk has said that his intention is to end up manufacturing a truly affordable electric car, and that this stage (the model S) isn't that; I'll take him at his word. Maybe next time!:)
To be fair, he's going about it the right way. He's bringing costs down by manufacturing an expensive vehicle for those that can afford it. The Model S is not only a much better car than the Roadster, it's also significantly cheaper. The Model X also looks fantastic. I imagine in another 5-7 years you'll get your $20k Tesla announced.
But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair. After all, the only difference between a 64GB iPhone and a 32GB iPhone is the amount of RAM, yet Apple would have to pay Motorola more for a license from the more expensive phone! That is ridiculous.
They own the prices, they get to price it however they want (same as how Apple gets to price their 64GB vs 32GB phones far differently than what the flash storage difference justifies). "Fair" just means that they're not charging Apple more than they're charging anybody else.
Considering that everybody else enters cross-licensing deals Apple refuses to enter into, it's hard to get a comparison point. Basically, Apple has refused the fair and non-discriminatory offer, and Google / Motorola is coming up with something else they find equitable.
Don't think you'll see a CEO jailed any time soon because the company had inadequate testing procedures and they ran a kid over.
I don't think so either. But then again, I also don't think he should.
How worried are you that a bridge you drive over won't fall if the winds pick up. How worried are you that the skyscraper you're on in LA won't collapse to the ground if an earthquake happens? These are all real dangers. And an engineer signed off on the design, indicating it meets all of the applicable codes. If something happens as a result of negligence from that engineer, his ass is on the line.
I am an engineer, and I know for a fact I'd face jail time if something happened to anything built from one of my designs that can be traced back to my negligence. I don't see why it would be any different with these cars.
The other thing about humans is they have a superior (if slower) decision making capability.
Not always, no. I've seen humans make plenty of bad decisions while driving that I know for a fact would not be made my software.
I'd rather crash into the cardboard box in the alleyway, or mount the kerb (if it's clear) than not get out of the way of the out-of-control juggernaut heading towards me that braking or staying still won't avoid.
And why are you assuming software won't? Those are not difficult human-only decisions, they're pretty standard and easy to recognize things. Currently google cars will actually avoid pedestrians that jump in front of the car at the very last minute. I don't know many people who I'm confident would be able to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
Furthermore, a driver goes to jail because he killed someone while driving drunk? Tomorrow another driver does the same thing. A car kills someone because of a software error? Next week, every car has received a software update that assures that error will never happen again.
What you're implying is that if I raid a bank, and the court orders the shop across the street to reveal its CCTV records of that day, that's somehow prejudicial to justice?
Depends. Are those cameras from the shop across the street pointed towards the bank or at a path the criminals were known to pass by? Because, if they're internal cameras, I'd expect the judge to require a good reason for why they think the robbers went inside the shop before giving a warrant.
Similarly, if they have good reason to believe this particular juror was that commenter, then yes, it's a perfectly valid request. If they're just fishing for it because the comment was related to the trial, then it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much everything the defense "alleges" should have no bearing on the case (ex. "Sexually amorous communications with case members," a shirt with the word "CUNT" on it). Unless the Facebook contains the phrase "I am completely comfortable with the treatment I receive from my supervisor and in no way consider it a form of harassment" none of it should be admissible, and the judge should not even be investigating.
Wait, what? Why the hell should the word of the person filing the complaint be worth more than the word of the person defending?
A shirt with the word "CUNT" on it clearly has no bearing, but if it can be shown that you're having a consensual relationship with your supervisor that includes behavior that implies being comfortable with said relationship, case over. As it should be.
You're pretty much thinking about this the wrong way. The person filing the complaint should have to submit proof that they specifically voiced they were uncomfortable with the environment, and that the environment was indeed hostile, and remained hostile after the complaint. The burden of proof is on them, they're the ones making the accusation.
That's a pretty shitty and restrictive definition of free speech you have there. I want no part in it.
It's a pretty common definition, though. "Free speech for speech I approve of" is the definition of free speech most people hold.
Exactly, one of the last conversations I had with my grandfather who fought in EU during WWII was about the Illinois Nazis, it was during the time they were suing for the right to march. I asked him if that pissed him off and he said " I support their right to march, even if I don't believe in what they are marching for. The reason we fought against the Nazis was for the right to speak your mind, even if those words are rude or hateful. True freedom isn't just protecting people saying nice things but protecting even the hateful and ignorant".
