"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938,
at 941.
You have the right to travel on public roads but being the driver is a privilege.
"n 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive."... While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
They could try, and they'd be embarrassed on the court challenge. Forcing a detainee to unlock a phone without a warrant would be very unlikely to hold up against a 5th amendment challenge.
Driving is considered a privilege not a right, you agreed to comply with certain requests in order to get your license.
Those "certain requests" have to comply with the New Jersey and US constitutions. Placing onerous and unconstitutional requirements on a necessary, prevalent, or valuable private activity such as driving or trading on the stock market is profoundly undemocratic.
I think the breathalyzer offers some insight with respect to compliance and your license.
And for failing to comply with a "vehicle inspection" they may deny you the privilege of driving on a public road. Keep in mind, you agreed to certain acts of compliance in order to get your driver's license and in order to register your vehicle to drive on a public road. Calling your lawyer seems like an expensive way to get a ride home.
AMENDMENT IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can assert your right, and then they can probably assert their right to revoke your driver's license. Driving is considered a privilege not a right, you agreed to comply with certain requests in order to get your license.
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
He can look at mine all here wants, but he needs a warrant for me to even THINK about unlocking it for him.
Keep in mind that driving is considered a privilege and not a right in the U.S. To get your license you had to agree to certain things, like submitting to a breath analysis if requested. Refuse to do so and they can revoke your license. They will probably handle phone unlocking in a similar manner, you refuse, they revoke you license.
eSATA is theoretically 6 Gbps with TB 2 at 20 Gbps, so where are you getting 6x from? I'm not sure if I really want eSATA ports on the back but they have the advantage that enclosures for eSATA are a lot cheaper than Thunderbolt enclosures.
And a lot of that inexpensive hardware is e-sata II which is 3 Gbps, at least according to what I see at the local Frys.
You are right, e-sata III is 6 Gbps. I'm not sure why the slower e-sata II still seems to be so prevalent, well at least the PCIe cards. This confused me and led to my erroneous post.
Does OSX Mavericks come with a Sarah Palin or a Tom Cruise doll?
No. But it does come with images of the big wave surfing location, Mavericks, for which it is actually named. A location that has 25 foot surf on an average day. A really cool place.
Really? Aren't the only things collected by the NSA:
(1) The caller's (source) phone number.
(2) The called (destination) phone number.
(3) Duration of the call.
The call itself was not listened to or recorded.
*** If so ***, the NSA basically has phone bills without the names. I don't think this reaches the human rights violation level, citing Nuremberg may be a little overdone.
Since when is raising the alarm about an *actual* vulnerability FUD? Because when you stop and realize there's an *actual* and *exploitable* vulnerability out there, you should stop claiming its political and realize its a problem.
No one said FUD. Just a self serving break from the best practices of the security community. Giving the vendor a reasonable short time frame to fix the exploit before public disclosure.
Philosophically the emergency ad hoc network sounds like ham radio, individuals volunteering their time and/or equipment to help their community during disasters. It might help to mention this when trying to sell the idea to analog folks.
The only reason not to do would be if you knew someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Google is in competition with Microsoft. Google would prefer people to use chromebooks and android so raising anxiety about Microsoft based products furthers their corporate goals. It could easily be as simple as that.
I never saw that. I saw the CDF SF troops portrayed as children, sure, but other than occasional references to previous careers, the old troops weren't portrayed as having bountiful wisdom or experience. Quite the opposite, in fact. Take, for example, the CDF rook who was a senator in real life, who hadn't learned shit.
Their experience was not of value with respect to combat tactics and military strategy, that was made very clear early on. However their past lifetime of experience helped them retain their humanity and mentally cope with the horrible stresses that they were under, it contributed to morale, and thereby contributed to combat effectiveness. There will subtle discussions of such things in the book.
Sole reason? No. Important reason? Yes. And it's not like he was an isolated case; Copernicus and Gallileo come rather forcefully to mind.
And my point is reinforced. Galileo got in trouble more for his mockery of the pope than the heliocentric model itself. Without Galileo's mockery and Bruno's actual heresies, they may have received nothing more than Copernicus himself. What did Copernicus face? Mild controversy and "scholarly" philosophical arguments "debunking" the heliocentric model.
Lest we forget, Giordano Bruno was executed by the Catholic Church for daring to postulate that there might be life out in the universe.
If you read your citation you will see that this is not the case. Bruno held a bunch of ideas that were in tact quite heretical, life elsewhere in the universe is a minor point in comparison. Its misleading to offer the later as the sole reason for his brutal execution.
