I say not relevant for a different reason. The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating left to find. And to make sure, after extracting and turning over all the safe emails, sorry I meant official emails, she wiped the disks. Maybe there was nothing there, but her actions sure look like those of a guilty person, so either she is stupid or she is guilty. I don't want either in the White House (again).
You are making the false assumption that the car is not also an automated vehicle. Within the next 10 years, all highway travel is likely to be automated..
While it is an assumption it is not false. The article is about a proposal to automate trucks today and what that would mean. In 10 years there may also be some automated passenger vehicles, but it will not be "all highway travel", unless you believe the government is going to pay everyone who needs to use a highway to throw away their perfectly good car. All 253 million of them. Not going to happen. For quite a long time automated vehicles and manned vehicles are going to have to coexist on the roads.
There is no reason a human needs to be sitting behind the wheel of a car for hours up9n hours in any circumstance.
I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.
That is why I didn't say what you claim. I said "a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop". Notice the word "can"? It means I was defining a common upper bound, not claiming it as the norm as your post implies I did. And yes, trucks do often ride around with hot brakes, such as when approaching the bottom of grades, so it is not unreasonable to expect it, nor proof the truck is poorly maintained or the driver is driving poorly. The car driver your should plan for the worst, not the best.
Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":
Regarding the issue of weight/downward force (normal force) versus total friction, the problem with tires is the road surrface and the tire surface are not uniform causing the tires to natually see more and less surface contact as they travel, some due to bounce, so the force at times decreases. When it does, if the tires begin skidding, the static friction changes to kinetic friction and the game changes. Trucks by the nature of their length and design are much more prone to this, especially bouncing, and therefore skidding. It is why dragsters use big tires on their power axle instead of small ones like your theory would suggest they could (if true it would save weight and therefore the mass the dragster would need to accelerate).
So do truck tires have lower coefficients of static friction or are their brakes undersized? Other than that (and dynamic forces like wheel hop starting a skid) there should be no difference in stopping distance.
A third option, as I explained in my post: "The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster"
both the car and truck have to support the total mass of the vehicle on the tires
The tire support ability is based on the thickness of the rubber, and thereby inflation, so truck tires can support more weight with the same surface contact area than car tires. This helps by reducing rolling friction and saves money in fuel efficiency, tire costs, etc. The consequence is trucks' have less static/dynamic friction to aid in stopping. I guess you could make a truck with a ton of tires to increase the total friction like I have seen in Europe, but then you could do that with cars too.
If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained.
No, the fact a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop is physics. See this chart.. The car weighs around 3000 lbs, and the truck is 40,000-80,000 lbs. The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster. And no matter which driver caused it, when a 40 ton truck hits a 1 to 2 ton car, the car loses. It is the same problem with many motorcycles being able to stop faster than a car.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
I worked for a while in a facility that required everyone to have a government security clearance. The management once sent out a notice telling people to lock up anything valuable when unattended since there had been some thefts. The notice reminded people that the background checks are designed to determine if the person can be trusted to protect the government's information, not that they in general are honest people. You would hope there is a massive overlap between those two groups, but apparently there are people they feel wouldn't sell out their government, but would sell out their coworkers. Of course if caught, having a criminal record mostly excludes the ability to get or keep the clearance.
Only the little people have to obey the law. Snowden, Manning, etc. Big wigs like James Clapper, John Brennan, and David Petraeus never get charged with crimes.
Except Petraeus did get charged and after pleading guilty, got two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Not as much as I think he should have, but it shows that sometimes the big wigs DO get charged.
That's a way too complicated explanation, one put out to deceive and distract.
No that is the law. To convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person knowingly commited the offense. Given everything they see and are told every day it would be almost impossible to prove they didn't believe what they were saying might not be true which is the standard required. If you think a different standard should apply then you need to petition the government for a change of the law, and possibly even a change of the Constitution. Otherwise if charges were brought in a case like this it would certainly fail and then people would be crying about how it was a mock trial. The discontent will always find something to complain about or someone to blame.
Everything else is a flak screen for the gullible, incompetent, and rule-driven drones like lawyers and bureaucrats.
If he lied under oath and there's proof that he did then charge the bastard with perjury and put him on trial and make an example of him to show that you can not lie under oath to congress and get away with it.
