So, no, news and reporters are not on par with monks who copied documents thousands of years ago. They are reporting news, and there is still value in, and demand for, that.
No, they aren't. But newspapers are. Newspaper subscriptions cover the paper, not the news. Ads have always paid for the creation of the news. That is why you don't have to pay a subscription to watch the news on broadcast television or terrestrial radio. Claiming that we need to charge subscription fees because it costs money to make the news is a straw man argument, this is not in dispute. Nobody is saying that they should do this for free, the discussion is the source of that revenue, and all the research shows that ads can provide more than enough revenue to make huge profits.
...People have never payed for the news. People have, in the past payed for newspapers, they are paying for someone to cut down a tree, transport the tree to a mill, grind the tree into pulp, flatten it out and dry it to make paper, ship the paper to a printer, print out thousands of copies, and then deliver that copy to their front door. That is what a newspaper subscription covers. Barely. The rest (the actual news part of it) is covered by the advertisement. Radio and television news have always been free. The Internet is much more akin to radio or television in distribution costs than print, so there is no reason to charge you for the distribution of the news. Rupert Murdoch is trying to change the game here, a couple hundred years after the invention of news, so that we actually have to pay for news. This has never been done before, and he is a fool for thinking that it will all of a sudden magically work.
The only (well, biggest) problem with what you are saying here is that newspapers are more or less giving you the paper "free", in that the subscription cost barely covers the cost to print the paper and deliver it to you. They don't make their money on subscriptions now, the newspaper industry, even in its dead tree form, is an ad supported industry! Bandwidth is much cheaper than printing presses, trucks, and delivery boys, so it would stand to reason that the "subscription" would drop considerably, from its already very low (and not profitable) price. This makes free a very reasonable price.
What's happening is they incur cost producing Content and then they give it away for free. What kind of crazy business model is that, you make NO PROFIT.
Sorry, but you are wrong. There are a great many sites on the Internet that have shown that you CAN make a profit with free, ad supported content. It actually stands to reason in a lot of cases that ad supported content will bring more revenue than subscription, as these companies will be lucky to see 2% of their online customers willing to pay a subscription when they can get the SAME news elsewhere for free. As I mentioned before, the News is ALREADY presented to us as ad supported free content, newspaper subscriptions cover printing and delivery costs, and all the news is already on the TV and radio for free. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Putting up a paywall on your site only guarantees that people will go elsewhere, and it is suicide.
If it as an opt-in, I say why not. It might convince the, I don't know, 5 or 6 people that like the ribbon to switch over to OO.o. If this is going to be the default... well...
it's not like you'd be walking around your day-to-day life wearing the things
Why couldn't you walk around with something like this? I can't see why we wouldn't be able to shrink the tech down to be able to display on the inside of your glasses to provide a sort of HUD for life -- say if they were linked up to Google Earth you could overlay street names on what you are seeing. Or you could use facial recognition software linked up with your company's database and never worry about forgetting a co-worker's name. If you walk by an historical monument, a little blurb from the Wikipedia page could pop over it. It would be great for driving as well -- you could project a small view from a camera on the back of the car so you can look forward and not mess around with mirrors, or keep your eyes on the road by putting your speedometer in an HUD sort of view. I see the most revolutionary use for this tech being for day to day use, although the tech obviously has a way to go before it gets there.
Most racing simulator games - Can't show damage on branded vehicles
This one is the WORST. They put countless thousands of man hours into perfecting the driving mechanics, but then can't show any damage on the vehicle. I am not sure how it is in the latest iteration, but this pulled me right out of the game in Gran Turismo, they are trying to get me to buy the fact that I am driving a real car on a real track, yet I can smash into a wall at 200+ mph with no consequences. That goes above and beyond being irritating, it is downright shameful. They would be better off using fictional cars at that point -- if the automakers don't want the free publicity they can go screw.
Sound playback, and audio production are two totally different things, Jack. To quote Jules Winnfield it "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport". If basic audio playback is still a challenge, then audio production is YEARS out.
"and I will have to admit that the vast majority of professional audio people are much better of staying with Apple at the moment."
