Even if it is a legalistic loophole, it still accomplishes something good, which is that it forces the justice system to only use scientifically verifiable means to judge guilt and innocence. In the end, this will ensure that more guilty drunk drivers get convicted and fewer innocent people are falsly convicted.
They should be forced to use ONLY tests which can be proven to be statistically accurate and not just by marketing materials produced by the people selling them. This means blood only for *BAC*. Unless you measure BAC directly, it's just an estimate - and one that is only accurate in some people. They should have zero right to convict people on the flimsy evidence they have from these machines. The companies who make the machines have a vested interest in rigging the accuracy tests.
Your opinion is automatically invalidated because you volunteered for that neo-Prohibitionist organization. I'll be modded troll for this, but that's my reflexive feelings about it.
Besides, it's a defense lawyer's job to do anything in his power to get his client off. And a lot of people who get charged with DUI are innocent, due to overzealous law enforcement, runaway prosectors, and a justice system that considers people guilty until proven innocent when it's a "socially unacceptable" crime they are accused of. These machines are actually extremely inaccurate, and should be questioned. The margins for error are even slimmer with the new "improved" lower BAC limits.
Yep, this is how I feel about it too. I've thought about it, and I don't think that the Internet can survive if politicians are allowed to meddle with it too much. If you think about it, it's a very idealistic thing to have a completely open and free network with the whole world connected. Only scientists and engineers would ever produce such a system - politicians would instead be looking for where they could gain control and end up fracturing the whole concept into pieces. I know that the US government originally started the Internet, but the only reason it works so well now is that politicians have stayed out of it for the most part. We don't have large scale censorship and politicians trying to carve out their own petty fiefdoms in most places.
Too good to last, maybe, without the politicians getting some sort of local control.
Why do you think they will do a good job at deciding what is "harmful"? Or that anything like "community standards" exists at all? The question I have is, how can the government do a good job of coming up with moralizing standards if we can't even agree as to what proper morals are? Our society is more and more fractured than ever on these issues, and the majority should never have the right to use government power to force their moral worldview on a minority. I don't think these "standards" exist, and even if they did I think it would be morally reprehensible for the government to enforce them.
And since when does the government have the responsibility or authority to override parental decisions? Screw that - it's not their job to police people who are bad parents. That's nanny statism at its worst. Parents have a right to buy their children whatever they damn well please - including porn in my opinion. And the government has no right to stop them.
Get it through your head - the government has zero right to do something just because they can concoct a justification for it.
I think this is a false dichotomy you've set up here. It's not like there aren't small online retailers who have real CC merchant accounts. In fact, a lot of the more reputable ones do have that, and it can be obtained relatively cheaply (probably cheaper than Paypal) assuming you are doing about $500 a month in business. So they can easily institute this unless they are TINY (like some guy selling stuff out of his garage on Ebay). My options are not just Paypal or a giant megastore.
Running your business on Paypal is shoddy, period. It shows both a lack of professionalism and a lack of respect for your customers. It's also incredibly stupid since you're risking the money that makes your business run - Paypal can (and does, frequently) basically confiscate any transaction they feel like. It's not like a bank, where there is due process to go through before they can do that. Paypal even makes you agree that you won't sue them if they steal your money.
So what? Then if the "replacements" get too greedy they will get knocked down themselves.
Such "churn" is still a good thing, because it keeps the companies on their toes and forces them to adapt or die. It also weakens them for a time, meaning that things get better temporarily.
Same thing with government. You could argue it doesn't matter if we have elections or revolutions, because whoever we elect will just be as abusive as the previous government. That's true, but it's still a good thing to force some turnover every now and then just to knock them back a few steps and force an end to some of the worst absuses.
I never said it was. I was just responding to the point that GC is unsuitable for hard realtime systems (which is false). It's simply another method of heap management, and can be implemented with realtime requirements in mind. I also never said that Java or any other current garbage-collected language is actually suitable for this. I'm just saying that there is nothing theoretically preventing these features from being used in realtime systems. Likely to do that we will want languages (or new features for existing languages) with more expressive means of specifying the realtime requirements in a high level way.
