Considering the area covered by the aerostat that kind of area does not exist in the continental US. Sorry by testing only in Alaska is very inconvenient and invalid since the weather is very different. Yeah lets open up a new proving ground due to "privacy concerns" caused by testing one system. What a waste of funds. Another issue is getting people to move to the middle of nowhere to run those proving grounds.
This is an military proving ground. It is used to test new equipment including radars and targeting equipment. These tests include endurance tests to see how long the aerostat can be kept aloft. The fact that it can see long distances is a good thing in a battle area. I bet they tested JSTARS somewhere over the US. JSTARS has most of the capability of the aerostat if at shorter ranges. Where would you have them test prototypes? They can't test a military surveillance device because it might see too much?
If you're paying attention you will notice two things: these cases are almost entirely drug cases, and that drug prohibition is failing to make drugs scarce.
So your premise is that all drug laws should be abolished/not enforced. Sorry but I only partially agree. Certain drug laws, marijuana for example, are overreaching. Other drugs do cause harm to society.
nothing confined to consenting adults should ever be a crime.
I agree but some drug consequences are not confined to consenting adults. Some drugs cause people to be unable to hold jobs, cause them to commit crimes to support their habit, etc. I realize that alcohol does similar things but to a much lesser extent. The percentage of productive crackheads is much less than the percentage of productive alcohol use. The consequences of this drug use is spread to the rest of society in welfare costs, health costs, insurance costs, policing costs, etc.
favored following the Constitution over prosecuting a drug criminal.
The problem with the US Constitution is that it is imprecise.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The issue is around the word "unreasonable" which can be interpreted differently by different people. What is unreasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Too many people seem to interpret this an "any search without a warrant" but that is not what the Constitution says.
Yeah you are right "Galileo Gambit" does not apply. It is just straight Association Fallacy. (Nice pun) The premise being that since we are now doing thing we though were impossible everything that we think is impossible now is actually possible later.
Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.
Those are very small pieces of graphine. It is more like the tiny industrial diamonds that were initially produced. Most of graphine's use is when larger sheets can be made.
The freeway and the side-streets are public spaces, and no one living on a public street has a right to demand that anyone else not use it as they like,
Note necessarily. There are many jurisdictions that have "truck routes" where trucks that are not making local deliveries are allowed to drive. There are also hierarchy of streets. When secondary/tertiary streets are being used like primary streets then things get changed. Secondary/tertiary streets are narrower/windier than primary streets. There are many secondary/tertiary streets that are restricted to local traffic only. Do you really think it is safe for commuters who are trying to get to work as fast as possible to be routed through a residential area?
I agree that I will not assert or maintain against ___________________________, your successors, assigns and licensees, any claim, action, suit or demand of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to those grounded upon invasion of privacy, rights of publicity or other civil rights, or for any reason in connection with your authorized use of my physical likeness and sound in the Picture as herein provided.
Actors in effect sign over their rights as they pertain to the movie. One of those right is copyright. Without a valid release copyright to the actor's image is retained by the actor. The DMCA allows copyright holders to have they property taken down. She is not "going after" Google but Google is going after her. She filed a DMCA and the courts agreed with her position. Now Google is appealing the decision.
and the net affect of your assertion would be that anyone... in any video... could demand take down of any video they were in and claim there was no release. Then Google would have to track down the person that posted it, and then the person that recorded it, ask for their "releases" and judge if it covered what was in the video?
This just shows how little you actually know how the DMCA works. Google does not have to track down anything. The procedure is as follows. 1. Google received a DMCA take down request. 2. Google takes the video down and informs the poster. 3. The poster files a counter claim with Google. 4. If the person that filed the take down request does not provide proof that they have filled a case in court the material goes back up. Google does not "judge" anything. It is up to the courts to do that. Few people would go through this process unless they had a chance in court as they could be assessed court costs and defendant fees.
Rulings like this are what will kill the internet.
Listen up Chicken Little, the DMCA has been around for a while and the internet is still here.
Because these people with the intent to do terrorism might find someone who will supply them with actual bombs. It is much the same way people are caught hiring hit men when the hit man is actually a police officer.
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
After getting a good taste of what it's like to scrape by, maybe they should ditch their taxis and register with Uber
This is based on a couple of assumptions; 1. That taxi drivers are not already "scraping by". I drove taxis and "scarping by" is normal operating procedure. 2. That a living wage can be made by switching to Uber. Most Uber drivers are doing it to make extra money. They are already making a living wage in their main job. The issue is that you are spreading out the same taxi money over more drivers so very few can actually make a living wage driving taxi any more. There have already been strikes over falling fares and unfair working conditions.
