Nope I am pretty sure it is caused by cops being dicks. Last week I was pulling out from a night club, and I got pulled over. I did not have a single alcoholic drink, so I was pretty sure I was fine. The cop got me out to do the standardized test (I am pretty sure he couldn't have smelled alcohol on me or see me drive unsafely, as I never drank), And then came the Breathalyzers, which the cop made me take thrice, just to make sure the reading was correct. He let me go, only after I refused to take it the fourth time. I am pretty sure he was hoping for a false reading. I now know I can legally refuse all of these tests in my state (unless I am already under arrest of course).
Actually I would be fine with a 200 GB cap. Provided they would increase it every year, to what is appropriate at the point of time. I dont want to be struck with a 200 GB cap, when the average bandwidth usage increases, and streaming becomes the most common way to get content.
Dont forget, it is a changing world. You never know when calculus is going to become important. There is very often a paradigm shift, the more you are prepared for it, the better equipped you will be to handle it.
Not if you use their micropayments plan. Their fee is 5 cents + 5%, which works out to be 10 cents for a $0.99 app, way less than what Apple or Google charges.
No, but Grandma will be disappointed if an easy puzzle is marked as hard. If I ran a newspaper, I would run this score, and define scores 0-1.5 Easy 1.5-2.5 Medium and 2.5+ Hard. This was grandma is not confused, neither is she disappointed by the hardness level.
What? Bittorent protocol is publicly available. Any one can write a client that stored the IPs of the people sharing files. With opensource bittorent clients it is even more easier. And DMCA does not prohibit reverse engineering of applications or protocols. Many open source projects depend on reverse engineering. Hell most companies reverse engineer their competitors products. And what is illegal under DMCA is circumventing provisions that prevent copyright infringement.
My only question is why set it to 1 second intervals, and not say 1 hour or day or month intervals. What difference does it make?
My understanding is that it takes time to arrive at price discovery. If you prolong-ate the time interval, it takes more to arrive at the actual price the forces determine.
Besides I dont think 1 second intervals will stop these algorithms. It will only give the algorithms more time to reverse engineer trades and intentions, and build strategies.
Simple, you assume there will more suckers down the lane. It might even have a simple buy and sell in the next minute trade (which works works moderately well on the day of the IPO, depending on the hype and the pulse)
I would like to see some of the evidence, before I decide whether or not to ignore them. I understand legalizing and regulating prostitution can bring a lot of benefits to the society. But I dont really see how making it available on craigslist makes a difference. It only helps the business go more underground and shady, as far I can see.
One of the main reasons for abuse in the sex industry (including human trafficking), is that it is a hidden black market. By helping to make it more open and competitive, CL was arguably making it less abusive. I think it is unfair to blame CL for a problem created by politicians.
I believe GP is referring to the fact that CL directly profited from the sex industry, by charging for listings in their adult-only section. In fact half their revenues were estimated to be from this section.
Craig has also promised that he'll never take advertising and that hes not ever going to charge for listing where he isn't forced to by local laws.
I guess he has already broken the promise by charging for job postings and apartment listing by brokers (in certain cities). He also used to charge for posting ads in the adult only sections.
OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.
A random person may not, but random corporations do. In fact many stores like Target and some of the malls already do.
Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "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?"
Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?
Unfortunately surveillance has never been considered a search. Would you interpret a police office following you around as a search. I wouldnt and the courts havent.
Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?
All I call say is you have a strange definition of self-incrimination. A cop can follow you all day and book you any time you slip or do something against the law. There is nothing unconstitutional about.
Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?
It doesnt mean that the number plate cannot be read by a software. Only that a number plate read by software cannot be used as a witness or evidence on its own.
Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.
More drama, instead of a meaning argument.
While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States
Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
There is no constitutional right to travel, expect for members of congress to/from the congress. The government cannot prevent you/limit you from traveling to any part of the United States. But that is it, there is nothing about harassment or anything. And I dont see how tracking systems can prevent you from traveling to any part of the US. So tracking systems do not violate any laws as far as I can see.
How else are you going to do this? The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring. We after all do vote for these politicians. Might as well ask them to do something for us.
You still dont understand, I am not unhappy about you linking US IP infringement and US debt. What I am unhappy about is you responding to China's IP infringement by nullfying treasury bills. It is better to go to war with China rather than nullfy treasury bills (which I have saying in so many posts that it hurts us a lot lot lot more, which you convinently ignore and go back to saying something else).
Slashdot Mirror
Nope I am pretty sure it is caused by cops being dicks. Last week I was pulling out from a night club, and I got pulled over. I did not have a single alcoholic drink, so I was pretty sure I was fine. The cop got me out to do the standardized test (I am pretty sure he couldn't have smelled alcohol on me or see me drive unsafely, as I never drank), And then came the Breathalyzers, which the cop made me take thrice, just to make sure the reading was correct. He let me go, only after I refused to take it the fourth time. I am pretty sure he was hoping for a false reading. I now know I can legally refuse all of these tests in my state (unless I am already under arrest of course).