There's a reason you almost never see anyone charged with perjury for testifying before a congressional committee, and not the one many here will offer. Legally, it isn't enough to show that what they said was wrong. To prove perjury you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were saying was not true (plus a few more requirements). And since these people live in a world of constantly seeing and reviewing mounds of conflicting information, proving they knew what they were saying was wrong, and that it wasn't just a mistake, gets very hard. Even if there is evidence they were told one thing, there can easily be evidence they were also told the opposite by someone, and then the issue of reasonable doubt pops up. They may have lied, but reaching the legal requirement for a conviction of perjury can be almost impossible, so don't necessarily blame the officials for not bringing charges when they don't think they will get a guilty verdict.
The NFL should provide all game balls, selected randomly prior to each use. Bringing your own game balls is a pretty obvious vector for manipulating the game.
I was actually shocked when I found out the teams supplied the balls and not the league since it makes it so ripe for cheating.
It's not that they don't understand it, it is that they don't WANT to understand it, and therefore pretend that what the team said makes sense. Big difference.
No, searching through the electronic contents of the device in a suspect's pocket, and obtaining the cell tower location data from the cell phone company for where a device has been, are not the same thing, and the Supreme Court decision would not apply here.
No, what this article talks about is the police unilaterally collecting information without any court oversight.
No, the article talks about the ruling saying the police need a court order rather than a warrant, but they still need a court order, which means an active prosecution must be in progress and a judge has to sign off on the request. That sound to me like court oversight. The problem here is the police have a lower threshold to meet to get a court order than they do to get a warrant.
Never mind the rather shocking implications with respect to personal freedoms when the government is given carte blanc(sic) to track everyone at all times.
That is the crux of the case, namely the government isn't tracking everyone all the time, the cell phone companies are, or at least their phones when on, since that is how the cell phone system works. The government is merely using that data when a court feels it is justified and issues a court order.
The summary makes it sound like the police now can just walk in and get all the records they want with almost no restrictions. The reality is this ruling said that a warrant isn't needed but A COURT ORDER IS. The problem, and why it was appealed, is that a warrant REQUIRES the showing of probable cause, while a court order just means the judge thinks it might be useful information. But it still means a judge has to sign off on the request in an active case. Also, this ruling was in the 11th Circuit which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, so it isn't binding elsewhere. The article says there has been a similar ruling in the 5th Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas), but a contrary ruling in the 3rd Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).
There is ZERO need to record ALL phone conversations, instead there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations.
Never said there was. My response was to the statement that any spying conducted inside the US borders was a form of treason, which I disagreed with. You in fact agree with me by saying "there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations". In fact in an earlier post in this thread I said "I think they have gone too far, but please enlighten us with clear rules to say where the line is?". The question then is what the criteria is for this "small list" since that still doesn't answer where the line is.
The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.
No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.
It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.
That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.
This has similarities to what I saw in inkjet printers many years ago. For a while, they were selling printers at a big discount because they would make their money on the replacement ink cartridges. Problem was the new printers came with a new full color and black cartridge and cost less than it cost to buy the two cartridges individually. It was actually cheaper to buy a new printer, take the cartridges out of the boxes, and throw away the printer, than it was to buy replacement cartridges. Same thing here - it is sometimes cheaper to buy more of a trip than you need then throw away part of it you don't need.
Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.
Your assumption is true for a loaded bus, but municipal busses, in all but a few cities, spend much more time travelling nearly empty than they do full.
Show me a plane that makes stops every few city blocks then we can accept your data as a fair comparison. Otherwise, stick to data about long-haul bus and train routes.
The comparison between planes and other modes of transit would be for longer-haul routes since planes do not provide inter-city transport. For longer routes, buses normally run fairly full. And for those that say buses aren't always full, I have been on a 737 plane between cities 1000 miles apart where there were only four passengers, including me, and on a flight to the far east where I had a row of five seats on a 747 all to myself for 12 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
I say not relevant for a different reason. The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating left to find. And to make sure, after extracting and turning over all the safe emails, sorry I meant official emails, she wiped the disks. Maybe there was nothing there, but her actions sure look like those of a guilty person, so either she is stupid or she is guilty. I don't want either in the White House (again).
You are making the false assumption that the car is not also an automated vehicle. Within the next 10 years, all highway travel is likely to be automated..
While it is an assumption it is not false. The article is about a proposal to automate trucks today and what that would mean. In 10 years there may also be some automated passenger vehicles, but it will not be "all highway travel", unless you believe the government is going to pay everyone who needs to use a highway to throw away their perfectly good car. All 253 million of them. Not going to happen. For quite a long time automated vehicles and manned vehicles are going to have to coexist on the roads.
