the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever
Sez you. Nystagmus is directly related to the efficacy of the alcohol that is affecting the brain. If you know the alcohol is affecting the eyes a certain amount, you know that it is also affecting motor centers the same amount. It is a proxy, but a very close proxy.
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
Everybody doesn't agree that, because it's not true. Do you know what your partition ratio is?
BAC measures the amount of OH groups in your breath, which may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your breath. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your breath may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your brain. And even if it is, the same amount of alcohol in the brain doesn't impair everyone the same way.
That's 4 degrees of indirection. That's 4 opportunities for reasonable doubt, every time a BAC is read. I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone, but I'd never convict someone on BAC evidence alone.
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand fucking authoritarians who don't even care whether their evidence is scientifically valid.
Nonsense. Did you miss the part where I said there aren't any shady back room deals? The problem with the Supreme Court isn't bribery, it is regulatory capture. This is a common phenomenon that happens to all sorts of government agencies. Why is it so crazy to think that it has happened to the Supreme Court?
If you can't understand how an institution can be corrupt without any money directly changing hands, that's your own naivete.
Coral Cache is a much better option for that kind of thing. The Wayback Machine is designed to preserve history, not buffer peak bandwidth. Coral is faster and will be more up to date than the Archive.
One of the IBM technicians wrote about Lisaâ(TM)s OS: âoeWhat I saw in the Xerox PARC technology was the caveman interface, you point and you grunt. A massive winding down, regressing away from language, in order to address the technological nervousness of the userâ.
What was true then is true today. No GUI comes close to matching the expressive power of the command line. GUIs are still a silly prop for kids.
Yeah, I'll bet you were one of those people who thought Bush would declare martial law before the Obama election. Maybe you even were a truther. Once again, you seem to know more about Hollywood than about reality. Sorry.
The very concept of limited immunity is incompatible with the rule of law. If anything, those charged with upholding the law should suffer greater consequences when they abuse it.
Also "it's been that way for a long time" IS a conspiracy*. The entire legal profession has conspired, not in secret, but through tradition, to ignore that fundamental contradiction above.
When I say "corruption", you think shady back room deals. The reality is that evil is far more banal than that.
Can you point out *any* low incidence, high impact risks that Humanity has dealt with effectively?
Humanity might be smart enough to learn from its mistakes, but it's not smart enough to avoid those mistakes in the first place. In this case, the mistake is likely to be fatal, we won't have a chance to try again.
What explanation besides corruption is there for decisions like Al Kidd v Ashcroft? Anyone who respects the rule of law must recognize that our leaders must be not above the law. How do you get a unanimous decision that makes our leaders exempt from the law, unless the Supreme Court is corrupt?
Those who think that was an honest decision are not just borderline insane, they're completely delusional.
Bribes don't enter into it. It's all about old boys networks, and making sure the right people get in the right places to make the right decisions to benefit the right people. Their "rational" for their decision is nothing but misdirection.
You do realize you can have corruption without bribes right?
That's why I said it was already old when gorillas.bas was popular. My earliest memory of artillery games were text based games, so long ago that I have no idea what platform it was.
Once, government was once seen as a protector of freedoms of the general public, and not just the bailer-out of large, well-connected banks and car companies/union
You're wrong. Government has always operated for the interests of the most powerful. Protecting the general public is nothing but a cover story.
Diderot famously said, "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." This should be updated as follows:
The influx of mainstream casual games are the primary reason for the shift. Good games like Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies, OK games like Angry Birds, and particularly dodgy ones like FarmVille,
Games like that have existed for years. How different is Bejeweled from Columns or Puzzle Bobble? It's yet another colored block matching game. Plants vs Zombies is just tower defense, which has existed in many previous incarnations. Angry Birds was old when it was called Scorched Earth (or Gorillas.bas). Amazingly, Farmville is the most novel of any of those games, but it's nothing more than a Harvest Moon MUD.
All "gaming sectors" have been covered for years. If someone's 50 now, and playing Angry Birds on their iPhone, they were 25-30 when Scorched Earth was popular. What changed in the meantime wasn't the types of games the gaming industry offered. I think they just figured out how to market it.
he's a tenured professor with a strictly theoretical knowledge of the law, and (demonstrably) very little understanding of how courts and judges actually operate
In other words, Lessig argued based on the law. The Supreme Court ignored all that and ruled the way that would please their cronies. There's no way to explain the behavior of the Supreme Court in the past decade that doesn't involve corruption.
Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't care what your take on it is. All they care is how much power they can return to their masters without getting impeached.
Look at what they did in Al Kidd v Ashcroft. It plainly did not matter that Ashcroft's intent was explicitly forbidden by the law. And that was a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court cares about nothing but expanding government power.
There are a lot of rich people in Birmingham A lot of ghosts in a lot of houses Look over there!...A dry ice factory A good place to get some thinking done
Slashdot Mirror
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever
Sez you. Nystagmus is directly related to the efficacy of the alcohol that is affecting the brain. If you know the alcohol is affecting the eyes a certain amount, you know that it is also affecting motor centers the same amount. It is a proxy, but a very close proxy.
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
Everybody doesn't agree that, because it's not true. Do you know what your partition ratio is?
