John Hurt is the Doctor before he took on the persona of 'The Doctor'
No, he "broke the promise" that comes with being the Doctor. My money is on him being the actual 9th incarnation of the Doctor, after which the (gestalt) Doctor chose not to count him.
Actually Hurt has only been introduced as "the Doctor", not the new Doctor. All the implications so far have been that he's a past incarnation, specifically (in the sense that it's only the spot possible) the 9th, but did something so terrible that the (gestalt) Doctor doesn't count him among his selves.
If the idea is to get good photos...then choose the phone with the best camera.
Or, y'know, just get the best camera. Even a mediocre camera would probably be better than any phone camera. It won't be long until one their iJournos is cursing the lack of optical zoom.
I would guess that one of them transformed into a giant pink unicorn and broke into a rendition of "Livin' La Vida Loca" leaving the cop no other alternative to shooting him. Fun game, who's next?
The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.
The cynic in me says you, like the rest of us, have next to no information about what actually occurred, and are using the event as an excuse to pontificate.
[no-one] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
which isn't the same thing at all, to my mind.
I'm not going to open the door, thereby enabling them to halt the dd command so that they can get the info to prosecute me! Let them break the door down, and in court, they can tell the judge that I was uncooperative
And this guy also has the option of not cooperating, even if he is ordered to do so. Doesn't mean he won't have to face proceedings relating to that non-cooperation, though, as you might in the situation above.
The judge is requiring the accused to provide evidence
He's requiring the accused to provide access to items - which have now been shown to belong to him, which wasn't established before - which may or may not contain evidence of criminality. Should the courts be allowed to require that someone open a safe inside their house during the execution of a search warrant? I'd assume so. This doesn't seem all that different.
That said I think TFS is falsely implying that the decision was reversed because they've found CP on the drive they've decrypted, but I think it's actually because they've now established that the drives do belong to the accused:
As we reported previously, forcing a defendant to decrypt a hard drive can amount to self-incrimination if the government can't otherwise show that the defendant has the password for the drive. In such a case, forced decryption amounts to a forced confession that the defendant owns the drive.
What kind of 2-bit "scientists" are these that think they can clone an animal that died 10,000 years ago?
I'm going to assume they're the kind with degrees and an understanding of what "half-life" means, as opposed to the armchair kind who like to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else by crapping from on high on any article proclaiming the promise of advancing human knowledge by Googling around for the first article that even remotely appears to undermine the latest claim.
Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper than the first article you found that supported your implied hypothesis. You didn't even have to look very far, since just one click from the article you linked to, you could have found the following:
DNA from a 110,000–130,000-year-old polar-bear fossil has been successfully sequenced.
Interestingly, there is no direct association between the age of a sample and the state of its DNA.
The eggs were between 400 and 19,000 years old, and the team collected good-quality DNA from all specimens
In fact, you could have just stuck to the article you linked to:
the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence [...] currently stands at about half a million years
Surely the whole point of that hypothesis is that it can't be disproven? You can declare it as unlikely as you want, but can you really prove it can't have happened?
I read around ten years ago about another scheme involving kites. The kites would be louvred (for want of a better word) and the wind would act on them to unwind their tethers which were attached to dynamos. Once a kite reached the end of its tether, the louvres would be opened and the kite could be wound back in - using energy, but less than was generated in the unwinding. Or that was the theory, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
John Hurt is the Doctor before he took on the persona of 'The Doctor'
No, he "broke the promise" that comes with being the Doctor. My money is on him being the actual 9th incarnation of the Doctor, after which the (gestalt) Doctor chose not to count him.
Nope. It was a throw-away line intended to be a glib answer from the Doctor (and he said he could renegerate 507 times, not infinitely many).
What's your excuse for being a massive dick about it?
Actually Hurt has only been introduced as "the Doctor", not the new Doctor. All the implications so far have been that he's a past incarnation, specifically (in the sense that it's only the spot possible) the 9th, but did something so terrible that the (gestalt) Doctor doesn't count him among his selves.
When you're getting rid of A and bringing in B, isn't it better to say you're swapping A for B, rather than B for A?
If the idea is to get good photos...then choose the phone with the best camera.
