Many times. Foglights plus wet road = nice low angle reflection into oncoming driver eyes.
Around here the cops almost always stop drivers running on fogs because (as they put it) "illegal behaviour of one sort or another is seldom done in isolation"
More prosaically they find that most drivers who do it are either uninsured or unlicensed.
A appropriately pointed Sunpak flashgun works wonders too (other brands do exist)
Having said that there's a special circle of hell reserved for those who fail to keep to the right (or left in you're in a keep left country) when not overtaking. Just about every set of road rules in the world says not to linger in the overtaking lanes and just about every country in the world has munters on the freeways who believe that the edge lane is for trucks, or that they're free to use any lane with no regard to what's behind.
If you want to go slow, that's fine. If you prevent others passing safely then you're an asshole.
"The only company with more self-driving tech on the road than Audi is Mercedes."
You're confusing Audi with VW.
Everything in the recent crosscountry Audi was built and designed by Delphi (an automotive parts and electronics firm spun off of GM in the 1990s), not by Audi.
Delphi stand to make billions by having this stuff incorporated widely as they sell to _all_ vehicle makers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"That's the sort of thing that should be a capital offense if anything should."
Sorry, I disagree.
Capital offences are an easy way out for this kind of criminal behaviour under colour of authority. Life in a maximum security prison without possibility of parole (preventative detention) is a greater punishment and deterrent for the corrupt.
"Gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals, all over the place."
That's pretty much a fantasy story.
I'm in no way a defender of the USA's utterly bonkers gun culture, but criminals who want firearms in the UK can obtain them fairly easily despite some of the strictest gun control laws around. The same applies in Australia and New Zealand (which are well isolated so importation is able to be tightly controlled)
Gun laws for the most part keep accidental shootings, family massacres and suicide rates down and would be more effective if mental health assessments and compulsary safety training were part of the requirements.
"another industry with less responsibility to the public."
A lot of bad cops end up as armed security guards. Statistically in the USA that group poses one of the largest dangers to individual members of the public than any other cause.
Published figures in the 1990s were a factor of around 500 times more likely to rape or murder the people they are supposed to be protecting than unarmed guards, who in turn were signiificantly more likely to the culprits of violence than the people they were supposedly guarding clients against.
"We need positive evidence to convict a police officer of anything, and a turned-off camera is not positive evidence"
It's enough evidence for a civil case and more than enough to generate levels of civil liability for the employer to make it a "immediate firing offence"
"Ooh! Can I use potentially lethal force to torture you because you wont obey my every command too?"
Well you can, but if your cruiser's dashboard cam records you doing it there's every chance that your department will find itself making an extremely large payment to the man you arrested and you find yourself in jail.
"To summarize, in liberal left wing California, it is (was in the 90s) perfectly legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon"
Yes it was, also in NY. The laws were changed because of public outcry over police shooting various unarmed fleeing people and because some of the families of shooting victims won 7-8 figure awards in civil lawsuits.
What this and other videos show is that cops never really stopped doing it. They just made up stories to cover it up and discredit anyone who claimed differently.
Now that dashcams and personal cameras are ubiquitous, it's showing that there are enough criminal thugs wearing blue uniforms that universal suspicion is justified. If USA police want to be regarded without suspicion then corruption in their midst (and make no mistake, this IS corrupt behaviour, as is covering for it) needs to be rooted out and exterminated.
It's been clear for a while that many of the studios were simply suing based on the the file name.
In order to establish that a file actually contains what you think it does you need cryptographic checksums, etc and the only way to guarantee this is to seed the files yourself.
Lookup "Prenda Law" to see how well that tactic worked out.
"but then discovered that multiple people occupied the dwelling, and were unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt [see above] which of those individuals committed the alleged crime."
If it's a criminal matter this is the case.
Evidential burden is _much_ lower in civil cases.
The odds are pretty good that criminal law threats will be used to obtain data which will then be used in civil cases.