Or Windows -- Apple really offers no discernible advantage over Windows, this is a very common misconception. I have done plenty of work on both platforms and both utilize the hardware equally well and both are equally crash-prone. Sure, Macs handle internal audio routing better by default (CoreAudio), but that is irrelevant as ASIO is at least as good if not better, and you are stuck with DAE on either platform if you use ProTools. I think the biggest reason Macs are still viewed as the standard is that the Win version of ProTools used to be garbage, the industry adopted Mac as the standard, and now they are afraid to change from something that they know works, especially since the few hundreds of dollars they could save are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a serious studio. For the hobbyist, I would strongly suggest going Windows as you can save some money on the computer and buy some more mics, pres, converters, upgrade the interface, buy some plugins, or get a few more pieces of outboard gear, (all of which, obviously, make more of a difference in your tracks than the computer you produced them with) not to mention the fact that you can upgrade your system periodically, rather than buying a whole new rig every few years.
Yes. This. I agree with everything in the post particularly the end bit. With a good version of Cubase, the ASIO audio engine, native VST and a good interface with native Linux driver Linux would be the perfect platform for audio production due to the openness of the platform -- you can reduce the system overhead down to next to nothing, the file system is much more efficient, and you could take much better advantage of your hardware all around. I would love to see a viable Linux based recording solution, but it is not there yet. Not at all. Not even close. Bah.
You clearly know nothing about audio production -- it is not just synths that are reproduced digitally these days, all aspects of audio production are done digitally, including all of the reverb, delays, compression, EQ, etc. Getting enough of this sort of hardware to satisfy the needs of even a humble 24 track mix will quickly put you well into five figures. Not to mention the I/O to feed everything (inserts, aux sends/returns) is obscenely expensive and non-existent on Linux. Software is the only thing that makes audio production possible for the hobbyist, and it is getting good enough that not even the pros can tell the difference. Professional studios invest thousands in plug-ins. There are thousands upon thousands of FREE VST plugins, some of which are very good, that can be downloaded online. So no, using software is not a problem, it is a solution, and I can tell by the content of your post that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
...which is exactly why Linux users tend to have better-looking studios: They buy nice hardware and stay out of software-only land. Anyway, have fun in Reason; I'm off to buy a Roland synth...
-Former Reason user, with a bunch of useless commercial ReFills sitting around
Software is far more flexible than hardware, and you can do things in software that are impossible in hardware. All your hardware is useless if you have no I/O. Not to mention that software is orders of magnitude cheaper than hardware for processing, blowing away any cost benefit you had from switching to Linux. Serious studios have both software and hardware, as they both have their advantages. Please tell me one serious studio that uses Linux, I would be very interested in hearing about it, but I would be very surprised -- it is a piss-poor platform for audio production. I am not sure why you are trashing Reason and getting all hot and bothered over a Roland synth -- you can do all of the same things with Reason for a fraction of the cost, the Roland synth is *gasp* still just a computer, except you have to pay for the extra hardware. Anyway, I am rambling, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
I love Ubuntu, and use it for almost all my non-audio related computing, but this really doesn't say much of anything about real audio production -- he is simply mixing and matching a few samples together and playing them back. He can come back and talk to me when he manages to record 16 simultaneous tracks of input, and then mix down 96 tracks with heavy editing and processing. I can do this with ease on my Windows* recording rig, but the tech really isn't there to do it in Linux. Hardware support is abysmal (and don't even try running a 32 I/O Firewire interface on third party drivers), and Ardour really is your only choice as far as recording software goes. I have used Ardour, and it is okay, but it is simply not even close to being a match for Cubase or ProTools. With how CPU intensive and finicky these programs can be (especially with the cost of a crash, nothing is more frustrating than losing the perfect take) you would be insane to even try running them in Wine. It is nice to see that Linux is starting to come into its own, but you can take it from me, this guy is doing little more than tinkering. Real audio production is still firmly in the realm of Windows* and Mac.
*Yes, Windows is every bit as good as Mac for audio production. Please stop with the lunacy that Mac is the go to platform for sound, I have used both extensively and honestly don't even notice the platform once I start mixing. I have had just as many crashes with Mac. The only reason you really need to go Apple is if you want to use Logic. I know Mac handles audio routing slightly better by default, but that is irrelevant in any professional environment as you will be using the DAE if you go the ProTools route, or ASIO if you use Steinberg software. There really is no advantage.