The have been different human civilization meeting and not fighting. Many of them. Trade routes wouldn't have happen if people couldn't meet in peace.
Trade routes existed, in part, to fund one group's subjugation of other local groups. A distant group was not a threat, nor a "resource" that could be efficiently controlled and exploited, but it could be a trading partner.
We are aware of aboriginal people in the Amazon and we haven't gone in to wipe them out.
I think the aboriginal people in the Amazon would disagree. Historically many have been killed and/or forcibly assimilated into the "invading" culture. To this day miners, loggers and ranchers are encroaching on their remaining lands.
The premise is based on an incorrect look at human history.
I enjoyed the entire series, but I also couldn't help but noticing that the 'old man' part was dropped even before the recruits got to basic. That plot point could have been left entirely out, and the entire last 3/4ths of the book would have required zero re-writing.
The soldiers still have minds with 75 years of experience and knowledge. It definitely made them look at things differently than teenage soldiers. IIRC this more mature perspective repeatedly pops up. Especially when comparing regular troops to special forces troops.
Every species exhibits conflict and turmoil among its own members, whereas violence between species is almost solely one of predator/prey relationship. If you don't eat them, and they don't eat you, there is almost never interspecies conflict. The greater the physical differences, the less likely any conflict.
This puts into doubt the whole premise of the book...
You are assuming the behavior of intelligent technological species would mirror that of less developed species. When you add the potential of politics and religion to the former you get some powerful new variables.
Scalzi's books do indeed address these. One species in particular seems to be entirely motivated by religion in its extremely aggressive warlike behavior. IIRC another attacks humans merely to cement a relationship with a 3rd party, human would otherwise have been of little interest to them.
Another assumption that you are making is that species interaction within an ecosystem would mirror interaction between species from different ecosystems. Within an ecosystem species may have been subject to evolutionary pressures that fostered non-competing specialization (one eats grass, the other leaves ?), symbiotic relationships, etc. Species evolved in different ecosystems, two planets being a quite extreme example of such, would not have experienced such pressures and may be in conflict for the same resource.
In Scalzi's universe the species that are in conflict are largely in conflict much like various human "tribes". They are fighting over scarce resources. The premise is that what these species consider habitable planets largely overlaps and that such planets are exceptionally rare. IIRC there is a rare species that occupies an ecological niche (aquatic) that doesn't really compete with most other species (terrestrial), and therefore "shares" some planets where politics and religion do not prohibit such sharing.
"Reboots" happen at Blizzard, that is why some games take so long. The first attempt gets to a certain degree of playability, they think the game is good but not great, so they step back and think about what "went wrong", what is missing. "Good" is not good enough for them. Adding a significant amount of time (varies with size and scope of the game) to the schedule to rework things is not a project killer, its happened more than once. I think this is one of the things that contributes to Blizzard's success.
Personally I don't think the language and hardware are that important. They are "implementation details", important, but perhaps more important for more advanced stages of learning to program.:-)
I think learning to program starts with picking something you are curious about. Ex: How could I do [insert problem here] on a computer? Then figure out how to do it using the hardware and language at hand.
For me one example was a blackjack card game. As I learned more, both in a formal CS program and in my own "independent studies", the details of the implementation changed. The hardware and language also changed as appropriate. From a single player game written in BASIC on an Apple II to a real time multiplayer game written in C on MS-DOS using an novell ipx network.
Another example was more assembly language oriented. Matrix and vector multiplication functions for 3D graphics. 68K, i386, ppc, amd64,... One of the interesting things here was the different approaches given a RISC vs a CISC CPU. This carried over to C/C++ as well, in general that there is sometimes no universal solution to a problem, that the correct solution depends on one of those "implementation details", the hardware. In short, don't just copy a solution from a book (or in more modern terms don't just cut-and-paste a solution from the web). Take a little time to see what the code you are looking at is doing and think about how appropriate this implementation is.
Slashdot Mirror
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
You have the right to travel on public roads but being the driver is a privilege.
... While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
"n 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive."
They could try, and they'd be embarrassed on the court challenge. Forcing a detainee to unlock a phone without a warrant would be very unlikely to hold up against a 5th amendment challenge.
You misunderstand. They will not force you, you have the right to refuse. However you have no right to a license as well. To avoid redundant posts see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3852847&cid=43985793.
Driving is considered a privilege not a right, you agreed to comply with certain requests in order to get your license.
Those "certain requests" have to comply with the New Jersey and US constitutions. Placing onerous and unconstitutional requirements on a necessary, prevalent, or valuable private activity such as driving or trading on the stock market is profoundly undemocratic.