(I do think that there are significant advantages to having a GOOD GC system that a lot of people ignore. They are simply another type of abstraction, which can be a gain when you have no need to worry about memory management implementation issues. Why should we reinvent the wheel over and over again when we can have the language designer develop a very sophisticated means of handling this automatically? There are times (such as in realtime situations) where you may want to get at the lower-level details, and that's fine. But in 90% of software written, this is absolutely unnecessary and leads to tons of bugs which could be avoided by using a higher level language.)
Actually, I'm pretty sure the objection is based on the bill being overly broad. Since what "violence" is is not defined, game companies will be forced to err on the side of putting almost no violence in or risk losing lots of sales. Also, prosecutors will be able to shop for sympathetic juries since there is no concrete definition. The effect will be to lower the regulations to the lowest common denominator.
This a problem with the way law and the courts work in general. The definitions they use are defined poorly, so they are not able to enforce them uniformly or fairly.
Why should there be? Stores have a right to make their own policies, and parents are free to prohibit their children from shopping there if they don't like the store's policy.
Garbage collection can be implemented in such a way that it still gives deterministic guarantees about latency. Incremental GC alone does not necessarily achieve this by itself, but it is indeed possible if your real-time application is designed properly with GC in mind. Basically, you need to have enough "extra" memory to make sure that the garbage collection can stay ahead of your realtime application without requiring too much time for the realtime deadlines to be met.
This isn't necessarily easy to do, but realtime programming in general isn't easy. But I think it's not true to say that garbage collected languages will never be useful for realtime applications.
I agree about the signed/unsigned thing. That's the stupidest single thing about Java, period. It's caused me a hell of a lot more trouble than it has ever saved me.
Java in fact has adopted several things that are similar to C#, though not all. New features in Java 1.5 include enums, autoboxing/unboxing, and a new for loop similar to foreach (as well as a form of generics).
Japan is a democracy, and they have the death penalty. There are others as well (India springs to mind). I personally don't agree with the death penalty, but get your facts straight. Go to Wikipedia and search for "capital punishment".
There is a way he could avoid the DRM. He could just not sign a contract with a label that is inflexible on the issue. But this would require that he give up potential fame and fortune. But it's blatently false that there is "no possible way" to avoid this situation. Plenty of indy labels exist that wouldn't pull this kind of thing.
Read the article again. The way they could have known what to search for was that they could have taken the object's designation from the conference abstract that the Americans submitted.
No need for "ethics". The price drop will be governed by what the market will bear. If your competitors start trying to take your business by lowering their prices, then you will have to as well. The "problem" you are suggesting doesn't exist except in the minds of people who think they are continually being screwed or that haven't taken a basic economics course.
Supply and demand regulates things quite nicely if allowed to. Price controls prevent necessary corrections from taking place (eg: people should be conserving gas at the moment, but instead they are draining all the stations. This is because the stations are not allowed to raise prices to levels that will reduce demand to only what people truly require).
And also it's a problem because even if it worked, it gives the government power to block the whole TLD for everyone, against our will. They could try to block porn now, but this would make it a lot easier for them. It's not about protecting kids; it's about trying to enforce morality on adults.
We shouldn't tempt them by giving them even the potential ability to implement a large-scale content-filtering scheme on the Internet. Because you know that after porn they'll start block various other "categories" that influential special-interest groups want blocked.
What the paper refers to is sites that publish information about network traffic they see. Some print tables with statistics and others generate graphs of network traffic levels. Their technique is basically a way to map where the passive listening points are based on the traffic reports these sites create. They strategically generate traffic which creates measurable spikes, and these show up in the reports. They use this information to determine where the listeners are.
