> Presumably Intel thinks it can do better than the open market.
And empirically they do in fact get better per-core, single-threaded performance. Performance per dollar and per watt, they often lose. Their priority is single threaded performance, and their approach does achieve that goal.
Okay, I'll play along. Each year Intel spends $10 billion on fab upgrades and $13 billion on R&D. So the cost was about $50 billion to get ready to make this generation of CPUs. Based on the $50 billion up-front cost, what do you think the retail price should be?
Everybody is forgetting the $50 billion Intel had to spend before they could even start making these CPUs. Intel might lose money at even the "old" (non-Microcenter) price.
It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.
Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept. Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets. You materials cost is $1/widget. Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each. After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00. Your currently $60,000 in the hole. Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each. Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets? Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.
That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.
It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.
Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept. Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets. You materials cost is $1/widget. Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each. After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00. Your currently $60,000 in the hole. Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each. Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets? Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.
That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.
I see what you mean, and I don't see any reason to *not* include similar language. Accounting for contributions, even small patches, from non-government sources will probably require some small change to the wording, but that's no big deal. Anyway you'd state that the code as published there is published by or on behalf of the original authors, who disclaim any rights under copyright law.
I could *claim* copyright to the Mac OS or Microsoft Windows, or to your post. I could sue you right now for using Windows or Mac or whatever you're using - I'd just lose since I didn't write either of those operating systems.
Anyone can claim anything they want, and there is no way to stop people from making stupid claims. The thing is, they'd need to *prove* their claims or at very least convince people the claim has some likelihood of being proven.
Can you give me an example of some wording you think should be added, which will somehow prevent frivolous claims?
* I started to use Apache and Linux as my examples, saying "I could -claim- copyright to Apache or to Linux, but since I didn't write them..." Then I realized I actually -do- have copyrights, because I have contributed code. Many years ago I asserted my Apache copyright against a major web hosting company, demanding that they provide the source package for the exact version they were distributing on servers. This was for the dev headers, so people could compile Apache modules on and for the servers.
Some countries and international copyright treaties have no concept of "public domain". Other countries use those words to mean something else. The Morris Public License allows users to do anything they want with the code. Morris PL would therefore be suitable:
Morris Public License Version 1.0
1) Authorization to copy, modify, and distribute
Any person, may copy, modify, distribute, or otherwise use the work in any form, without copyright restriction of any kind. All copy rights are hereby disclaimed.
2) Disclamer of warranties THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
It could be released under the WTFPL and there are two big reasons to do so that I can think of. Before going into the reasons, here is the text of the WTFPL:
---- DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing this license is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. -----
Off the top of my head, there are two or three big reasons to do that:
1) Some countries, and international treaties, have no concept of "public domain". So public domain is not sufficient for projects that may involve people, including users, outside of the US.
2) Even in the US, copyright "all rights resrved" is the default - if you find some code floating around, with no license or similar statement, you can't legally copy it. So you need at least a statement disclaiming copyright attached to the code.
3) Related to number 2, companies and organized projects are set up to keep track of the license for code they might use, in order to a) avoid violating the license and b) be able to prove to an auditor or whomever that they do have the right to distribute the code.
The WTFPL, which is essentially a disclaimer of copyright, but written in the form of a one-sentence license, addresses all of those issues. It allows you to have a license, as expected by international law and organization policy, without putting any restrictions on the code whatsoever.
> I wouldn't want to get smacked by the props on one, and a phantom is no joke.
Two weeks ago I did something kinda stupid. I stuck my hand in the prop of a Phantom-sized one as it was flying. This was one that has parts interchangeable with a Phantom, a clone or knock off. Anyway while it was hovering a sudden wind gust sent it toward my two year old daughter. Parental instinct kicked in and I snatched it out the air. Acting immediately, instinctively, I didn't think to grab it from the bottom, I just reached out and grabbed the arm of the drone, putting my fingers right through the spinning prop.
Fortunately, the manufacturers of these sub-$2000 drones have thought to use soft plastic for the props. The finger that took the force of the prop hurt for several minutes. There was a very small but very dark "bruise" where the edge of the prop hit my finger, a little pocket of blood under the skin. It takes two weeks for a bruise like that to come to the surface and disappear. I'd rate it similar to closing an interior door on your hand. It hurt significantly less than hitting your thumb with a hammer, maybe similar to a mousetrap.
So yeah, I try to fly safe, and I very much would not want one those props to hit my daughter. On the other hand, from experience I'd rather grab a spinning prop than hit my thumb with a hammer.