BAC measures the amount of OH groups in your breath, which may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your breath. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your breath may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream. Even if it were, the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream may not be proportional to the amount of alcohol in your brain. And even if it is, the same amount of alcohol in the brain doesn't impair everyone the same way.
That's 4 degrees of indirection. That's 4 opportunities for reasonable doubt, every time a BAC is read. I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone, but I'd never convict someone on BAC evidence alone.
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand fucking authoritarians who don't even care whether their evidence is scientifically valid.
damnit... ok, new idea... get a fucking warrant.
Nonsense. Did you miss the part where I said there aren't any shady back room deals? The problem with the Supreme Court isn't bribery, it is regulatory capture. This is a common phenomenon that happens to all sorts of government agencies. Why is it so crazy to think that it has happened to the Supreme Court?
If you can't understand how an institution can be corrupt without any money directly changing hands, that's your own naivete.
Coral Cache is a much better option for that kind of thing. The Wayback Machine is designed to preserve history, not buffer peak bandwidth. Coral is faster and will be more up to date than the Archive.
What was true then is true today. No GUI comes close to matching the expressive power of the command line. GUIs are still a silly prop for kids.
Yeah, I'll bet you were one of those people who thought Bush would declare martial law before the Obama election. Maybe you even were a truther. Once again, you seem to know more about Hollywood than about reality. Sorry.
WTF are you even talking about?
The very concept of limited immunity is incompatible with the rule of law. If anything, those charged with upholding the law should suffer greater consequences when they abuse it.
Also "it's been that way for a long time" IS a conspiracy*. The entire legal profession has conspired, not in secret, but through tradition, to ignore that fundamental contradiction above.
When I say "corruption", you think shady back room deals. The reality is that evil is far more banal than that.
Can you point out *any* low incidence, high impact risks that Humanity has dealt with effectively?
Humanity might be smart enough to learn from its mistakes, but it's not smart enough to avoid those mistakes in the first place. In this case, the mistake is likely to be fatal, we won't have a chance to try again.
What explanation besides corruption is there for decisions like Al Kidd v Ashcroft? Anyone who respects the rule of law must recognize that our leaders must be not above the law. How do you get a unanimous decision that makes our leaders exempt from the law, unless the Supreme Court is corrupt?
Those who think that was an honest decision are not just borderline insane, they're completely delusional.
Bribes don't enter into it. It's all about old boys networks, and making sure the right people get in the right places to make the right decisions to benefit the right people. Their "rational" for their decision is nothing but misdirection.
You do realize you can have corruption without bribes right?
That's why I said it was already old when gorillas.bas was popular. My earliest memory of artillery games were text based games, so long ago that I have no idea what platform it was.
Once, government was once seen as a protector of freedoms of the general public, and not just the bailer-out of large, well-connected banks and car companies/union
You're wrong. Government has always operated for the interests of the most powerful. Protecting the general public is nothing but a cover story.
Diderot famously said, "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." This should be updated as follows:
s/king/politician/
s/priest/corporate executive/
We can judge how sincere the "original intent" crowd is by how they treat this issue.
The original intent crowd sincerely believes that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to establish a corporate aristocracy.
Here's a hint. Playing games with the ankle biter counts as "quality time".
The influx of mainstream casual games are the primary reason for the shift. Good games like Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies, OK games like Angry Birds, and particularly dodgy ones like FarmVille,
Games like that have existed for years. How different is Bejeweled from Columns or Puzzle Bobble? It's yet another colored block matching game. Plants vs Zombies is just tower defense, which has existed in many previous incarnations. Angry Birds was old when it was called Scorched Earth (or Gorillas.bas). Amazingly, Farmville is the most novel of any of those games, but it's nothing more than a Harvest Moon MUD.
All "gaming sectors" have been covered for years. If someone's 50 now, and playing Angry Birds on their iPhone, they were 25-30 when Scorched Earth was popular. What changed in the meantime wasn't the types of games the gaming industry offered. I think they just figured out how to market it.
a good game for a designer is a well-designed game, which is not necessarily related to having fun with the gameplay.
If the gameplay isn't fun, the design isn't good.
he's a tenured professor with a strictly theoretical knowledge of the law, and (demonstrably) very little understanding of how courts and judges actually operate
In other words, Lessig argued based on the law. The Supreme Court ignored all that and ruled the way that would please their cronies. There's no way to explain the behavior of the Supreme Court in the past decade that doesn't involve corruption.
Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't care what your take on it is. All they care is how much power they can return to their masters without getting impeached.
Look at what they did in Al Kidd v Ashcroft. It plainly did not matter that Ashcroft's intent was explicitly forbidden by the law. And that was a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court cares about nothing but expanding government power.
"Limited means whatever Congress says it means."
Unless it's the debt limit.
Agreed. Pretty incredible in high def. One thing I noticed was the flash as some of the material crashed back into the sun.
There are a lot of rich people in Birmingham
A lot of ghosts in a lot of houses
Look over there!...A dry ice factory
A good place to get some thinking done
Is there a difference?
That looks even worse than the Atari Jaguar controller.
Directories/Folders are not a substitute for documents tagged with meta data
Why not? It works for me. It's pretty easy to have a script parse, e.g., your MP3s ID3 tags and link them to the appropriate directory.
Not too mention you can't create views
That's what 'find' is for.
Would be a file system. Run something like Beagle for full text/metadata search. Use hard links to keep a single file under multiple folders.