There is no reason a human needs to be sitting behind the wheel of a car for hours up9n hours in any circumstance.
Other than cost and a lot more technology so automated cars can handle the other 99% of the roads in the US, no.
I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.
That is why I didn't say what you claim. I said "a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop". Notice the word "can"? It means I was defining a common upper bound, not claiming it as the norm as your post implies I did. And yes, trucks do often ride around with hot brakes, such as when approaching the bottom of grades, so it is not unreasonable to expect it, nor proof the truck is poorly maintained or the driver is driving poorly. The car driver your should plan for the worst, not the best.
Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":
Regarding the issue of weight/downward force (normal force) versus total friction, the problem with tires is the road surrface and the tire surface are not uniform causing the tires to natually see more and less surface contact as they travel, some due to bounce, so the force at times decreases. When it does, if the tires begin skidding, the static friction changes to kinetic friction and the game changes. Trucks by the nature of their length and design are much more prone to this, especially bouncing, and therefore skidding. It is why dragsters use big tires on their power axle instead of small ones like your theory would suggest they could (if true it would save weight and therefore the mass the dragster would need to accelerate).
So do truck tires have lower coefficients of static friction or are their brakes undersized? Other than that (and dynamic forces like wheel hop starting a skid) there should be no difference in stopping distance.
A third option, as I explained in my post: "The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster"
both the car and truck have to support the total mass of the vehicle on the tires
The tire support ability is based on the thickness of the rubber, and thereby inflation, so truck tires can support more weight with the same surface contact area than car tires. This helps by reducing rolling friction and saves money in fuel efficiency, tire costs, etc. The consequence is trucks' have less static/dynamic friction to aid in stopping. I guess you could make a truck with a ton of tires to increase the total friction like I have seen in Europe, but then you could do that with cars too.
If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained.
No, the fact a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop is physics. See this chart.. The car weighs around 3000 lbs, and the truck is 40,000-80,000 lbs. The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster. And no matter which driver caused it, when a 40 ton truck hits a 1 to 2 ton car, the car loses. It is the same problem with many motorcycles being able to stop faster than a car.
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.
I worked for a while in a facility that required everyone to have a government security clearance. The management once sent out a notice telling people to lock up anything valuable when unattended since there had been some thefts. The notice reminded people that the background checks are designed to determine if the person can be trusted to protect the government's information, not that they in general are honest people. You would hope there is a massive overlap between those two groups, but apparently there are people they feel wouldn't sell out their government, but would sell out their coworkers. Of course if caught, having a criminal record mostly excludes the ability to get or keep the clearance.
First it is a she. Amy Berman Jackson was appointed as a US DIstrict Court Judge by Obama in 2011.
Only the little people have to obey the law. Snowden, Manning, etc. Big wigs like James Clapper, John Brennan, and David Petraeus never get charged with crimes.
Except Petraeus did get charged and after pleading guilty, got two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Not as much as I think he should have, but it shows that sometimes the big wigs DO get charged.
That's a way too complicated explanation, one put out to deceive and distract.
No that is the law. To convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person knowingly commited the offense. Given everything they see and are told every day it would be almost impossible to prove they didn't believe what they were saying might not be true which is the standard required. If you think a different standard should apply then you need to petition the government for a change of the law, and possibly even a change of the Constitution. Otherwise if charges were brought in a case like this it would certainly fail and then people would be crying about how it was a mock trial. The discontent will always find something to complain about or someone to blame.
Everything else is a flak screen for the gullible, incompetent, and rule-driven drones like lawyers and bureaucrats.
Like I said.
You summed up nicely where we are!
If he lied under oath and there's proof that he did then charge the bastard with perjury and put him on trial and make an example of him to show that you can not lie under oath to congress and get away with it.
There's a reason you almost never see anyone charged with perjury for testifying before a congressional committee, and not the one many here will offer. Legally, it isn't enough to show that what they said was wrong. To prove perjury you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were saying was not true (plus a few more requirements). And since these people live in a world of constantly seeing and reviewing mounds of conflicting information, proving they knew what they were saying was wrong, and that it wasn't just a mistake, gets very hard. Even if there is evidence they were told one thing, there can easily be evidence they were also told the opposite by someone, and then the issue of reasonable doubt pops up. They may have lied, but reaching the legal requirement for a conviction of perjury can be almost impossible, so don't necessarily blame the officials for not bringing charges when they don't think they will get a guilty verdict.