I may practice grabbing one with an underhand motion, though, coming up from the bottom and grabbing a leg. A lot of people routinely catch them that way.
Part of what I do for a living, and have done for many years, is evaluate these kinds of vulnerabilities. This could have been really, really bad, a major story. Certainly it would be a big deal if all of the following were true:
If the issue existed for a long time. If the bad guys knew about it before it was fixed. If it affected sites that had something vaguely resembling valid html. If it could have leaked tls/ssl keys.
In the security field, we have a mostly objective scoring system called CVSS which gives a numeric score to how bad the risk is. This scores high enough that it needed to be fixed right away - and it was fixed right away, probably before any bad guys knew about it.
Given the details of the issue, and how it was handled by first Google and then Cloudflare, I don't think it's the biggest story of the year. Cloudflare fixed it within hours and got cached copies of affected pages removed from search engine caches. All evidence indicates this was done before any bad guys were aware of the issue. I'm not too concerned. That's my professional opinion. My opinion would be different if it were left unfixed for six years after it was publicly known, then half fixed for six more years (looking at you, Microsoft).
Yes, those are the bigger drones sold in big box stores. You mentioned Parrot as an example - I'm guessing you had the Parrot AR 2.0 in mind (Parrot also makes much smaller ones). That's still under a pound, of plastic. Not 15 pounds of steel or anything that would even damage a shingle, much less "crash through a roof".
I'm not necessarily in favor of drones being sold in big box retailers either. These things can potentially do a lot of damage (imagine a 15 lb drone crashing through a roof
That's hilarious. The larger size quadcopters sold by big box retailers are closer 15 OUNCES, not 15 POUNDS. The biggest I found was 38 ounces (1000 grams). When I mess up with my quad, it *can* damage some leaves. A hobby drone crash through a roof? I doubt it would crash through a piece of paper. I may test that to see.
If you actually got certified, that's scary because others have pointed out you're clueless about even the most basic laws, and it's apparent you've never so much as picked up a drone at the store. It's ounces of plastic bro, chill out.
I'm going to mention one clear example of what I'm talking about. This isn't at all limited to one party, I'm just going to use Hillary's name as an example:
Many of us have probably seen video clips where someone goes to a political rally or whatever and asks people who are holding signs with a politician's name, or wearing a "Hillary" shirt, a question something like this:
"Hillary is very experienced, she's been involved in politics for 30 years; what's something she's done that you like?"
Of course the answer, from someone holding a "Hillary for President" sign, is something like this:
Person holding sign: 30 years? Interviewer: Yes. What do you like that she's done? Person holding sign: Oh uhm... She supports women! Interviewer: Yeah, okay. What's something she's done to support women? Person holding sign: Um Interviewer: Like when she supported Paula Jones, that was good, right? Person holding sign: Yeah, she supported Paul and Joan.
That's typical, it seems. Not just Clinton supporters, but Trump supporters too, a majority of the country can't even name the vice president.
I don't necessarily disagree. Certainly it would still be questionable, which was the point - a scenario where it's not 100% crystal clear.
> the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps
That's a reasonable argument. It could also be argued that getting the supervisor's assistance *is* a further step. Of course in this case it seems at least one cop was acting out of anger.
As you noted, even in this case, in which he wasn't hiding, it was slightly unclear which amendment(s) apply. Therefore if the situation were a bit different, with him hiding in the bushes etc, I think it would be possible for a well-meaning cop to mess up.
How exactly does paying Al Gore and his partner hundreds of millions of dollars help anyone other than Al Gore and his partner?
Let me answer that for you. When you let the famous face of the global warming movement run a huge scam, using global warming fears to make a law putting hundreds of millions of dollars in his pocket, it makes it look like the whole global warming thing is a scam. When you defend Gore's carbon credit scam / kickback arrangement, it shows that you are completely untrustworthy and people should disregard what you say.
What would have been good for the planet would have been for environmentalists to call Gore out on his scam immediately, showing that they value truth and honesty. Had liberals put Gore in prison, they would have some credibility when they talk about the dangers of global warming / climate change / the coming human-triggered ice age. Supporting and defending a scam like Gore's carbon credit exchange (he passed a law requiring companies to buy carbin credits from the exchange - which he owned) just makes you look like a scammer.
I joked that politicians can do anything they want as long as they complain about big business while they do it.
The more serious explanation, I think, is that most Americans just pick a party or politician as their "team", then move on to other things. Most don't spend a lot of time, or have the inclination, to carefully watch what "their" politicians do after they are elected. Their attention span is just long enough to root for their favorite team/player, not enough to actually see what the politician is doing. So whoever originally decided they like Hillary, or Trump, or Gore, is unlikely to later hold them accountable for their actions. Once a majority of Americans "like" you, once they are rooting for you, you can do whatever you want with little consequences.
