Intent has nothing to do with it, despite the summary. According to the law, if he has any prior drug convictions, simply driving a car with one of these hidden compartments is all they need. Keep in mind, these aren't simple boxes hidden under a seat or something. They are complicated devices that are meant to be accessed only after specific toggles and switches (usually integrated into existing things like door locks and windshield wipers) are used in certain orders. From an engineering standpoint, these "traps" are actually pretty amazing, and the people who build them can make a lot of money doing so.
Random people don't install these compartments. If they get someone based on this law, it means they have someone with actual connections to the distributors that they're really after. Either they get a plea bargain where he gives up the people who hired him to transport the drugs, or other detailed information he may have. And, worse-case scenario, they just get someone for possession and have one less drug car on the road.
Not saying it's perfect. Just that it's not nearly as dramatic or simplistic as you are making it out to be.
Legal fee's are generally taken care of if you win, from what I understand. Of course, it's highly unlikely that this guy actually has a clean drug record, or that they didn't simply find bits of pot in the compartment, in which case a plea bargain would be the smart choice for him.
That law isn't nearly as whacked out as people are making sound like. I like to rise up against the man as much as the next guy, but when topics like this are based on false or misleading information, it does no one any good.
No, this is an example of a bad Slashdot summary filled with hyperbole. Intent is only mentioned in the law where it relates to building or installing the compartment. These aren't simple boxes hidden under a panel. They're complicated electronic and/or hydrolic devices that require multiple steps to open (turn the wheel all the way to the left, unlock the right side door, recline the seat back and then turn the wipers on once, all in proper sequence). That part of the law was meant to go after the people behind the devices.
This guy would have been picked up based on the sections that forbid him as a prior felon (not clear if he is or not) or if they detected drug residue in the compartment (which the law specifically mentions as a condition for violation). So if he has a clean drug record, no link to building or installing the compartment, and there was no drug residue in the hidden compartment, then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense.
Intent is only mentioned in relation to building or installing the hidden compartment. So either they can prove he built it, show evidence of drug residue, or show he's previously been found (or plead) guilty to drug charges, there is no case against him.
The first is unlikely, but drug residue or prior convictions seem very plausible.
As bad as the law is, according to the law's language itself, he shouldn't have been arrested. Here's the last section of the law:
(I) This section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
Only one section of the law mentions the word "intent" and that's in reference to actually building or installing the hidden compartment. So unless this guy also had a prior drug felony, or unless they could show he installed the compartment himself, there's no real case against him. I'm guessing he has a record though, which is why the went forward with the arrest.
And if these weren't paid employees, I'd agree with you. There's all kinds of things that employees in all industries don't *want* to do but are encouraged to. At least this one is more lenient with things (other than Apple, where anything but Apple products pretty much got you fired).
I think the idea is that by using their own products, their employees are in a better position to know what needs to be changed or fixed. Which makes sense.
If that's the case, why is no one able to identify the people (person) receiving all of the CryptoLocker ransom payments? Which, by the way, that person made a crap load of money with the value of bitcoins going from roughly $100 a month ago, to $800 today.
I think the NSA has the technical abilities to simply avoid detection in the first place and, if something does get detected, it's as a generic botnet program.
A big difference here is that none of your examples (authors, actors, etc) have such a direct influence on people's jobs as the average CEO. The current system rewards risk-taking, where all the risk is placed the lowest-paid workers. So you end up with CEO's making an outrageous amount of money simply because the only people they have to answer to are the shareholders, who couldn't care less if their profits cost 50,000 jobs this quarter.
Actors and authors and nearly every one else you mention make their money *because* of the rest of us, not despite us. That's the reason your thought experiment misses the point.
I found the combat in TSW to be incredibly boring, with most fights taking too long. It got to the point where it was taking 30-45 seconds to kill a mob, which wasn't fun at all. Especially since I was more or less just using one skill 5 times in a row, followed by two finishers (one for each weapon); rinse and repeat about 8 times. If you can get past the generally slow pacing of combat, though, the game is worth it for the story and atmosphere alone.