However, it's my belief that ultimately, there is no real choice. We are a product of our biology, genetics, epi-genetics, and experiences.
(emphasis mine)
I certainly agree that we really don't have "free will" as is currently defined in the legal system, but I would also like to submit that it really does not matter, and certainly does not eliminate the efficacy of punishment, as we are molded by our experiences.
The brain is a highly adaptable organ, and will physically change its structure in response to the world around it. The brain has a slew of hard wired "directives" if you will, two of which could be considered to be "prime" directives -- reproduce, and not die. If your experience in this world shows you that certain actions (ie murder) can result in you either being unable to reproduce or dying (prison, the death penalty), your brain will attempt to rewire itself to keep you from undertaking those actions, even if you would have been prone to it due to structural defects in your brain. For some, this mechanism is faulty (as any complicated machine can be) or this plasticity is not sufficient in preventing the individual in question from engaging in antisocial behavior.
Even if the perpetrator is not at fault per say, punishing them can still certainly be effective in dissuading others through the implantation of the punishment meme in their physically adaptable brains. This also serves to be effective in removing the diseased elements from the herd, so to speak, as to prevent them from committing the same crimes again in the future. While I have a great many complaints about our criminal justice system, I am not ready to throw it out yet, and I am certainly not ready to deny its efficacy on the ground of free will.
One additional observation - any test for "crazy" that's solid enough to preclude punishment for a crime is also solid enough to imprison those who fail the test even if they have not yet comitted any crime.
Important distinction -- Psychopath != Dangerous Murderer -- Many, many psychopaths end up in business and politics and use their extreme lack of empathy to make billions of dollars (or start wars and enact Patriot Acts) instead of carving up prostitutes. Mind you, I find these A-holes to be every bit as evil as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, but they are still not going to be violating the law.
Because those tests aren't fool proof. Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
This is not true -- these tests can be foolproof -- if you determine that a safe reaction time behind the wheel is x milliseconds, and we can objectively test how fast the driver's reactions are, why is his or her BAC relevant? The BAC is a good indicator that the driver's reaction times may be too low for them to be able to drive safely, but it is only a signpost. Why not go straight to the root?
BTW -- thank you for presenting a case for why you agree with the law rather than reiterating it again, that is much more constructive.
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Really? You try to respond to me and simply reiterate the main point in your argument that I took issue with? As I said previously, this is a common logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. The topic at hand was the legitimacy and efficacy of a.08% BAC and your just barge in with BLARG IT'S THE LAW THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR BREAKING THE LAW, which is totally worthless to the conversation. We all know that it is against the law, and we all know what the legal limit is. If you want to defend the.08% limitation, that's fine. Do that. But you add nothing to the conversation by just reiterating that it is against the law. Oh, and if you want to talk about straw men:
Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
For real? You really think that is what I am arguing for? I am saying we ought to possibly reassess the way we determine intoxication -- why not impose a more rigorous form of performance based testing (and I am not talking about the Field Sobriety Test, we have much more sophisticated tests than that). That way, we can keep overly tired people from driving as well, since they are, after all, every bit as dangerous as drunk drivers. I am arguing that an arbitrary limit may not be the best way to go about it.
I knew a guy in college who could smell weed from miles away. No matter where you were, if you broke out a joint, he would magically show up within minutes. Hiring guys like that has to be cheaper than these devices.
If it can detect presence it more than likely can detect amounts also. So more than likely there will be differing levels of each to warrant a DUI. Being that it detect illegal substances penalties are more than likely going to be a bit stiffer and probably open you up to a visit from cops with warrants to search your house/work/car for drug paraphernalia.
If society gets to the point where a failed drug test is probable cause for the police to tear apart your life, I think it would be reasonable to official label the government as tyrannical. It would also be a good time to move to Canada.
Can this tell the difference between intoxication and merely having used said drug in the past couple of days? While cannabis may be illegal, a DUI should not be warranted if you happen to test positive, given the long time it's present in your bloodstream.
If that is the case then this device would be 100% worthless -- it is not against the law to have consumed drugs in the past, it is illegal to possess drugs or drive under the influence of drugs, but if this device were unable to tell whether or not the user is actually intoxicated or the positive is coming from residual, it will never stand up in court.