I'm sure you're already very proud of your grandfather, and you don't need a complete stranger to tell you online how much he deserves it. I would, however, like to point it out anyway: him and all World War II veterans truly deserve our respect: Not only were they fighting for our way of life, but most truly understood what that way of life was and why it was important, as demonstrated by your grandfather in the words you paraphrased above. It wasn't just, "America, Fuck Yeah!" to them, in a kind of blind nationalism. It was about freedom, even when that freedom was uncomfortable.
Uh...how are you implying I was wrong? Because I called it a "German-Russian Nonaggression Pact" instead of, quoting the article you linked, "The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union,[1] also known as the Nazi–Soviet Pact and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pac"
My apologies if the differences between "German-Russian Nonaggression Pact" and ""The Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union" confused you. Of if you're implying I actually thought a moltov cocktail was a drink...well, then you're just dumb and don't understand how humans communicate.
He's saying you misspelled the name Molotov, and should have looked it up. Which, interestingly enough, you misspelled again in your reply, albeit in a different way.
Personally I'd like to see a Ronald D. Moore reboot, his take on BSG was awesome.....
Ugh. Personally, I'd like to see Ron Moore not work on anything ever again.
BSG had its great moments, but that's only because Moore uses the JJ Abrams style of writing: Continuously up the stakes to make the story interesting. The audience will want to know how it all fits together. How does it all actually fit together? Who cares, when the series ends, we'll come up with something. It won't be satisfying, it won't even make sense, but by then the series is over. The important thing was that we held on to the ratings while it was on.
If it plays 30-40 years after the original trilogy why not. They can't be that stupid to use them as protagonists.
Unless they set up Thrawn as an antagonist for a whole trilogy I doubt a single movie would do him justice.
They can't use Thrawn for a story 30-40 years after the original trilogy. Thrawn died 5 or 6 years after ROTJ. Although I would like nothing better than to see Star Wars, Episode VII: Heir to the Empire. Screw the 30 year jump, and just recast the characters. They've already recasted Obi-Wan for the prequels, nobody would care.
That's not an answer to "what do we do" but instead an apology without a position.
No, my position is very clearly a "we do nothing. Absolutely nothing.
You position is that children of bad parents get what they deserve
I'm not saying they get what they deserve. I'm saying the world isn't fair. People who don't deserve bad things happen to them will get fucked. Great people who deserve success don't achieve it. That's not something that NEEDS solving anymore than gravity needs solving. It's a fact of life. If you don't understand this, I feel sorry for you. You're not equipped to live in this world, and will end up suffering a whole lot as you witness bad things happen that you can't do anything about.
I'd argue that even you think your position is unreasonable, otherwise you'd state it and stand by it, rather than dancing around what it is you'd "do" and apologize for your position without stating it.
I don't apologize for my position. I state that trying to solve a problem without a solution doesn't solve the problem, and makes the situation worse. Banning magnetic marbles doesn't save children and takes freedom away. Learn to live with the fact that the world is imperfect, innocent people suffer and die, accept it, and move on. Don't add to the problems in a futile attempt to fix unsolvable issues and then proceed to ironically call those who have a realistic view about the world unreasonable and naive.
What would the libertarian do that would prevent dead children, or is this a eugenics thing?
It's not an eugenics thing. Nobody wants the children to die. My position is that since it's completely unreasonable for us to take over the job of parents and to place all children inside a protective bubble. Children will die. It sucks, but it will happen. It will still happen if we ban the magnet balls, because you can't protect them from all risks. In fact, it will happen to children of responsible parents, because they can't watch them 100% of the time, and sometimes people just get unlucky. Either they have the magic combination of responsible parents and luck, or they don't.
I'm not saying there should be no regulation of anything. If you have a toy that is dangerous for children, of course you shouldn't market it to children, and of course the government should enforce that. But the moment you have something that is not dangerous for the age it is intended and marketed to, you've done all you can.
Because a child's life may be of more value than your desktop toy?
My toy isn't endangering any child. I don't have children. There are no children in my house, nor in my office. I have other things in my house that would be dangerous to children, like knives.
If you have children, don't buy the damn thing, and if you do, keep it away from them. That's my point about personal responsibility. I'm not responsible for your children, and the company selling me magnets are not responsible for your children. It's your job to keep them safe, and if you don't want to do that job, don't fucking have children.
The FCC also requires every cable provider to give you a set-top box (STB) that gives unencrypted access via a firewire (IEEE 1394) port. Look it up. Write down the requirement number. Call up your provider and tell them to give you a box with IEEE-1394 access to an unencrypted feed.
:>)
Reference: 1394 interface as defined in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate for a functional 1394 interface in the STB
1394 Trade Association sez : http://www.1394ta.org/press/TAPress/2010_0622.html
Yes, but cable shows can be flagged to not be sent unencrypted across the firewire port. The only requirement they have is to pass through the OTA shows via that port. Which means you haven't solved anything.