The end of the video mentions how the patient learns to interpret the "visual patterns" that they see. Is anything known about what they actually see? Are researchers essentially (pardon the pun) running blind when it comes to designing something they can't really interact with themselves? I'm guessing that they aren't actually seeing "stuff" like we do, or even really low resolution stuff.
Questions like this pop up every time something gets funded by crowdsourcing, without fail. It's kind of funny to people in their most blindly optimistic states, but it's also getting a little old.
I'd say no to a low end label because the niche is sort of filled with integrated graphics these days. Even still, a new "last years" mid range card would fit the low end price point just fine. Having said that, those example names were just that: examples. Call them whatever else you want if it makes you feel better. All I'm trying to do is point out that for most people there are only mid range ($200-399) and high end ($400+) cards to consider when it comes to playing games, and the "Pro" line of cards that are more geared toward high-end workstations.
I don't really get how that would make it easier than it currently is for a salesman to recommend the wrong product...
Which is probably why the average user has long since moved to consoles. The last 15 years of crappy naming conventions and standards changes across the computer (PC-133, DDR1, GDDR, ATX, BTX, USB1.1, Firewire, CD-R, CD-RAM, AGP, PCI, PCIe, SATA, ATA, PATA, etc, etc) have acted as a form of natural selection for consumers. Those that were interested and capable of keeping up with the various options, and those that went with Apple because "it just works."
I almost think hardware manufacturers should move to a year-name-convention, like car manufacturers, with maybe 3 categories per year (mid, high, and CAD).
Slashdot Mirror
Intent has nothing to do with it, despite the summary. According to the law, if he has any prior drug convictions, simply driving a car with one of these hidden compartments is all they need. Keep in mind, these aren't simple boxes hidden under a seat or something. They are complicated devices that are meant to be accessed only after specific toggles and switches (usually integrated into existing things like door locks and windshield wipers) are used in certain orders. From an engineering standpoint, these "traps" are actually pretty amazing, and the people who build them can make a lot of money doing so.
Random people don't install these compartments. If they get someone based on this law, it means they have someone with actual connections to the distributors that they're really after. Either they get a plea bargain where he gives up the people who hired him to transport the drugs, or other detailed information he may have. And, worse-case scenario, they just get someone for possession and have one less drug car on the road.
Not saying it's perfect. Just that it's not nearly as dramatic or simplistic as you are making it out to be.
Legal fee's are generally taken care of if you win, from what I understand. Of course, it's highly unlikely that this guy actually has a clean drug record, or that they didn't simply find bits of pot in the compartment, in which case a plea bargain would be the smart choice for him.
That law isn't nearly as whacked out as people are making sound like. I like to rise up against the man as much as the next guy, but when topics like this are based on false or misleading information, it does no one any good.
No, this is an example of a bad Slashdot summary filled with hyperbole. Intent is only mentioned in the law where it relates to building or installing the compartment. These aren't simple boxes hidden under a panel. They're complicated electronic and/or hydrolic devices that require multiple steps to open (turn the wheel all the way to the left, unlock the right side door, recline the seat back and then turn the wipers on once, all in proper sequence). That part of the law was meant to go after the people behind the devices.
This guy would have been picked up based on the sections that forbid him as a prior felon (not clear if he is or not) or if they detected drug residue in the compartment (which the law specifically mentions as a condition for violation). So if he has a clean drug record, no link to building or installing the compartment, and there was no drug residue in the hidden compartment, then his lawyer should have a pretty easy case for defense.
Intent is only mentioned in relation to building or installing the hidden compartment. So either they can prove he built it, show evidence of drug residue, or show he's previously been found (or plead) guilty to drug charges, there is no case against him.
The first is unlikely, but drug residue or prior convictions seem very plausible.
As bad as the law is, according to the law's language itself, he shouldn't have been arrested. Here's the last section of the law:
(I) This section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.