Slashdot Mirror
So, no, news and reporters are not on par with monks who copied documents thousands of years ago. They are reporting news, and there is still value in, and demand for, that.
No, they aren't. But newspapers are. Newspaper subscriptions cover the paper, not the news. Ads have always paid for the creation of the news. That is why you don't have to pay a subscription to watch the news on broadcast television or terrestrial radio. Claiming that we need to charge subscription fees because it costs money to make the news is a straw man argument, this is not in dispute. Nobody is saying that they should do this for free, the discussion is the source of that revenue, and all the research shows that ads can provide more than enough revenue to make huge profits.
...People have never payed for the news. People have, in the past payed for newspapers, they are paying for someone to cut down a tree, transport the tree to a mill, grind the tree into pulp, flatten it out and dry it to make paper, ship the paper to a printer, print out thousands of copies, and then deliver that copy to their front door. That is what a newspaper subscription covers. Barely. The rest (the actual news part of it) is covered by the advertisement. Radio and television news have always been free. The Internet is much more akin to radio or television in distribution costs than print, so there is no reason to charge you for the distribution of the news. Rupert Murdoch is trying to change the game here, a couple hundred years after the invention of news, so that we actually have to pay for news. This has never been done before, and he is a fool for thinking that it will all of a sudden magically work.
What's happening is they incur cost producing Content and then they give it away for free. What kind of crazy business model is that, you make NO PROFIT.
Sorry, but you are wrong. There are a great many sites on the Internet that have shown that you CAN make a profit with free, ad supported content. It actually stands to reason in a lot of cases that ad supported content will bring more revenue than subscription, as these companies will be lucky to see 2% of their online customers willing to pay a subscription when they can get the SAME news elsewhere for free. As I mentioned before, the News is ALREADY presented to us as ad supported free content, newspaper subscriptions cover printing and delivery costs, and all the news is already on the TV and radio for free. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Putting up a paywall on your site only guarantees that people will go elsewhere, and it is suicide.
If it as an opt-in, I say why not. It might convince the, I don't know, 5 or 6 people that like the ribbon to switch over to OO.o. If this is going to be the default... well...
it's not like you'd be walking around your day-to-day life wearing the things
Why couldn't you walk around with something like this? I can't see why we wouldn't be able to shrink the tech down to be able to display on the inside of your glasses to provide a sort of HUD for life -- say if they were linked up to Google Earth you could overlay street names on what you are seeing. Or you could use facial recognition software linked up with your company's database and never worry about forgetting a co-worker's name. If you walk by an historical monument, a little blurb from the Wikipedia page could pop over it. It would be great for driving as well -- you could project a small view from a camera on the back of the car so you can look forward and not mess around with mirrors, or keep your eyes on the road by putting your speedometer in an HUD sort of view. I see the most revolutionary use for this tech being for day to day use, although the tech obviously has a way to go before it gets there.
I think they were referring to mind-blowing more in the sense of... well... you know.
From TFA: "A cluster of PCs is needed to perform the necessary image capture and 3D modeling." HA! Suck on that Mac!
Also from TFA: "You're a retard." Oh wait, the article doesn't say that, that was me.
Who is modding this down? Seriously?
Most racing simulator games - Can't show damage on branded vehicles
This one is the WORST. They put countless thousands of man hours into perfecting the driving mechanics, but then can't show any damage on the vehicle. I am not sure how it is in the latest iteration, but this pulled me right out of the game in Gran Turismo, they are trying to get me to buy the fact that I am driving a real car on a real track, yet I can smash into a wall at 200+ mph with no consequences. That goes above and beyond being irritating, it is downright shameful. They would be better off using fictional cars at that point -- if the automakers don't want the free publicity they can go screw.
Sound playback, and audio production are two totally different things, Jack. To quote Jules Winnfield it "ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport". If basic audio playback is still a challenge, then audio production is YEARS out.
"and I will have to admit that the vast majority of professional audio people are much better of staying with Apple at the moment."
