The tip was not reliable. They found no evidence of erratic driving behavior, which points towards this actually being parallel construction. They had illegal evidence, and needed to craft a legal justification for a search.
Only if you could prove that they didn't think they smelled weed. That's pretty tough, especially since they could reasonably attribute it to something else.
I would think that someone with 30 lbs is taking measures to contain the smell, although in all fairness, I have never been in a vehicle with 30 lbs of marijuana. I would think that smoking in the car would be the sign that is actually triggered most of the time, followed by those with personal usage bags that are poorly sealed.
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
It likely depends upon how you define 'major crime.' Random searches are probably identifying more people transporting drugs, but aren't catching murderers, thieves, rapists, embezzlers, human traffickers, or anyone engaging in assault.
The problem is that we know that this case seems likely to be one of parallel construction. There's a good chance this 'anonymous woman' worked for a three letter agency and had obtained unlawful evidence. Since that wouldn't be admissible in court, she called the local police, said that someone "forced her off the road *wink wink nudge nudge*", and she was able to present an unusual amount of detailed information for someone who was just run off the road.
Funny how their sense of smell works. They can recognize a potent marijuana smell in a vehicle that has never contained marijuana if the occupants look like they smell like marijuana.
I understand the industry a bit, I also understand that there's no technological reason why a peering relationship has to be symmetrical. I understand that, in practice, it usually is or is fairly close, and that business models work on that assumption, but there's no technologically compelling reason that they have to be, or why such a relationship would be an actual problem. It's largely a bizarre holdover from telephones when operators had to physically switch connections.
There's no reason that the flow of traffic has to be symmetrical. Netflix wants this to happen, and so do Comcast's customers. If Comcast was really upset about that, they would give their customers symmetrical connections.
It may have some large advantages in theory, but the setup seems quite impractical. A well placed bomb can cause lots of destruction in a short while, giving them little to no time to flee before they are in the way of harm. Also, with asphyxiation, you are going to need to get a near perfect seal on a large building, which is very difficult to do without getting noticed, and it would provide some other cues. One of which would be the heat of a building full of people with limited air circulation. I also suspect that there would be a number of people who succumb earlier than others, giving them a decent warning about a plan that can be foiled by opening a window.
Murderers often have goals other than just causing the most death possible. Also, guns generally require less knowledge to use effectively than bombs and are more readily available in a working form. Most people who use firearms for murder have low counts.
whereas deaths from suicide by firearm alone account for a staggering amount of deaths (not all of which can be attributed to wanting to die unless firearm ownership somehow causes the desire to die to increase).
They don't increase the desire, but they do increase the success rate. Women attempt suicide more often, but men successfully commit suicide more often because women tend to use methods that won't result in scarring, like taking pills, while men use methods that are effective.
Bombs are probably the most efficient way to kill lots of people, and they can be improvised from various things that we need to have to function as a society.
I'm not saying the law isn't on the side of those recording the police, just that it's a great deal more work in those states, and thus, a little bit easier for police to harass you about it.
I believe the argument being presented is that the will and interests of the oligarchs dominates the will and interests of the general public, not that certain people have more political sway than other randomly selected people.
This idiocy again. Being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive. Being a direct deomcracy is, but that is not what is generally meant when someone simply says 'democracy.'
I agree, and again, the issue with recording cops is a far bigger one outside of one-party states. The ACLU and such will give you things to say if police try to stop you from recording them. If you are in a single-party state, it's basically just reciting that this is a single party state, so you don't need their consent. If you are an all-party state, you have to state that it's a public place, first amendment, etc.
It wouldn't seem to be the case. A study has suggested that the placebo effect works even if patients know they are getting fake medicine. Possibly because many patients know about the placebo effect,. and thus believe that believing has a positive effect.
It actually would be very dependent upon the instrument in general. A number of high-end instruments couldn't even be played by a novice. For example, reed instruments like clarinets and saxophones have different grades of reeds based on how firm they are. Someone inexperienced has to play a softer reed because the muscles used in playing aren't developed enough. There are also elements like scalloped frets on a guitar, which allow for playing with an incredibly light touch, but said touch must be so delicate that a novice is only going to get awful sounds out of them.
So, to treat this question fairly, you have to treat ease of playing as a separate issue from tonal quality. Also, even if you treat being intimate with the instrument as a necessity, you could still reasonably do a double blind test, assuming that the musician doesn't attempt to subvert the process. Give them two very nice violins, and don't tell them which on is the strad. If the physical appearance is too telling, then we might have to have a musician who is literally blind.
Absolute nonsense. Patents were supposed to 'promote the progress' of 'the useful arts.' Trade secrets had nothing to do with that because nobody who could practice something secretly indefinitely would bother getting a patent, which is costly and expires. If the goal was to reduce the usage of trade secrets, the first step would be to weaken trade secret law, but nobody ever brings that to the table because patents very little to do with trade secrets for proponents or opponents.