Only one section of the law mentions the word "intent" and that's in reference to actually building or installing the hidden compartment. So unless this guy also had a prior drug felony, or unless they could show he installed the compartment himself, there's no real case against him. I'm guessing he has a record though, which is why the went forward with the arrest.
And if these weren't paid employees, I'd agree with you. There's all kinds of things that employees in all industries don't *want* to do but are encouraged to. At least this one is more lenient with things (other than Apple, where anything but Apple products pretty much got you fired).
If it's empty, how can they legally prove he knew it even existed? It's "hidden" right?
I think the idea is that by using their own products, their employees are in a better position to know what needs to be changed or fixed. Which makes sense.
As the article points out, the memo is encouraging the employees to use the "corporate version" of yahoo's mail client.
If that's the case, why is no one able to identify the people (person) receiving all of the CryptoLocker ransom payments? Which, by the way, that person made a crap load of money with the value of bitcoins going from roughly $100 a month ago, to $800 today.
I think the NSA has the technical abilities to simply avoid detection in the first place and, if something does get detected, it's as a generic botnet program.
A big difference here is that none of your examples (authors, actors, etc) have such a direct influence on people's jobs as the average CEO. The current system rewards risk-taking, where all the risk is placed the lowest-paid workers. So you end up with CEO's making an outrageous amount of money simply because the only people they have to answer to are the shareholders, who couldn't care less if their profits cost 50,000 jobs this quarter.
Actors and authors and nearly every one else you mention make their money *because* of the rest of us, not despite us. That's the reason your thought experiment misses the point.
If he left LotRO because the simplified the skills system, then GW2 is probably the last thing he wants.
Most of those aren't actually MMORPG's. They're just multiplayer games.
I found the combat in TSW to be incredibly boring, with most fights taking too long. It got to the point where it was taking 30-45 seconds to kill a mob, which wasn't fun at all. Especially since I was more or less just using one skill 5 times in a row, followed by two finishers (one for each weapon); rinse and repeat about 8 times. If you can get past the generally slow pacing of combat, though, the game is worth it for the story and atmosphere alone.
The end of the video mentions how the patient learns to interpret the "visual patterns" that they see. Is anything known about what they actually see? Are researchers essentially (pardon the pun) running blind when it comes to designing something they can't really interact with themselves? I'm guessing that they aren't actually seeing "stuff" like we do, or even really low resolution stuff.
Welcome to America. Nearly half our country is willing to salt the fields just to keep the other half from eating.
It won't push the costs up to nearly what they'll charge. Health care should not be a for-profit industry.
Or detain him indefinitely. Many of the people in Gitmo haven't actually been "arrested" or charged with anything.
People like that generally aren't driven by the desire for "good enough." What makes sense to you seems trivial to them.
Questions like this pop up every time something gets funded by crowdsourcing, without fail. It's kind of funny to people in their most blindly optimistic states, but it's also getting a little old.
I'd say no to a low end label because the niche is sort of filled with integrated graphics these days. Even still, a new "last years" mid range card would fit the low end price point just fine. Having said that, those example names were just that: examples. Call them whatever else you want if it makes you feel better. All I'm trying to do is point out that for most people there are only mid range ($200-399) and high end ($400+) cards to consider when it comes to playing games, and the "Pro" line of cards that are more geared toward high-end workstations.
I don't really get how that would make it easier than it currently is for a salesman to recommend the wrong product...
Which is probably why the average user has long since moved to consoles. The last 15 years of crappy naming conventions and standards changes across the computer (PC-133, DDR1, GDDR, ATX, BTX, USB1.1, Firewire, CD-R, CD-RAM, AGP, PCI, PCIe, SATA, ATA, PATA, etc, etc) have acted as a form of natural selection for consumers. Those that were interested and capable of keeping up with the various options, and those that went with Apple because "it just works."
I almost think hardware manufacturers should move to a year-name-convention, like car manufacturers, with maybe 3 categories per year (mid, high, and CAD).
So there's no actual internet archive? How was this not planned for years ago?