Or, y'know, just get the best camera. Even a mediocre camera would probably be better than any phone camera. It won't be long until one their iJournos is cursing the lack of optical zoom.
Well, if anyone's going to invent the teleporter, it could well be him.
So not only are you a racist and a white supremacist, but your also an idiot.
-1 Tautological.
I would guess that one of them transformed into a giant pink unicorn and broke into a rendition of "Livin' La Vida Loca" leaving the cop no other alternative to shooting him. Fun game, who's next?
The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.
The cynic in me says you, like the rest of us, have next to no information about what actually occurred, and are using the event as an excuse to pontificate.
I cannot be required to assist my adversaries.
Who says? The fifth amendment says:
[no-one] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
which isn't the same thing at all, to my mind.
I'm not going to open the door, thereby enabling them to halt the dd command so that they can get the info to prosecute me! Let them break the door down, and in court, they can tell the judge that I was uncooperative
And this guy also has the option of not cooperating, even if he is ordered to do so. Doesn't mean he won't have to face proceedings relating to that non-cooperation, though, as you might in the situation above.
I've just executed dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda
You forgot to sudo. Go directly to jail!
Free is even better.
IMO, no, the police can't force you to open the door for them.
But what do you base that opinion on? I wouldn't say it's obviously equal to testifying against oneself, for example.
If I remember rightly, a character does something similar in Greg Egan's Distress. I forget the details, but it doesn't end well for him.
The judge is requiring the accused to provide evidence
He's requiring the accused to provide access to items - which have now been shown to belong to him, which wasn't established before - which may or may not contain evidence of criminality. Should the courts be allowed to require that someone open a safe inside their house during the execution of a search warrant? I'd assume so. This doesn't seem all that different.
That said I think TFS is falsely implying that the decision was reversed because they've found CP on the drive they've decrypted, but I think it's actually because they've now established that the drives do belong to the accused:
As we reported previously, forcing a defendant to decrypt a hard drive can amount to self-incrimination if the government can't otherwise show that the defendant has the password for the drive. In such a case, forced decryption amounts to a forced confession that the defendant owns the drive.
Why do we care about random distro releases?
Because "we" don't all care about the same things as you.
What kind of 2-bit "scientists" are these that think they can clone an animal that died 10,000 years ago?
I'm going to assume they're the kind with degrees and an understanding of what "half-life" means, as opposed to the armchair kind who like to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else by crapping from on high on any article proclaiming the promise of advancing human knowledge by Googling around for the first article that even remotely appears to undermine the latest claim.
Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper than the first article you found that supported your implied hypothesis. You didn't even have to look very far, since just one click from the article you linked to, you could have found the following:
DNA from a 110,000–130,000-year-old polar-bear fossil has been successfully sequenced.
Interestingly, there is no direct association between the age of a sample and the state of its DNA.
The eggs were between 400 and 19,000 years old, and the team collected good-quality DNA from all specimens
In fact, you could have just stuck to the article you linked to:
the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence [...] currently stands at about half a million years
Making non-free software is unethical.
No it isn't. EOC.
This hypothesis is constantly disproven.
Surely the whole point of that hypothesis is that it can't be disproven? You can declare it as unlikely as you want, but can you really prove it can't have happened?
Shut uuuup. You're spoiling it.
The truth is in the eye of a Judge whom is best swayed by a well-crafted legal strategy.
Protip: if in doubt, go with who.
I think if this cheesy, childish and dubstep-overfilled series had become popular...
...then we'd know what the hell you were talking about.
Robots are getting down to the size of insects, so it seems only natural that they should be getting insect eyes.
Robots aren't natural, so no, it doesn't.
Oh, I get it, you think that towed gliders are kites.
Why do you think they're not?
Well, might as well call an unborn mammal tethered with the umbilical a kite too, then.
They don't get aloft so well.
I read around ten years ago about another scheme involving kites. The kites would be louvred (for want of a better word) and the wind would act on them to unwind their tethers which were attached to dynamos. Once a kite reached the end of its tether, the louvres would be opened and the kite could be wound back in - using energy, but less than was generated in the unwinding. Or that was the theory, anyway.
This seems a more elegant solution.