However, if the very *existence* of a flaw is kept secret then there is little way I can take mitigating action in the time before a patch comes out. For example I could shutdown vulnerable services, use firewalls, or not use the software at all in the meantime if the risk to me is serious enough. Not revealing the flaw at all denies me that option during the months or whatever it takes a vendor to patch it. The patch is not the only possible solution.
Now perhaps people shouldn't be posting direct exploit code immediately, but if a vendor is refusing to fix a major flaw for a long time for PR reasons then it is reasonable to warn others.
Actually, that's incorrect. The large piece of foam that came off on this mission is NOT the piece from the external tank bipod strut. A piece did come off there, but it was a much smaller one than the large piece that was shown on the ET cam video.
The big piece came from the PAL ramp, not the bipod strut. They were considering redesigning that part as well, but they didn't before this mission. So in fact their fixes are not as seriously in question as you are suggesting, since they hadn't put so much energy into the part that was shed. While their redesign obviously wasn't perfect, it was much better than what you have just said.
You're missing the point of what I said. The Republicans ("the right") are the ones typically known for social authoritarianism. But in this case it's someone from "the left" who is pushing the social authoritarianism. What I was trying to say is that we simply need to oppose this no matter who proposes it. It doesn't make someone "right wing" as a whole because they are doing this, and I don't think you can call Hillary right wing in any way. But it does make her an authoritarian.
BTW, freedom is freedom. Taxes take my freedom because they remove my freedom to choose how to spend that money - it's quite simple. If by "economic control" you mean high taxes, then you are taking away some people's freedom in order to achieve some other goal. Economic freedom is necessary for us to have freedom at all, and in fact is just as necessary as social freedom because otherwise I am economically unable to control my life.
The real problem is cronyism. The government grants special favors to specific corporations which allows them to continue abusive practices. They have been granted legal "person status" by the government as well. In essence, the large corporations are handed an unfair advantage against smaller competitors BY THE GOVERNMENT. So the real problem is not too much freedom, it's too little since the corporate abuses happen with government blessing.
Actually I think you're both incorrect. "Left" and "Right" are just meaningless terms used by Democrats and Republicans to get people who don't really think to vote for them. They in no way capture the subtle nuance of a person's position.
It's just us against the fascists...it doesn't matter if the fascism comes from the "left" or the "right". It's still authoritarianism that clamps down on our freedom. I really could care less if someone is "liberal" or "conservative" if voting for them results in a loss of freedom.
The sooner more people figure this out, the better our chance of being able to reverse the process before things turn truly bad.
I don't think it is a problem at all. The "interface" for writing drivers is very stable and has been for quite some time. What's not stable is a specific binary-compiled version of the kernel. And it's simply dumb for any driver writer to make a binary driver that depends on a specific binary version of the kernel. This robs the user of one of the entire points of having an open source kernel which is the ability to customize his build for his own needs.
Moreover, it's absolutely unneeded to have a driver depend on a specific version of the kernel, even if it is binary-only. Several drivers use binary modules which have a wrapper that gets compiled into your specific kernel. Only the wrapper is open source and recompiled for each specific binary packaging. But because it is source code it will (theoretically) be compatible with everyone's kernel build.
So, the stable universal API for drivers exists, and it IS source code. If some driver doesn't work on any version of the kernel besides Redhat's precompiled kernel then the driver writer is negligent and responsible for the failure, not the kernel authors. The kernel has had a stable API for loadable modules for a very long time (with a few changes along the way which were announced FAR in advance).
I'm using Firefox 1.0.4 on Linux, with mplayer 1.0_pre6. I'm not spoofing the user agent either, so if you're reporting your browser as IE maybe that's the problem.
I have no recent experience with Opera, so I can't be of help there. I wish these sites would just stop with the rats' nest of Javascript on every video site and just post a damn link to the video though. I can't imagine who that kind of site design benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I even admit it was over the top. That's why I said I'd probably be modded troll for it.