I think the breathalyzer offers some insight with respect to compliance and your license.
... The refusal will likely be the direct cause for you to lose your license."
"In every state, it is your right to refuse to take a Breathalyzer test
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-if-i-refuse-to-take-a-breathalyzer-test/
Necessary, prevalent, or valuable does not turn an activity into a right.
"n 1999, the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, in the case of Donald S. Miller v. the California Department of Motor Vehicles, ruled that there simply is no “fundamental right to drive."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
I would refuse a search and call my lawyer.
And for failing to comply with a "vehicle inspection" they may deny you the privilege of driving on a public road. Keep in mind, you agreed to certain acts of compliance in order to get your driver's license and in order to register your vehicle to drive on a public road. Calling your lawyer seems like an expensive way to get a ride home.
Right in one.
AMENDMENT IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can assert your right, and then they can probably assert their right to revoke your driver's license. Driving is considered a privilege not a right, you agreed to comply with certain requests in order to get your license.
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
He can look at mine all here wants, but he needs a warrant for me to even THINK about unlocking it for him.
Keep in mind that driving is considered a privilege and not a right in the U.S. To get your license you had to agree to certain things, like submitting to a breath analysis if requested. Refuse to do so and they can revoke your license. They will probably handle phone unlocking in a similar manner, you refuse, they revoke you license.
eSATA is theoretically 6 Gbps with TB 2 at 20 Gbps, so where are you getting 6x from? I'm not sure if I really want eSATA ports on the back but they have the advantage that enclosures for eSATA are a lot cheaper than Thunderbolt enclosures.
And a lot of that inexpensive hardware is e-sata II which is 3 Gbps, at least according to what I see at the local Frys.
You are right, e-sata III is 6 Gbps. I'm not sure why the slower e-sata II still seems to be so prevalent, well at least the PCIe cards. This confused me and led to my erroneous post.
should have at least 2 build in HDD / SDD ports just one is to small for a system like that.
There are 6 thunderbolt 2 ports.
And why not e-sata that is free and does not eat up bandwidth like a HDD on TB will.
Thunderbolt 2 is 6+ times faster than e-sata.
You turn off your computers ?
Most Mac users I know dual boot Windows and OS-X.
And using the "Restart" menu option works just fine for rebooting. Why is the power button needed?
I believe the power button is on the back of the Mac mini and iMacs.
I mean really... why?
Saddened by the lack of a clear window panel to show off blue led light strips and glowing fans? :-)
Does OSX Mavericks come with a Sarah Palin or a Tom Cruise doll?
No. But it does come with images of the big wave surfing location, Mavericks, for which it is actually named. A location that has 25 foot surf on an average day. A really cool place.
Serious crimes have been committed.
Really? Aren't the only things collected by the NSA:
(1) The caller's (source) phone number.
(2) The called (destination) phone number.
(3) Duration of the call.
The call itself was not listened to or recorded.
*** If so ***, the NSA basically has phone bills without the names. I don't think this reaches the human rights violation level, citing Nuremberg may be a little overdone.
Since when is raising the alarm about an *actual* vulnerability FUD? Because when you stop and realize there's an *actual* and *exploitable* vulnerability out there, you should stop claiming its political and realize its a problem.
No one said FUD. Just a self serving break from the best practices of the security community. Giving the vendor a reasonable short time frame to fix the exploit before public disclosure.
Philosophically the emergency ad hoc network sounds like ham radio, individuals volunteering their time and/or equipment to help their community during disasters. It might help to mention this when trying to sell the idea to analog folks.
The only reason not to do would be if you knew someone was already taking advantage of the vulnerability in the wild.
Google is in competition with Microsoft. Google would prefer people to use chromebooks and android so raising anxiety about Microsoft based products furthers their corporate goals. It could easily be as simple as that.
"Here, here" is a way to comfort someone
I think that should be "There, there", at least in the US. :-)
I never saw that. I saw the CDF SF troops portrayed as children, sure, but other than occasional references to previous careers, the old troops weren't portrayed as having bountiful wisdom or experience. Quite the opposite, in fact. Take, for example, the CDF rook who was a senator in real life, who hadn't learned shit.
Their experience was not of value with respect to combat tactics and military strategy, that was made very clear early on. However their past lifetime of experience helped them retain their humanity and mentally cope with the horrible stresses that they were under, it contributed to morale, and thereby contributed to combat effectiveness. There will subtle discussions of such things in the book.
Sole reason? No. Important reason? Yes. And it's not like he was an isolated case; Copernicus and Gallileo come rather forcefully to mind.