And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise,
That's because you seem to be a good example of a naive libertarian. If only everybody could see the world in your same neat and tidy little way, all of our problems would be solved.
Well, real life is more complicated than that. Most people realize this, and that's why libertarian politicians routinely receive at most low single-digit vote counts decade after decade.
My hat's off to you, sir. I didn't realize you were trolling right up until now, when, faced with my giving up on the conversation, you went back to the original statement that set me off, in an attempt to keep going.
Good job.
The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets.
No, this is exactly the problem. This is the outcome that needs to be avoided.
You're being short-sighted. There are hundreds of things that can kill a child. If the parents aren't willing to take responsibility for the safety of their children, even if I thought it was the government's job to try to do it for them (which I don't), it can't be done. If it's not magnetic balls the kids are swallowing, it'll be the drano the parents left opened after they used it under the sink where the kids could get to it.
You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.
Irrelevant. Instead, the whole above stated problem is avoided by banning the magnets.
No, it is not, as I've stated above. Irresponsible parents will still allow their children to come to danger. We should not be trying to remove all danger from the world. It's not feasible, and it results in the erosion of the freedoms that responsible people deserve.
If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence.
But the parents aren't the only one responsible. The manufacturers of these dangerous toys share in the liability. They would need to be arrested, too. However, it's probably safe to assume that they'd rather just close that particular line of business than rot in prison.
The parents are the only ones responsible. You can have the government request a warning about the dangers of the magnets be placed on the box. You can have the government force them to slap a 14+ label on it. That's the only burden that can be placed on the company. The products are not defective, nor are they dangerous when used responsibly. If the parents hand them to kids that are too young, or fail to talk to their kids about the dangers, there is not a single other person that is responsible. And I can't possibly understand how anyone could argue otherwise, so if you don't see that, we have to just agree to disagree, because we have fundamentally different beliefs about the nature of personal freedom and accompanying responsibility, and we're not going to agree with one another.
OK, I see.
1. Kid injured or killed.
2. Hopefully, parents feel bad.
3. Problem solved.
The parent feeling bad or not is none of my concern. The problem was not that the kid was injured was killed by the magnets. The problem was that the parents were irresponsible. You didn't fix the parents by banning the magnets.
If you insist on government doing something, arrest the parents for criminal negligence. I personally think getting your kid hurt is enough of a punishment, but if you insist something more needs to be done, at least aim it in the right direction.
I am not sure how you are disagreeing with me.
I merely stated like hunting and guns, don't let unsupervised kids do it.
I guess I was really responding the the "limiting it to 18" part of your post. I don't see why we need to regulate the age at all. Just clearly label the dangers and let the parents figure it out.
Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes?
Because they don't.
They never have, and they never will. No matter how much naive libertarians wish for it.
It's not naivete. We don't think they will. We just want them to pay the consequences for not doing so, instead of making the rest of us pay.
If give a bunch of supermagnets to your kids, don't supervise them, don't teach them about the dangers, and then they swallow a couple and die...congratulations: You just paid for being a dumbass with the life of your child. Why do I have to give up my magnets as well?
Actually 12 year olds are a decent size group that is eating these. They use them to simulate tongue, cheek and labret piercings.
Or, you could just put the blame where it lies. Parents who don't teach their children the dangers of incredibly strong magnets before giving it to them as a toy.
If you take your kid hunting, and don't teach them proper gun safety, it's not the fault of the guns when an accident happens. It's the same issue here. Why the hell can't people take personal responsibility for their mistakes? What's next? People blaming mcdonalds that their super-sized fries are making them fat? Oh, wait...
How do you handle a situation where a voter looks at the receipt and it doesn't have what the voter expected? What if the voter just wants to changer his mind?
Same thing that happens with paper ballots, when you screw it up. You call over an official, request to do it over again, he destroys your receipt in front of you, uses his key to undo the voting session in your machine, and off you go. If the machine consistently produces the wrong receipt, you take it offline. If you don't trust that the machine undo is being performed correctly or ethically, it doesn't matter, if any candidate requests a recount, only the paper receipts count anyway. It requires no trust in the machine.
What if the voter doesn't deposit the receipt but instead sticks it in his pocket?
Ever tried walking out with a ballot instead of putting it in the ballot box? There are people there whose job it is to make sure you don't do that.
That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.
Looking up online later, absolutely. The proposals for a receipt, at least the ones I've seen, you may be talking about something else, don't allow you to take the receipt home with you.