3 of the 4 mentioned will give anything a good review if you pay them and if you ever looked at the history of "TRUSTe", you're realise that _anything_ they endorse is best avoided.
"Trucks are pulled over all the time for violations in properly securing their loads, and that's despite the fact that the driver is currently held legally responsible for it. Heaven help us if it's a corporate drone three states removed who may or may not be traceable."
There are ways of writing laws to hold corporations and their officers legally responsible for such things.
In one company I worked for (not in the USA), the CEO sent out a letter stating at the top: "I have no wish to go to jail for activities performed by my staff. Therefore any illegal activity will be dealt with swiftly and severely." it went on to say that culprits would be terminated on the spot and appropriate regulators notified., etc etc.
Secondly: All new-design contemporary turbofan jet aircraft travel slightly SLOWER than their turbojet predecessors (0.85–0.855 for a 747-400 instead of 0.89-0.91 for turbojet designs such as the Convair 900 and Boeing 707 - the 747 has always been a turbofan engine aircraft). Going faster than this has severe fuel penalties as it causes major issue with the fixed-pitch fans (and the larger the fan the lower the top speed).
There's a push to make civil transports slightly slower still for fuel economy purposes (bigger fans == greater efficiency/thrust but lower optimal speed as noted above). Having said that, the journey times are slightly faster because higher thrust levels mean that newer aircraft (or re-engined versions of old designs such as the 747) spend less time accelerating to cruise speed and altitude. In addition the higher thrust levels mean that the aircraft can carry far more passengers than original designs at the same or lower overall fuel consumption (same latency, bigger pipes)
Believe it or not, the big thing currently keeping speeds high is wing sweep. The "traditional" sweep on a jet transport was "set in stone" in 707-727 days and is optimised for near-transonic speeds. It's inefficient at the actual high-subsonic 0.8-0.85 speeds travelled at today - with inefficiency increasing as speed goes down (and of course, swept wings have nasty low speed stall characteristics plus they're a major contributor to the height limitations of current transport aircraft for the same reason - stall characteristics in thin air/high speed - aka "coffin corner", exacerbated by speed limits imposed by the use of fans for thrust instead of pure turbojet)
Reegnineering the 747 or other classic designs for a lesser sweep is a no-go area. There's been a lot of resistance within the industry to "de-sweep" wings as it's felt that passengers will associate this with turboprops, but this is a concept which _will_ happen with increasing emphasis on fuel consumption.
Several industry magazines have postulated that the ideal cruisng speed for future civil transports is likely to be in the 0.78-0.80 range, although there's a possibility that higher altitudes will be involved too (going above ~45,000 feet brings ozone into the cabin. This needs mitigation) To get there _will_ require much straighter wings than we currently see. Whether passengers like it will probably not matter in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
"You've been dazzled by fog lights?"
Many times. Foglights plus wet road = nice low angle reflection into oncoming driver eyes.
Around here the cops almost always stop drivers running on fogs because (as they put it) "illegal behaviour of one sort or another is seldom done in isolation"
More prosaically they find that most drivers who do it are either uninsured or unlicensed.
"Those stupidly overbright headlamps that dazzle you could be replaced by ones that dim themselves when they see oncoming traffic."
Such things have existed since the 1950s. In production USA vehicles no less.
People wouldn't buy them.
"I use extra bright rear fogs"
A appropriately pointed Sunpak flashgun works wonders too (other brands do exist)
Having said that there's a special circle of hell reserved for those who fail to keep to the right (or left in you're in a keep left country) when not overtaking. Just about every set of road rules in the world says not to linger in the overtaking lanes and just about every country in the world has munters on the freeways who believe that the edge lane is for trucks, or that they're free to use any lane with no regard to what's behind.
If you want to go slow, that's fine. If you prevent others passing safely then you're an asshole.
Most of the world doesn't even _have_ a legal term for jaywalking. That's pretty much a USA-only oddity.
"The only company with more self-driving tech on the road than Audi is Mercedes."
You're confusing Audi with VW.