Or Windows -- Apple really offers no discernible advantage over Windows, this is a very common misconception. I have done plenty of work on both platforms and both utilize the hardware equally well and both are equally crash-prone. Sure, Macs handle internal audio routing better by default (CoreAudio), but that is irrelevant as ASIO is at least as good if not better, and you are stuck with DAE on either platform if you use ProTools. I think the biggest reason Macs are still viewed as the standard is that the Win version of ProTools used to be garbage, the industry adopted Mac as the standard, and now they are afraid to change from something that they know works, especially since the few hundreds of dollars they could save are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of a serious studio. For the hobbyist, I would strongly suggest going Windows as you can save some money on the computer and buy some more mics, pres, converters, upgrade the interface, buy some plugins, or get a few more pieces of outboard gear, (all of which, obviously, make more of a difference in your tracks than the computer you produced them with) not to mention the fact that you can upgrade your system periodically, rather than buying a whole new rig every few years.
Where is that?
...Two words combined that can't make sense
Nice fuckin' picture! *grabs crotch*
Yes. This. I agree with everything in the post particularly the end bit. With a good version of Cubase, the ASIO audio engine, native VST and a good interface with native Linux driver Linux would be the perfect platform for audio production due to the openness of the platform -- you can reduce the system overhead down to next to nothing, the file system is much more efficient, and you could take much better advantage of your hardware all around. I would love to see a viable Linux based recording solution, but it is not there yet. Not at all. Not even close. Bah.
You clearly know nothing about audio production -- it is not just synths that are reproduced digitally these days, all aspects of audio production are done digitally, including all of the reverb, delays, compression, EQ, etc. Getting enough of this sort of hardware to satisfy the needs of even a humble 24 track mix will quickly put you well into five figures. Not to mention the I/O to feed everything (inserts, aux sends/returns) is obscenely expensive and non-existent on Linux. Software is the only thing that makes audio production possible for the hobbyist, and it is getting good enough that not even the pros can tell the difference. Professional studios invest thousands in plug-ins. There are thousands upon thousands of FREE VST plugins, some of which are very good, that can be downloaded online. So no, using software is not a problem, it is a solution, and I can tell by the content of your post that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
...which is exactly why Linux users tend to have better-looking studios: They buy nice hardware and stay out of software-only land. Anyway, have fun in Reason; I'm off to buy a Roland synth... -Former Reason user, with a bunch of useless commercial ReFills sitting around
Software is far more flexible than hardware, and you can do things in software that are impossible in hardware. All your hardware is useless if you have no I/O. Not to mention that software is orders of magnitude cheaper than hardware for processing, blowing away any cost benefit you had from switching to Linux. Serious studios have both software and hardware, as they both have their advantages. Please tell me one serious studio that uses Linux, I would be very interested in hearing about it, but I would be very surprised -- it is a piss-poor platform for audio production. I am not sure why you are trashing Reason and getting all hot and bothered over a Roland synth -- you can do all of the same things with Reason for a fraction of the cost, the Roland synth is *gasp* still just a computer, except you have to pay for the extra hardware. Anyway, I am rambling, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
I love Ubuntu, and use it for almost all my non-audio related computing, but this really doesn't say much of anything about real audio production -- he is simply mixing and matching a few samples together and playing them back. He can come back and talk to me when he manages to record 16 simultaneous tracks of input, and then mix down 96 tracks with heavy editing and processing. I can do this with ease on my Windows* recording rig, but the tech really isn't there to do it in Linux. Hardware support is abysmal (and don't even try running a 32 I/O Firewire interface on third party drivers), and Ardour really is your only choice as far as recording software goes. I have used Ardour, and it is okay, but it is simply not even close to being a match for Cubase or ProTools. With how CPU intensive and finicky these programs can be (especially with the cost of a crash, nothing is more frustrating than losing the perfect take) you would be insane to even try running them in Wine. It is nice to see that Linux is starting to come into its own, but you can take it from me, this guy is doing little more than tinkering. Real audio production is still firmly in the realm of Windows* and Mac.
*Yes, Windows is every bit as good as Mac for audio production. Please stop with the lunacy that Mac is the go to platform for sound, I have used both extensively and honestly don't even notice the platform once I start mixing. I have had just as many crashes with Mac. The only reason you really need to go Apple is if you want to use Logic. I know Mac handles audio routing slightly better by default, but that is irrelevant in any professional environment as you will be using the DAE if you go the ProTools route, or ASIO if you use Steinberg software. There really is no advantage.