Actually I would be fine with a 200 GB cap. Provided they would increase it every year, to what is appropriate at the point of time. I dont want to be struck with a 200 GB cap, when the average bandwidth usage increases, and streaming becomes the most common way to get content.
Well played sir. I award you one internet for your heroic effort.
Dont forget, it is a changing world. You never know when calculus is going to become important. There is very often a paradigm shift, the more you are prepared for it, the better equipped you will be to handle it.
Not if you use their micropayments plan. Their fee is 5 cents + 5%, which works out to be 10 cents for a $0.99 app, way less than what Apple or Google charges.
No, but Grandma will be disappointed if an easy puzzle is marked as hard. If I ran a newspaper, I would run this score, and define scores 0-1.5 Easy 1.5-2.5 Medium and 2.5+ Hard. This was grandma is not confused, neither is she disappointed by the hardness level.
Bullshit and you know it. If your G+ account is suspended, you lose your complete Google Account, which includes email and everything.
What? Bittorent protocol is publicly available. Any one can write a client that stored the IPs of the people sharing files. With opensource bittorent clients it is even more easier. And DMCA does not prohibit reverse engineering of applications or protocols. Many open source projects depend on reverse engineering. Hell most companies reverse engineer their competitors products. And what is illegal under DMCA is circumventing provisions that prevent copyright infringement.
My only question is why set it to 1 second intervals, and not say 1 hour or day or month intervals. What difference does it make?
My understanding is that it takes time to arrive at price discovery. If you prolong-ate the time interval, it takes more to arrive at the actual price the forces determine.
Besides I dont think 1 second intervals will stop these algorithms. It will only give the algorithms more time to reverse engineer trades and intentions, and build strategies.
And I called $9.99. Just remember I called it first!
Simple, you assume there will more suckers down the lane. It might even have a simple buy and sell in the next minute trade (which works works moderately well on the day of the IPO, depending on the hype and the pulse)
I definitely meant a percentage cut in every dept, not the same absolute amount. I never knew, it could be interpreted this way.
Well across the board budget cuts are fine. But when science gets cut at the expense of the military(which ever keeps rising), it is not acceptable.
I would like to see some of the evidence, before I decide whether or not to ignore them. I understand legalizing and regulating prostitution can bring a lot of benefits to the society. But I dont really see how making it available on craigslist makes a difference. It only helps the business go more underground and shady, as far I can see.
I dont believe they made it any better. I can also believe they profited from it.
One of the main reasons for abuse in the sex industry (including human trafficking), is that it is a hidden black market. By helping to make it more open and competitive, CL was arguably making it less abusive. I think it is unfair to blame CL for a problem created by politicians.
I believe GP is referring to the fact that CL directly profited from the sex industry, by charging for listings in their adult-only section. In fact half their revenues were estimated to be from this section.
Craig has also promised that he'll never take advertising and that hes not ever going to charge for listing where he isn't forced to by local laws.
I guess he has already broken the promise by charging for job postings and apartment listing by brokers (in certain cities). He also used to charge for posting ads in the adult only sections.
Metamoderation already take care of this. I wish I could mod you redundant.
Pretty well.
They also know that software patents are not valid in India and take good advantage of it.
I would mod you up if I could. I am pretty sure your post will get lost in all the screaming.
OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.
A random person may not, but random corporations do. In fact many stores like Target and some of the malls already do.
Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "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?"
Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?
Unfortunately surveillance has never been considered a search. Would you interpret a police office following you around as a search. I wouldnt and the courts havent.
Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?
All I call say is you have a strange definition of self-incrimination. A cop can follow you all day and book you any time you slip or do something against the law. There is nothing unconstitutional about.
Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?
It doesnt mean that the number plate cannot be read by a software. Only that a number plate read by software cannot be used as a witness or evidence on its own.
Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.
More drama, instead of a meaning argument.
While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States
Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
There is no constitutional right to travel, expect for members of congress to/from the congress. The government cannot prevent you/limit you from traveling to any part of the United States. But that is it, there is nothing about harassment or anything. And I dont see how tracking systems can prevent you from traveling to any part of the US. So tracking systems do not violate any laws as far as I can see.
Some states consider it obscuring the license plate, and fine you for it (you are breaking the purpose of the license plate). Watch out.
How else are you going to do this? The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring. We after all do vote for these politicians. Might as well ask them to do something for us.
You still dont understand, I am not unhappy about you linking US IP infringement and US debt. What I am unhappy about is you responding to China's IP infringement by nullfying treasury bills. It is better to go to war with China rather than nullfy treasury bills (which I have saying in so many posts that it hurts us a lot lot lot more, which you convinently ignore and go back to saying something else).