Even if it is a legalistic loophole, it still accomplishes something good, which is that it forces the justice system to only use scientifically verifiable means to judge guilt and innocence. In the end, this will ensure that more guilty drunk drivers get convicted and fewer innocent people are falsly convicted.
They should be forced to use ONLY tests which can be proven to be statistically accurate and not just by marketing materials produced by the people selling them. This means blood only for *BAC*. Unless you measure BAC directly, it's just an estimate - and one that is only accurate in some people. They should have zero right to convict people on the flimsy evidence they have from these machines. The companies who make the machines have a vested interest in rigging the accuracy tests.
Your opinion is automatically invalidated because you volunteered for that neo-Prohibitionist organization. I'll be modded troll for this, but that's my reflexive feelings about it.
Besides, it's a defense lawyer's job to do anything in his power to get his client off. And a lot of people who get charged with DUI are innocent, due to overzealous law enforcement, runaway prosectors, and a justice system that considers people guilty until proven innocent when it's a "socially unacceptable" crime they are accused of. These machines are actually extremely inaccurate, and should be questioned. The margins for error are even slimmer with the new "improved" lower BAC limits.
Yep, this is how I feel about it too. I've thought about it, and I don't think that the Internet can survive if politicians are allowed to meddle with it too much. If you think about it, it's a very idealistic thing to have a completely open and free network with the whole world connected. Only scientists and engineers would ever produce such a system - politicians would instead be looking for where they could gain control and end up fracturing the whole concept into pieces. I know that the US government originally started the Internet, but the only reason it works so well now is that politicians have stayed out of it for the most part. We don't have large scale censorship and politicians trying to carve out their own petty fiefdoms in most places.
Too good to last, maybe, without the politicians getting some sort of local control.
Why do you think they will do a good job at deciding what is "harmful"? Or that anything like "community standards" exists at all? The question I have is, how can the government do a good job of coming up with moralizing standards if we can't even agree as to what proper morals are? Our society is more and more fractured than ever on these issues, and the majority should never have the right to use government power to force their moral worldview on a minority. I don't think these "standards" exist, and even if they did I think it would be morally reprehensible for the government to enforce them.
And since when does the government have the responsibility or authority to override parental decisions? Screw that - it's not their job to police people who are bad parents. That's nanny statism at its worst. Parents have a right to buy their children whatever they damn well please - including porn in my opinion. And the government has no right to stop them.
Get it through your head - the government has zero right to do something just because they can concoct a justification for it.
I think this is a false dichotomy you've set up here. It's not like there aren't small online retailers who have real CC merchant accounts. In fact, a lot of the more reputable ones do have that, and it can be obtained relatively cheaply (probably cheaper than Paypal) assuming you are doing about $500 a month in business. So they can easily institute this unless they are TINY (like some guy selling stuff out of his garage on Ebay). My options are not just Paypal or a giant megastore.
Running your business on Paypal is shoddy, period. It shows both a lack of professionalism and a lack of respect for your customers. It's also incredibly stupid since you're risking the money that makes your business run - Paypal can (and does, frequently) basically confiscate any transaction they feel like. It's not like a bank, where there is due process to go through before they can do that. Paypal even makes you agree that you won't sue them if they steal your money.
So what? Then if the "replacements" get too greedy they will get knocked down themselves.
Such "churn" is still a good thing, because it keeps the companies on their toes and forces them to adapt or die. It also weakens them for a time, meaning that things get better temporarily.
Same thing with government. You could argue it doesn't matter if we have elections or revolutions, because whoever we elect will just be as abusive as the previous government. That's true, but it's still a good thing to force some turnover every now and then just to knock them back a few steps and force an end to some of the worst absuses.
I never said it was. I was just responding to the point that GC is unsuitable for hard realtime systems (which is false). It's simply another method of heap management, and can be implemented with realtime requirements in mind. I also never said that Java or any other current garbage-collected language is actually suitable for this. I'm just saying that there is nothing theoretically preventing these features from being used in realtime systems. Likely to do that we will want languages (or new features for existing languages) with more expressive means of specifying the realtime requirements in a high level way.