And my point is reinforced. Galileo got in trouble more for his mockery of the pope than the heliocentric model itself. Without Galileo's mockery and Bruno's actual heresies, they may have received nothing more than Copernicus himself. What did Copernicus face? Mild controversy and "scholarly" philosophical arguments "debunking" the heliocentric model.
Lest we forget, Giordano Bruno was executed by the Catholic Church for daring to postulate that there might be life out in the universe.
If you read your citation you will see that this is not the case. Bruno held a bunch of ideas that were in tact quite heretical, life elsewhere in the universe is a minor point in comparison. Its misleading to offer the later as the sole reason for his brutal execution.
The have been different human civilization meeting and not fighting. Many of them. Trade routes wouldn't have happen if people couldn't meet in peace.
Trade routes existed, in part, to fund one group's subjugation of other local groups. A distant group was not a threat, nor a "resource" that could be efficiently controlled and exploited, but it could be a trading partner.
We are aware of aboriginal people in the Amazon and we haven't gone in to wipe them out.
I think the aboriginal people in the Amazon would disagree. Historically many have been killed and/or forcibly assimilated into the "invading" culture. To this day miners, loggers and ranchers are encroaching on their remaining lands.
The premise is based on an incorrect look at human history.
Sadly, no.
I enjoyed the entire series, but I also couldn't help but noticing that the 'old man' part was dropped even before the recruits got to basic. That plot point could have been left entirely out, and the entire last 3/4ths of the book would have required zero re-writing.
The soldiers still have minds with 75 years of experience and knowledge. It definitely made them look at things differently than teenage soldiers. IIRC this more mature perspective repeatedly pops up. Especially when comparing regular troops to special forces troops.
Every species exhibits conflict and turmoil among its own members, whereas violence between species is almost solely one of predator/prey relationship. If you don't eat them, and they don't eat you, there is almost never interspecies conflict. The greater the physical differences, the less likely any conflict.
This puts into doubt the whole premise of the book ...
You are assuming the behavior of intelligent technological species would mirror that of less developed species. When you add the potential of politics and religion to the former you get some powerful new variables.
Scalzi's books do indeed address these. One species in particular seems to be entirely motivated by religion in its extremely aggressive warlike behavior. IIRC another attacks humans merely to cement a relationship with a 3rd party, human would otherwise have been of little interest to them.
Another assumption that you are making is that species interaction within an ecosystem would mirror interaction between species from different ecosystems. Within an ecosystem species may have been subject to evolutionary pressures that fostered non-competing specialization (one eats grass, the other leaves ?), symbiotic relationships, etc. Species evolved in different ecosystems, two planets being a quite extreme example of such, would not have experienced such pressures and may be in conflict for the same resource.
In Scalzi's universe the species that are in conflict are largely in conflict much like various human "tribes". They are fighting over scarce resources. The premise is that what these species consider habitable planets largely overlaps and that such planets are exceptionally rare. IIRC there is a rare species that occupies an ecological niche (aquatic) that doesn't really compete with most other species (terrestrial), and therefore "shares" some planets where politics and religion do not prohibit such sharing.
Where have I heard this before?
"Reboots" happen at Blizzard, that is why some games take so long. The first attempt gets to a certain degree of playability, they think the game is good but not great, so they step back and think about what "went wrong", what is missing. "Good" is not good enough for them. Adding a significant amount of time (varies with size and scope of the game) to the schedule to rework things is not a project killer, its happened more than once. I think this is one of the things that contributes to Blizzard's success.
Personally I don't think the language and hardware are that important. They are "implementation details", important, but perhaps more important for more advanced stages of learning to program. :-)
... One of the interesting things here was the different approaches given a RISC vs a CISC CPU. This carried over to C/C++ as well, in general that there is sometimes no universal solution to a problem, that the correct solution depends on one of those "implementation details", the hardware. In short, don't just copy a solution from a book (or in more modern terms don't just cut-and-paste a solution from the web). Take a little time to see what the code you are looking at is doing and think about how appropriate this implementation is.
I think learning to program starts with picking something you are curious about. Ex: How could I do [insert problem here] on a computer? Then figure out how to do it using the hardware and language at hand.
For me one example was a blackjack card game. As I learned more, both in a formal CS program and in my own "independent studies", the details of the implementation changed. The hardware and language also changed as appropriate. From a single player game written in BASIC on an Apple II to a real time multiplayer game written in C on MS-DOS using an novell ipx network.
Another example was more assembly language oriented. Matrix and vector multiplication functions for 3D graphics. 68K, i386, ppc, amd64,