Wait till the Uber meme wears off and there are fewer Uber drivers on the road. Hopefully this will happen before taxi companies are driven out of business and the availability of taxis becomes worse than it already is.
From this post here are some interesting images. The Damage. Those are new lines created by Greepeace. Notice the bright line to the left. That is where they drove their cars off the existing roads. I guess walking a bit is more important than preserving an international heritage site. The Foorwear This is what they should have been wearing to visit the lines. It spread out the weight and causes less damage. They did the worst thing possible by walking in a line in regular shoes.
The stupid part was that this could actually have been done with little or no damage at all had the activist just followed some basic rules when dealing with the area. 1. No not walk in other's footsteps. 2. Wear the foot square pads on your feet to spread out your weight. 3. Do not bring cars to the site.
Had they done some basic research they may not have had a problem. The activists did note care about the damage they did.
Take a look. There is even a story where Guderian came across a Char B and none of his anti tank guns could take it out. The worst failing of the French doctrine was to parcel tanks out as infantry support. If you were a tank commander would you rather fight five separate battle against four tanks each or one battle against twenty tanks. The Germans had the twenty tanks while the French had the formations of four tanks.
The anti-counterfeiting system doubles as a way to distinguish between carafe-size pods and regular ones. If the sensor detects the green dot that marks carafe cups, it brews a large pot. If it detects the ring of black symbols on the standard pod, it brews a smaller cup. If it doesn’t detect a Keurig-approved marking at all, it tells you "oops!"
The 2.0 can brew a cup or carafe of coffee depending on the pack inserted. They are just using rfid to differentiate. If they can not differentiate they don't brew.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the area covered by the aerostat that kind of area does not exist in the continental US. Sorry by testing only in Alaska is very inconvenient and invalid since the weather is very different. Yeah lets open up a new proving ground due to "privacy concerns" caused by testing one system. What a waste of funds. Another issue is getting people to move to the middle of nowhere to run those proving grounds.
This is an military proving ground. It is used to test new equipment including radars and targeting equipment. These tests include endurance tests to see how long the aerostat can be kept aloft. The fact that it can see long distances is a good thing in a battle area. I bet they tested JSTARS somewhere over the US. JSTARS has most of the capability of the aerostat if at shorter ranges. Where would you have them test prototypes? They can't test a military surveillance device because it might see too much?
If you're paying attention you will notice two things: these cases are almost entirely drug cases, and that drug prohibition is failing to make drugs scarce.
So your premise is that all drug laws should be abolished/not enforced. Sorry but I only partially agree. Certain drug laws, marijuana for example, are overreaching. Other drugs do cause harm to society.
nothing confined to consenting adults should ever be a crime.
I agree but some drug consequences are not confined to consenting adults. Some drugs cause people to be unable to hold jobs, cause them to commit crimes to support their habit, etc. I realize that alcohol does similar things but to a much lesser extent. The percentage of productive crackheads is much less than the percentage of productive alcohol use. The consequences of this drug use is spread to the rest of society in welfare costs, health costs, insurance costs, policing costs, etc.
favored following the Constitution over prosecuting a drug criminal.
The problem with the US Constitution is that it is imprecise.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The issue is around the word "unreasonable" which can be interpreted differently by different people. What is unreasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Too many people seem to interpret this an "any search without a warrant" but that is not what the Constitution says.
preventing any further action until the senator removes said hold.
Not quite
Holds, like filibusters, can be defeated through a successful cloture motion.
Yeah you are right "Galileo Gambit" does not apply. It is just straight Association Fallacy. (Nice pun) The premise being that since we are now doing thing we though were impossible everything that we think is impossible now is actually possible later.
Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.
Association Fallacy or Galileo Gambit to be specific.
Those are very small pieces of graphine. It is more like the tiny industrial diamonds that were initially produced. Most of graphine's use is when larger sheets can be made.
The freeway and the side-streets are public spaces, and no one living on a public street has a right to demand that anyone else not use it as they like,
Note necessarily. There are many jurisdictions that have "truck routes" where trucks that are not making local deliveries are allowed to drive. There are also hierarchy of streets. When secondary/tertiary streets are being used like primary streets then things get changed. Secondary/tertiary streets are narrower/windier than primary streets. There are many secondary/tertiary streets that are restricted to local traffic only. Do you really think it is safe for commuters who are trying to get to work as fast as possible to be routed through a residential area?