(I do think that there are significant advantages to having a GOOD GC system that a lot of people ignore. They are simply another type of abstraction, which can be a gain when you have no need to worry about memory management implementation issues. Why should we reinvent the wheel over and over again when we can have the language designer develop a very sophisticated means of handling this automatically? There are times (such as in realtime situations) where you may want to get at the lower-level details, and that's fine. But in 90% of software written, this is absolutely unnecessary and leads to tons of bugs which could be avoided by using a higher level language.)
Actually, I'm pretty sure the objection is based on the bill being overly broad. Since what "violence" is is not defined, game companies will be forced to err on the side of putting almost no violence in or risk losing lots of sales. Also, prosecutors will be able to shop for sympathetic juries since there is no concrete definition. The effect will be to lower the regulations to the lowest common denominator.
This a problem with the way law and the courts work in general. The definitions they use are defined poorly, so they are not able to enforce them uniformly or fairly.
Why should there be? Stores have a right to make their own policies, and parents are free to prohibit their children from shopping there if they don't like the store's policy.
Garbage collection can be implemented in such a way that it still gives deterministic guarantees about latency. Incremental GC alone does not necessarily achieve this by itself, but it is indeed possible if your real-time application is designed properly with GC in mind. Basically, you need to have enough "extra" memory to make sure that the garbage collection can stay ahead of your realtime application without requiring too much time for the realtime deadlines to be met.
This isn't necessarily easy to do, but realtime programming in general isn't easy. But I think it's not true to say that garbage collected languages will never be useful for realtime applications.
I agree about the signed/unsigned thing. That's the stupidest single thing about Java, period. It's caused me a hell of a lot more trouble than it has ever saved me.
Java in fact has adopted several things that are similar to C#, though not all. New features in Java 1.5 include enums, autoboxing/unboxing, and a new for loop similar to foreach (as well as a form of generics).
You mean like OpenSSL?
Actually, it isn't.
Japan is a democracy, and they have the death penalty. There are others as well (India springs to mind). I personally don't agree with the death penalty, but get your facts straight. Go to Wikipedia and search for "capital punishment".
There is a way he could avoid the DRM. He could just not sign a contract with a label that is inflexible on the issue. But this would require that he give up potential fame and fortune. But it's blatently false that there is "no possible way" to avoid this situation. Plenty of indy labels exist that wouldn't pull this kind of thing.
Read the article again. The way they could have known what to search for was that they could have taken the object's designation from the conference abstract that the Americans submitted.
No need for "ethics". The price drop will be governed by what the market will bear. If your competitors start trying to take your business by lowering their prices, then you will have to as well. The "problem" you are suggesting doesn't exist except in the minds of people who think they are continually being screwed or that haven't taken a basic economics course.
Supply and demand regulates things quite nicely if allowed to. Price controls prevent necessary corrections from taking place (eg: people should be conserving gas at the moment, but instead they are draining all the stations. This is because the stations are not allowed to raise prices to levels that will reduce demand to only what people truly require).
And also it's a problem because even if it worked, it gives the government power to block the whole TLD for everyone, against our will. They could try to block porn now, but this would make it a lot easier for them. It's not about protecting kids; it's about trying to enforce morality on adults.
We shouldn't tempt them by giving them even the potential ability to implement a large-scale content-filtering scheme on the Internet. Because you know that after porn they'll start block various other "categories" that influential special-interest groups want blocked.
These are passive sensors.
What the paper refers to is sites that publish information about network traffic they see. Some print tables with statistics and others generate graphs of network traffic levels. Their technique is basically a way to map where the passive listening points are based on the traffic reports these sites create. They strategically generate traffic which creates measurable spikes, and these show up in the reports. They use this information to determine where the listeners are.