Everything in the recent crosscountry Audi was built and designed by Delphi (an automotive parts and electronics firm spun off of GM in the 1990s), not by Audi.
Delphi stand to make billions by having this stuff incorporated widely as they sell to _all_ vehicle makers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Back in the day, Tucker prototyped a car that had a headlight that aimed with the steering"
Rolls Royce (and others) had this in the 1920s. It was especially popular in India for use on mountain roads.
"That's the sort of thing that should be a capital offense if anything should."
Sorry, I disagree.
Capital offences are an easy way out for this kind of criminal behaviour under colour of authority. Life in a maximum security prison without possibility of parole (preventative detention) is a greater punishment and deterrent for the corrupt.
"Gun laws do keep guns out of the hands of criminals, all over the place."
That's pretty much a fantasy story.
I'm in no way a defender of the USA's utterly bonkers gun culture, but criminals who want firearms in the UK can obtain them fairly easily despite some of the strictest gun control laws around. The same applies in Australia and New Zealand (which are well isolated so importation is able to be tightly controlled)
Gun laws for the most part keep accidental shootings, family massacres and suicide rates down and would be more effective if mental health assessments and compulsary safety training were part of the requirements.
"another industry with less responsibility to the public."
A lot of bad cops end up as armed security guards. Statistically in the USA that group poses one of the largest dangers to individual members of the public than any other cause.
Published figures in the 1990s were a factor of around 500 times more likely to rape or murder the people they are supposed to be protecting than unarmed guards, who in turn were signiificantly more likely to the culprits of violence than the people they were supposedly guarding clients against.
"We need positive evidence to convict a police officer of anything, and a turned-off camera is not positive evidence"
It's enough evidence for a civil case and more than enough to generate levels of civil liability for the employer to make it a "immediate firing offence"
"This isn't police corruption, it's police brutality, which is a separate issue. "
No it's not. Brutality is merely one aspect of corrupt behaviour - and it tends to only occur once significant corruption is already entrenched.
"Ooh! Can I use potentially lethal force to torture you because you wont obey my every command too?"
Well you can, but if your cruiser's dashboard cam records you doing it there's every chance that your department will find itself making an extremely large payment to the man you arrested and you find yourself in jail.
Most such cases have been white cop white victim.
UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
US https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"To summarize, in liberal left wing California, it is (was in the 90s) perfectly legal to shoot a fleeing violent felon"
Yes it was, also in NY. The laws were changed because of public outcry over police shooting various unarmed fleeing people and because some of the families of shooting victims won 7-8 figure awards in civil lawsuits.
What this and other videos show is that cops never really stopped doing it. They just made up stories to cover it up and discredit anyone who claimed differently.
Now that dashcams and personal cameras are ubiquitous, it's showing that there are enough criminal thugs wearing blue uniforms that universal suspicion is justified. If USA police want to be regarded without suspicion then corruption in their midst (and make no mistake, this IS corrupt behaviour, as is covering for it) needs to be rooted out and exterminated.
"Despite at least one being a witness to evidence-tampering, as can be seen on video"
Had the other cop not been a cop, he'd be charged as an accessory after the fact for making a false statement.
One of the questions that should be asked is WHY he isn't being charged as an accessory.
> But it does kinda call into doubt all of this officer's prior cases, right? And how long has he been on the force?
Yup. It's going to force a review of his _entire_ career.
This is one of the reasons police departments cover such things up - hundreds of millions of dollars of ensuing liability.
> And how many of this type of officer exist?
Bad cops exist because "good cops" cover for them.
10.42.0.1 should be fine :)
Unless you're Neo.
It's been clear for a while that many of the studios were simply suing based on the the file name.
In order to establish that a file actually contains what you think it does you need cryptographic checksums, etc and the only way to guarantee this is to seed the files yourself.
Lookup "Prenda Law" to see how well that tactic worked out.
I'm sure the long-term endpoint will be
1: Not many using trackers (this is pretty much already the case thanks to DHT)
2: Obfuscation switched on, along with blocking other parties from seeing exactly what parts you are seeding.