Basically, you vote in an electronic voting machine, it prints out a receipt that is human readable and you can verify, then you drop that receipt in the ballot box. The voting machine does the vote count, recounts are done with the paper receipts. That is actually the type of electronic voting machine I'd approve of.
A similar ticket in the US costs 1/3 less than in Europe
Really? Because I just compared ticket prices in expedia (round-trip, weekend trip, a few months out (February).
Cheapest flight from LA to San Francisco (distance 347 miles): $177, United Airlines, which I can attest has crappy service.
Cheapest flight from Glasgow to London (distance 343 miles): $166, British Airways, which I can attest has great service.
First American carrier to use an american-built plane made mostly of composite materials.
Don't get me wrong, Carbon Fiber is absurdly strong, and computer models help negate design flaws.... but CF's failure mode tends to be sudden and...explosive. Steel bends long before it breaks, and Aluminum is somewhere in the middle, but CF just.... goes when it fails. I think Airbus has been including CF on their tail fins for a while (with some failures) and the technology is supposedly mature... but it's hard to ignore Aluminum's nearly 100 year reputation. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Well, they do test these things, with built prototypes, not just computer models. For every plane Boeing builds, they do a wing break test where they bend the wings until they break. The wings on the 787 could be bent more than the wings on any of their aluminum built frames.
787's wing break test and regular wing testing.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American labor force.
Except that if you compare US airlines to foreign airlines including Europe, they have far better "soft products" despite labor costs..
I remember taking a coach flight from Glasgow to London with British Airlines, and thought they had upgraded me to business class, based on how much space I had at my seats, and having only experienced flight in the US up until that point. They don't cram twice as many seats as there should be in their planes. Good service too.
Musk has said that his intention is to end up manufacturing a truly affordable electric car, and that this stage (the model S) isn't that; I'll take him at his word. Maybe next time! :)
To be fair, he's going about it the right way. He's bringing costs down by manufacturing an expensive vehicle for those that can afford it. The Model S is not only a much better car than the Roadster, it's also significantly cheaper. The Model X also looks fantastic. I imagine in another 5-7 years you'll get your $20k Tesla announced.
But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair. After all, the only difference between a 64GB iPhone and a 32GB iPhone is the amount of RAM, yet Apple would have to pay Motorola more for a license from the more expensive phone! That is ridiculous.
They own the prices, they get to price it however they want (same as how Apple gets to price their 64GB vs 32GB phones far differently than what the flash storage difference justifies). "Fair" just means that they're not charging Apple more than they're charging anybody else.
Considering that everybody else enters cross-licensing deals Apple refuses to enter into, it's hard to get a comparison point. Basically, Apple has refused the fair and non-discriminatory offer, and Google / Motorola is coming up with something else they find equitable.
Don't think you'll see a CEO jailed any time soon because the company had inadequate testing procedures and they ran a kid over.
I don't think so either. But then again, I also don't think he should.
How worried are you that a bridge you drive over won't fall if the winds pick up. How worried are you that the skyscraper you're on in LA won't collapse to the ground if an earthquake happens? These are all real dangers. And an engineer signed off on the design, indicating it meets all of the applicable codes. If something happens as a result of negligence from that engineer, his ass is on the line.
I am an engineer, and I know for a fact I'd face jail time if something happened to anything built from one of my designs that can be traced back to my negligence. I don't see why it would be any different with these cars.
The other thing about humans is they have a superior (if slower) decision making capability.
Not always, no. I've seen humans make plenty of bad decisions while driving that I know for a fact would not be made my software.
I'd rather crash into the cardboard box in the alleyway, or mount the kerb (if it's clear) than not get out of the way of the out-of-control juggernaut heading towards me that braking or staying still won't avoid.
And why are you assuming software won't? Those are not difficult human-only decisions, they're pretty standard and easy to recognize things. Currently google cars will actually avoid pedestrians that jump in front of the car at the very last minute. I don't know many people who I'm confident would be able to avoid hitting the pedestrian.
Furthermore, a driver goes to jail because he killed someone while driving drunk? Tomorrow another driver does the same thing. A car kills someone because of a software error? Next week, every car has received a software update that assures that error will never happen again.
What you're implying is that if I raid a bank, and the court orders the shop across the street to reveal its CCTV records of that day, that's somehow prejudicial to justice?
Depends. Are those cameras from the shop across the street pointed towards the bank or at a path the criminals were known to pass by? Because, if they're internal cameras, I'd expect the judge to require a good reason for why they think the robbers went inside the shop before giving a warrant.
Similarly, if they have good reason to believe this particular juror was that commenter, then yes, it's a perfectly valid request. If they're just fishing for it because the comment was related to the trial, then it's not.