Just to be picky, that call would be to MI6, not MI5.
The NFL should provide all game balls, selected randomly prior to each use. Bringing your own game balls is a pretty obvious vector for manipulating the game.
I was actually shocked when I found out the teams supplied the balls and not the league since it makes it so ripe for cheating.
It's not that they don't understand it, it is that they don't WANT to understand it, and therefore pretend that what the team said makes sense. Big difference.
We, the USA, were the ones who threw the first punch with our occupation of Muslim countries.
Hardly. The USA is a latecomer by many decades.
Millennia actually.
No, searching through the electronic contents of the device in a suspect's pocket, and obtaining the cell tower location data from the cell phone company for where a device has been, are not the same thing, and the Supreme Court decision would not apply here.
No, what this article talks about is the police unilaterally collecting information without any court oversight.
No, the article talks about the ruling saying the police need a court order rather than a warrant, but they still need a court order, which means an active prosecution must be in progress and a judge has to sign off on the request. That sound to me like court oversight. The problem here is the police have a lower threshold to meet to get a court order than they do to get a warrant.
Never mind the rather shocking implications with respect to personal freedoms when the government is given carte blanc(sic) to track everyone at all times.
That is the crux of the case, namely the government isn't tracking everyone all the time, the cell phone companies are, or at least their phones when on, since that is how the cell phone system works. The government is merely using that data when a court feels it is justified and issues a court order.
The summary makes it sound like the police now can just walk in and get all the records they want with almost no restrictions. The reality is this ruling said that a warrant isn't needed but A COURT ORDER IS. The problem, and why it was appealed, is that a warrant REQUIRES the showing of probable cause, while a court order just means the judge thinks it might be useful information. But it still means a judge has to sign off on the request in an active case. Also, this ruling was in the 11th Circuit which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, so it isn't binding elsewhere. The article says there has been a similar ruling in the 5th Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas), but a contrary ruling in the 3rd Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).
There is ZERO need to record ALL phone conversations, instead there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations.
Never said there was. My response was to the statement that any spying conducted inside the US borders was a form of treason, which I disagreed with. You in fact agree with me by saying "there must be a small list of persons which have their communications tapped, because of their political, criminal or terrorist affiliations". In fact in an earlier post in this thread I said "I think they have gone too far, but please enlighten us with clear rules to say where the line is?". The question then is what the criteria is for this "small list" since that still doesn't answer where the line is.
The claim that the defendants don't have significant presence in Illinois for purposes of legal action, in the context of an Internet-based service, is just ridiculous. The judge is applying brick-and-mortar rules to a global network.
No, he is apply the law. Where to file is spelled out in 28 US Code 1391, and unless you can't for some reason, like you don't know where the defendant lives, the place to file is "a judicial district in which any defendant resides". The law is clear, and the judge has no choice but to follow it.
It's a standard legal practice by unscrupulous companies, make the small guy spend a lot of money to travel long distances in order to have his day in court.
That is why under 28 US Code 1391(b) the proper legal venue is where the defendant resides. The reason why you see a lot of patent suits filed in Texas is that for large corporations, where they reside is murky since they do business everywhere and are registered the Secretary of State in most/all of the states, including Texas, so they are considered "local" under these rules. The "small guy" however lives in a specific place, so that is where the proper venue would be.
This has similarities to what I saw in inkjet printers many years ago. For a while, they were selling printers at a big discount because they would make their money on the replacement ink cartridges. Problem was the new printers came with a new full color and black cartridge and cost less than it cost to buy the two cartridges individually. It was actually cheaper to buy a new printer, take the cartridges out of the boxes, and throw away the printer, than it was to buy replacement cartridges. Same thing here - it is sometimes cheaper to buy more of a trip than you need then throw away part of it you don't need.
Regarding the cartridges, due to a couple issues that came up, such as this one, they started including cartridges that were 1/2 to 1/3 full with new printers.
Your assumption is true for a loaded bus, but municipal busses, in all but a few cities, spend much more time travelling nearly empty than they do full.
Show me a plane that makes stops every few city blocks then we can accept your data as a fair comparison. Otherwise, stick to data about long-haul bus and train routes.
The comparison between planes and other modes of transit would be for longer-haul routes since planes do not provide inter-city transport. For longer routes, buses normally run fairly full. And for those that say buses aren't always full, I have been on a 737 plane between cities 1000 miles apart where there were only four passengers, including me, and on a flight to the far east where I had a row of five seats on a 747 all to myself for 12 hours.