3: Crossborder VPNs (As a non-australian I'd be more than happy to buy VPN endpoint access there, etc)
4: Tor-style protocols with data passing across a few intermediaries.
This is already happening but this kind of litigation simply speeds up the inevitable ubiquitousness of the solutions.
"but then discovered that multiple people occupied the dwelling, and were unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt [see above] which of those individuals committed the alleged crime."
If it's a criminal matter this is the case.
Evidential burden is _much_ lower in civil cases.
The odds are pretty good that criminal law threats will be used to obtain data which will then be used in civil cases.
Signing to a label is a gamble. Artists know that.
It's a gamble with particularly long odds and many/most artists just simply block that part out.
All but the megastars end their careers in debt to the labels, often despite selling well over their careers.
Or, alternatively the SWATing distracts resources from something going on elsewhere.
3 of the 4 mentioned will give anything a good review if you pay them and if you ever looked at the history of "TRUSTe", you're realise that _anything_ they endorse is best avoided.
"In the short-term, it may be cheaper just to keep the drivers on for the entire trip"
Indeed, but they may not be actually driving until they're in areas where it's _needed_
This is going to make a big difference to uptime hours and I can see "drivers" being abused by unscrupulous employers.
"Trucks are pulled over all the time for violations in properly securing their loads, and that's despite the fact that the driver is currently held legally responsible for it. Heaven help us if it's a corporate drone three states removed who may or may not be traceable."
There are ways of writing laws to hold corporations and their officers legally responsible for such things.
In one company I worked for (not in the USA), the CEO sent out a letter stating at the top: "I have no wish to go to jail for activities performed by my staff. Therefore any illegal activity will be dealt with swiftly and severely." it went on to say that culprits would be terminated on the spot and appropriate regulators notified., etc etc.
Firstly: Try catching a concorde flight today.
Secondly: All new-design contemporary turbofan jet aircraft travel slightly SLOWER than their turbojet predecessors (0.85–0.855 for a 747-400 instead of 0.89-0.91 for turbojet designs such as the Convair 900 and Boeing 707 - the 747 has always been a turbofan engine aircraft). Going faster than this has severe fuel penalties as it causes major issue with the fixed-pitch fans (and the larger the fan the lower the top speed).
There's a push to make civil transports slightly slower still for fuel economy purposes (bigger fans == greater efficiency/thrust but lower optimal speed as noted above). Having said that, the journey times are slightly faster because higher thrust levels mean that newer aircraft (or re-engined versions of old designs such as the 747) spend less time accelerating to cruise speed and altitude. In addition the higher thrust levels mean that the aircraft can carry far more passengers than original designs at the same or lower overall fuel consumption (same latency, bigger pipes)
Believe it or not, the big thing currently keeping speeds high is wing sweep. The "traditional" sweep on a jet transport was "set in stone" in 707-727 days and is optimised for near-transonic speeds. It's inefficient at the actual high-subsonic 0.8-0.85 speeds travelled at today - with inefficiency increasing as speed goes down (and of course, swept wings have nasty low speed stall characteristics plus they're a major contributor to the height limitations of current transport aircraft for the same reason - stall characteristics in thin air/high speed - aka "coffin corner", exacerbated by speed limits imposed by the use of fans for thrust instead of pure turbojet)
Reegnineering the 747 or other classic designs for a lesser sweep is a no-go area. There's been a lot of resistance within the industry to "de-sweep" wings as it's felt that passengers will associate this with turboprops, but this is a concept which _will_ happen with increasing emphasis on fuel consumption.
Several industry magazines have postulated that the ideal cruisng speed for future civil transports is likely to be in the 0.78-0.80 range, although there's a possibility that higher altitudes will be involved too (going above ~45,000 feet brings ozone into the cabin. This needs mitigation) To get there _will_ require much straighter wings than we currently see. Whether passengers like it will probably not matter in the end.