Actors sign release forms such as these;
I agree that I will not assert or maintain against ___________________________, your
successors, assigns and licensees, any claim, action, suit or demand of any kind or nature whatsoever, including but not limited to those grounded upon invasion of privacy, rights of publicity or other civil rights, or for any reason in connection with your authorized use of my physical likeness and sound in the Picture as herein provided.
Actors in effect sign over their rights as they pertain to the movie. One of those right is copyright. Without a valid release copyright to the actor's image is retained by the actor. The DMCA allows copyright holders to have they property taken down. She is not "going after" Google but Google is going after her. She filed a DMCA and the courts agreed with her position. Now Google is appealing the decision.
and the net affect of your assertion would be that anyone... in any video... could demand take down of any video they were in and claim there was no release. Then Google would have to track down the person that posted it, and then the person that recorded it, ask for their "releases" and judge if it covered what was in the video?
This just shows how little you actually know how the DMCA works. Google does not have to track down anything. The procedure is as follows.
1. Google received a DMCA take down request.
2. Google takes the video down and informs the poster.
3. The poster files a counter claim with Google.
4. If the person that filed the take down request does not provide proof that they have filled a case in court the material goes back up.
Google does not "judge" anything. It is up to the courts to do that. Few people would go through this process unless they had a chance in court as they could be assessed court costs and defendant fees.
Rulings like this are what will kill the internet.
Listen up Chicken Little, the DMCA has been around for a while and the internet is still here.
Because these people with the intent to do terrorism might find someone who will supply them with actual bombs. It is much the same way people are caught hiring hit men when the hit man is actually a police officer.
I said nothing about "Freedom of Speech". I don't see how you comment applies to the validity of a legal release.
I think the heart of the issue is That she signed a release for one use but the film was completely different that what she was told. To me it would seem that any release she signed would be invalid and she would have the same rights as someone who did not sign a release. Any film maker would know that everyone in the film must sign a release.
After getting a good taste of what it's like to scrape by, maybe they should ditch their taxis and register with Uber
This is based on a couple of assumptions;
1. That taxi drivers are not already "scraping by". I drove taxis and "scarping by" is normal operating procedure.
2. That a living wage can be made by switching to Uber. Most Uber drivers are doing it to make extra money. They are already making a living wage in their main job. The issue is that you are spreading out the same taxi money over more drivers so very few can actually make a living wage driving taxi any more. There have already been strikes over falling fares and unfair working conditions.
Wait till the Uber meme wears off and there are fewer Uber drivers on the road. Hopefully this will happen before taxi companies are driven out of business and the availability of taxis becomes worse than it already is.
I had to uninstall a patch last week to get Virtualbox to work. Can't remember which one it was.
From this post here are some interesting images.
The Damage. Those are new lines created by Greepeace. Notice the bright line to the left. That is where they drove their cars off the existing roads. I guess walking a bit is more important than preserving an international heritage site.
The Foorwear This is what they should have been wearing to visit the lines. It spread out the weight and causes less damage. They did the worst thing possible by walking in a line in regular shoes.
The stupid part was that this could actually have been done with little or no damage at all had the activist just followed some basic rules when dealing with the area.
1. No not walk in other's footsteps.
2. Wear the foot square pads on your feet to spread out your weight.
3. Do not bring cars to the site.
Had they done some basic research they may not have had a problem. The activists did note care about the damage they did.
Would you say the same think if Greenpeace put a big banner across Mount Rushmore and parts fell of due to them driving in pitons?
Take a look. There is even a story where Guderian came across a Char B and none of his anti tank guns could take it out. The worst failing of the French doctrine was to parcel tanks out as infantry support. If you were a tank commander would you rather fight five separate battle against four tanks each or one battle against twenty tanks. The Germans had the twenty tanks while the French had the formations of four tanks.
According to this article;
The anti-counterfeiting system doubles as a way to distinguish between carafe-size pods and regular ones. If the sensor detects the green dot that marks carafe cups, it brews a large pot. If it detects the ring of black symbols on the standard pod, it brews a smaller cup. If it doesn’t detect a Keurig-approved marking at all, it tells you "oops!"
RFID or bar code the same thing applies.
The 2.0 can brew a cup or carafe of coffee depending on the pack inserted. They are just using rfid to differentiate. If they can not differentiate they don't brew.
People will still be able to stick a traditional plastic driver's license in their wallet or purse if they choose
It's every citizen's duty to make sure they have the necessary papers before they drive on public roads.
It is called license and insurance (in most places).