However, it's my belief that ultimately, there is no real choice. We are a product of our biology, genetics, epi-genetics, and experiences.
(emphasis mine)
I certainly agree that we really don't have "free will" as is currently defined in the legal system, but I would also like to submit that it really does not matter, and certainly does not eliminate the efficacy of punishment, as we are molded by our experiences.
The brain is a highly adaptable organ, and will physically change its structure in response to the world around it. The brain has a slew of hard wired "directives" if you will, two of which could be considered to be "prime" directives -- reproduce, and not die. If your experience in this world shows you that certain actions (ie murder) can result in you either being unable to reproduce or dying (prison, the death penalty), your brain will attempt to rewire itself to keep you from undertaking those actions, even if you would have been prone to it due to structural defects in your brain. For some, this mechanism is faulty (as any complicated machine can be) or this plasticity is not sufficient in preventing the individual in question from engaging in antisocial behavior.
Even if the perpetrator is not at fault per say, punishing them can still certainly be effective in dissuading others through the implantation of the punishment meme in their physically adaptable brains. This also serves to be effective in removing the diseased elements from the herd, so to speak, as to prevent them from committing the same crimes again in the future. While I have a great many complaints about our criminal justice system, I am not ready to throw it out yet, and I am certainly not ready to deny its efficacy on the ground of free will.
One additional observation - any test for "crazy" that's solid enough to preclude punishment for a crime is also solid enough to imprison those who fail the test even if they have not yet comitted any crime.
Important distinction -- Psychopath != Dangerous Murderer -- Many, many psychopaths end up in business and politics and use their extreme lack of empathy to make billions of dollars (or start wars and enact Patriot Acts) instead of carving up prostitutes. Mind you, I find these A-holes to be every bit as evil as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, but they are still not going to be violating the law.
Because those tests aren't fool proof. Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
This is not true -- these tests can be foolproof -- if you determine that a safe reaction time behind the wheel is x milliseconds, and we can objectively test how fast the driver's reactions are, why is his or her BAC relevant? The BAC is a good indicator that the driver's reaction times may be too low for them to be able to drive safely, but it is only a signpost. Why not go straight to the root?
BTW -- thank you for presenting a case for why you agree with the law rather than reiterating it again, that is much more constructive.
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Really? You try to respond to me and simply reiterate the main point in your argument that I took issue with? As I said previously, this is a common logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. The topic at hand was the legitimacy and efficacy of a .08% BAC and your just barge in with BLARG IT'S THE LAW THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR BREAKING THE LAW, which is totally worthless to the conversation. We all know that it is against the law, and we all know what the legal limit is. If you want to defend the .08% limitation, that's fine. Do that. But you add nothing to the conversation by just reiterating that it is against the law. Oh, and if you want to talk about straw men:
Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
For real? You really think that is what I am arguing for? I am saying we ought to possibly reassess the way we determine intoxication -- why not impose a more rigorous form of performance based testing (and I am not talking about the Field Sobriety Test, we have much more sophisticated tests than that). That way, we can keep overly tired people from driving as well, since they are, after all, every bit as dangerous as drunk drivers. I am arguing that an arbitrary limit may not be the best way to go about it.
I knew a guy in college who could smell weed from miles away. No matter where you were, if you broke out a joint, he would magically show up within minutes. Hiring guys like that has to be cheaper than these devices.
Oh man I hate that guy, what a mooch.
If it can detect presence it more than likely can detect amounts also. So more than likely there will be differing levels of each to warrant a DUI. Being that it detect illegal substances penalties are more than likely going to be a bit stiffer and probably open you up to a visit from cops with warrants to search your house/work/car for drug paraphernalia.
If society gets to the point where a failed drug test is probable cause for the police to tear apart your life, I think it would be reasonable to official label the government as tyrannical. It would also be a good time to move to Canada.
Can this tell the difference between intoxication and merely having used said drug in the past couple of days? While cannabis may be illegal, a DUI should not be warranted if you happen to test positive, given the long time it's present in your bloodstream.
If that is the case then this device would be 100% worthless -- it is not against the law to have consumed drugs in the past, it is illegal to possess drugs or drive under the influence of drugs, but if this device were unable to tell whether or not the user is actually intoxicated or the positive is coming from residual, it will never stand up in court.