Slashdot Mirror
The tip was not reliable. They found no evidence of erratic driving behavior, which points towards this actually being parallel construction. They had illegal evidence, and needed to craft a legal justification for a search.
Only if you could prove that they didn't think they smelled weed. That's pretty tough, especially since they could reasonably attribute it to something else.
I would think that someone with 30 lbs is taking measures to contain the smell, although in all fairness, I have never been in a vehicle with 30 lbs of marijuana. I would think that smoking in the car would be the sign that is actually triggered most of the time, followed by those with personal usage bags that are poorly sealed.
Or more likely, a government agent with information obtained illegally.
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
It likely depends upon how you define 'major crime.' Random searches are probably identifying more people transporting drugs, but aren't catching murderers, thieves, rapists, embezzlers, human traffickers, or anyone engaging in assault.
The problem is that we know that this case seems likely to be one of parallel construction. There's a good chance this 'anonymous woman' worked for a three letter agency and had obtained unlawful evidence. Since that wouldn't be admissible in court, she called the local police, said that someone "forced her off the road *wink wink nudge nudge*", and she was able to present an unusual amount of detailed information for someone who was just run off the road.
Funny how their sense of smell works. They can recognize a potent marijuana smell in a vehicle that has never contained marijuana if the occupants look like they smell like marijuana.
I understand the industry a bit, I also understand that there's no technological reason why a peering relationship has to be symmetrical. I understand that, in practice, it usually is or is fairly close, and that business models work on that assumption, but there's no technologically compelling reason that they have to be, or why such a relationship would be an actual problem. It's largely a bizarre holdover from telephones when operators had to physically switch connections.
There's no reason that the flow of traffic has to be symmetrical. Netflix wants this to happen, and so do Comcast's customers. If Comcast was really upset about that, they would give their customers symmetrical connections.
Of course Rhesus monkeys can do math, how could we have Rhesus positive and Rhesus negative blood types if they couldn't?
Our surveillance society is a huge risk to our well being in regards to our physical, economic, and social liberty. It's pretty damn important.
It may have some large advantages in theory, but the setup seems quite impractical. A well placed bomb can cause lots of destruction in a short while, giving them little to no time to flee before they are in the way of harm. Also, with asphyxiation, you are going to need to get a near perfect seal on a large building, which is very difficult to do without getting noticed, and it would provide some other cues. One of which would be the heat of a building full of people with limited air circulation. I also suspect that there would be a number of people who succumb earlier than others, giving them a decent warning about a plan that can be foiled by opening a window.
Even if we are completely sustainable, the sun won't last forever, and before that point, it would engulf us.
They don't increase the desire, but they do increase the success rate. Women attempt suicide more often, but men successfully commit suicide more often because women tend to use methods that won't result in scarring, like taking pills, while men use methods that are effective.
Bombs are probably the most efficient way to kill lots of people, and they can be improvised from various things that we need to have to function as a society.
I'm not saying the law isn't on the side of those recording the police, just that it's a great deal more work in those states, and thus, a little bit easier for police to harass you about it.
I believe the argument being presented is that the will and interests of the oligarchs dominates the will and interests of the general public, not that certain people have more political sway than other randomly selected people.
This idiocy again. Being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive. Being a direct deomcracy is, but that is not what is generally meant when someone simply says 'democracy.'
I agree, and again, the issue with recording cops is a far bigger one outside of one-party states. The ACLU and such will give you things to say if police try to stop you from recording them. If you are in a single-party state, it's basically just reciting that this is a single party state, so you don't need their consent. If you are an all-party state, you have to state that it's a public place, first amendment, etc.
The probably is Pennsylvania is an all-party state, where most states only require the consent of one party to record.
Probably around 15 billion credits.
It wouldn't seem to be the case. A study has suggested that the placebo effect works even if patients know they are getting fake medicine. Possibly because many patients know about the placebo effect,. and thus believe that believing has a positive effect.
It actually would be very dependent upon the instrument in general. A number of high-end instruments couldn't even be played by a novice. For example, reed instruments like clarinets and saxophones have different grades of reeds based on how firm they are. Someone inexperienced has to play a softer reed because the muscles used in playing aren't developed enough. There are also elements like scalloped frets on a guitar, which allow for playing with an incredibly light touch, but said touch must be so delicate that a novice is only going to get awful sounds out of them.
So, to treat this question fairly, you have to treat ease of playing as a separate issue from tonal quality. Also, even if you treat being intimate with the instrument as a necessity, you could still reasonably do a double blind test, assuming that the musician doesn't attempt to subvert the process. Give them two very nice violins, and don't tell them which on is the strad. If the physical appearance is too telling, then we might have to have a musician who is literally blind.
Absolute nonsense. Patents were supposed to 'promote the progress' of 'the useful arts.' Trade secrets had nothing to do with that because nobody who could practice something secretly indefinitely would bother getting a patent, which is costly and expires. If the goal was to reduce the usage of trade secrets, the first step would be to weaken trade secret law, but nobody ever brings that to the table because patents very little to do with trade secrets for proponents or opponents.