However, if the very *existence* of a flaw is kept secret then there is little way I can take mitigating action in the time before a patch comes out. For example I could shutdown vulnerable services, use firewalls, or not use the software at all in the meantime if the risk to me is serious enough. Not revealing the flaw at all denies me that option during the months or whatever it takes a vendor to patch it. The patch is not the only possible solution.
Now perhaps people shouldn't be posting direct exploit code immediately, but if a vendor is refusing to fix a major flaw for a long time for PR reasons then it is reasonable to warn others.
Actually, that's incorrect. The large piece of foam that came off on this mission is NOT the piece from the external tank bipod strut. A piece did come off there, but it was a much smaller one than the large piece that was shown on the ET cam video.
The big piece came from the PAL ramp, not the bipod strut. They were considering redesigning that part as well, but they didn't before this mission. So in fact their fixes are not as seriously in question as you are suggesting, since they hadn't put so much energy into the part that was shed. While their redesign obviously wasn't perfect, it was much better than what you have just said.
Nice try though.
You're missing the point of what I said. The Republicans ("the right") are the ones typically known for social authoritarianism. But in this case it's someone from "the left" who is pushing the social authoritarianism. What I was trying to say is that we simply need to oppose this no matter who proposes it. It doesn't make someone "right wing" as a whole because they are doing this, and I don't think you can call Hillary right wing in any way. But it does make her an authoritarian.
BTW, freedom is freedom. Taxes take my freedom because they remove my freedom to choose how to spend that money - it's quite simple. If by "economic control" you mean high taxes, then you are taking away some people's freedom in order to achieve some other goal. Economic freedom is necessary for us to have freedom at all, and in fact is just as necessary as social freedom because otherwise I am economically unable to control my life.
The real problem is cronyism. The government grants special favors to specific corporations which allows them to continue abusive practices. They have been granted legal "person status" by the government as well. In essence, the large corporations are handed an unfair advantage against smaller competitors BY THE GOVERNMENT. So the real problem is not too much freedom, it's too little since the corporate abuses happen with government blessing.
Actually I think you're both incorrect. "Left" and "Right" are just meaningless terms used by Democrats and Republicans to get people who don't really think to vote for them. They in no way capture the subtle nuance of a person's position.
It's just us against the fascists...it doesn't matter if the fascism comes from the "left" or the "right". It's still authoritarianism that clamps down on our freedom. I really could care less if someone is "liberal" or "conservative" if voting for them results in a loss of freedom.
The sooner more people figure this out, the better our chance of being able to reverse the process before things turn truly bad.
I don't think it is a problem at all. The "interface" for writing drivers is very stable and has been for quite some time. What's not stable is a specific binary-compiled version of the kernel. And it's simply dumb for any driver writer to make a binary driver that depends on a specific binary version of the kernel. This robs the user of one of the entire points of having an open source kernel which is the ability to customize his build for his own needs.
Moreover, it's absolutely unneeded to have a driver depend on a specific version of the kernel, even if it is binary-only. Several drivers use binary modules which have a wrapper that gets compiled into your specific kernel. Only the wrapper is open source and recompiled for each specific binary packaging. But because it is source code it will (theoretically) be compatible with everyone's kernel build.
So, the stable universal API for drivers exists, and it IS source code. If some driver doesn't work on any version of the kernel besides Redhat's precompiled kernel then the driver writer is negligent and responsible for the failure, not the kernel authors. The kernel has had a stable API for loadable modules for a very long time (with a few changes along the way which were announced FAR in advance).
I'm using Firefox 1.0.4 on Linux, with mplayer 1.0_pre6. I'm not spoofing the user agent either, so if you're reporting your browser as IE maybe that's the problem.
I have no recent experience with Opera, so I can't be of help there. I wish these sites would just stop with the rats' nest of Javascript on every video site and just post a damn link to the video though. I can't imagine who that kind of site design benefits.