> How do your politicians, both left and right, so filthy rich?
In Gore's case, he wasn't filthy rich when he started. As a Senator, he sponsored a law forcing companies to buy something called "carbon credits" (pieces of paper) from another company called an "exchange". Guess who owned the exchange? Before that, he had hundreds of thousands of dollars, his carbon exchange made hundreds of millions by legally forcing people to buy his product.
You might ask how he got away with that. The key is, the whole time he whined about "big business" and polar bears. As long as a politician whines about big bad business people, they're allowed to do whatever they want.
> citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised.
That would give the government much, much more power the Constitution currently grants. A few examples:
The government was granted the power to tax. - But may not violate citizens right to equal treatment, they can't tax hispanic people four times as high as asian people.
The government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. - But may not violate your first amendment rights by prohibiting the sale of conservative magazines across state lines.
The government was granted the power to build roads. - But may not violate your property rights by building a road through your house, unless they buy it from you at fair value.
The government was granted the power to have courts. - But may not force you to testify against yourself.
I don't think you really want to do away with the fifth amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights), to say that just because the government has the power to operate courts, you know longer have the right against self-incrimination. I don't think you really believe that the power to regulate interstate commerce isn't limited by the right of free speech.
I think that rather than just saying "oops, I misunderstood", you're grasping to find some other explanation for your words, but you haven't thought through what that would mean.
--
Moving to a completely different topic now. Suppose you went to a drive-through for breakfast, and you were the first customer when they first opened. They cook put your egg sandwich on the grill and cook it for the designated amount of time. Later, you get sick because the cook didn't realize the grill hadn't yet heated fully, it was only 290 degrees instead of 350. Would you agree the restaurant is liable for making you sick? (This isn't a trick question - a simple yes or no wpuld be fine.)
Suppose on another day, the cook sees it's you ordering, and he doesn't like you. He blows his nose on your sandwich and you get sick. Should the cook also be liable for his actions, as well as the restaurant?
Note that in the first instance, the cook made a mistake, an understandable mistake. In the second instance, it wasn't a mistake - everybody knows that blowing your nose somebody's sandwich is not okay.
Is there a perhaps difference, in terms of the blame put on the cook personally, if he does something that he and everyone else clearly know is wrong?
> Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied.
Let me quote myself for you, "he wasn't hiding in the bushes." Did you misread "wasn't" and think I said "was"?
Did you miss "here are two hypothetical examples"?
> Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight
It's interesting that after that long angry rant, at the end you ask me what I think about it. Perhaps you realized that in no point in the post you angrily replied to did I state my opinion on the matter. I explained the law and the judges' differing opinions. I just read the ruling, I didn't write it.
Since you seem quite upset about the reasoning I explained, let's be clear about what that was first (the dissenting judge's reasoning, not mine):
The dissenting judge thinks that given the recent incidents of cops being shot at by snipers in the area, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to go talk to the guy. The dissenting judge (not me, I wasn't involved in this particular case) also thinks that after the guy asked to speak to a supervisor, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to handcuff him for five minutes while waiting for the supervisor to come over.
We don't know exactly how long he was handcuffed - long enough for the sargeant to come from across the street.
Here's what I think. I think they shouldn't have handcuffed the guy (and nobody says they should have). I think the cop probably knew better, and his "this is what happens" comment is evidence that he was acting out of anger. So I disagree with the judge who said the cop might have thought it was okay. On the other hand, I don't think it's ridiculous for the judge to *think* that a cop might *think* it was okay. That last sentence is double meta, so it may be unclear. I wonder if I can diagram it:
I think this:
- the judge thinks
- that the cop *might have*
- mistakenly *thought* it was okay
Is wrong, but not ridiculous. There are three levels of mushiness there - the judge *thinks* (wrongly) that it is *possible*, not proven but possible, that a cop might *think* that was okay. No, it's not possible, but the judge isn't stupid for thinking that it's possible for a cop to be stupid.
Actually the rule is similar for civilian employees. If, in the course of your job duties, you do something wrong and someone sues, it's generally your employer who is liable. The legal term is "respondeat superior", latin for "let the boss respond".
This is because it's the company who benefits from the work, and therefore should take the risks of work being done imperfectly. The present case applies this same principle to policing - the police department is liable for the actions of their employees.
If, while working at McDonald's, you intentionally stab someone, you'd personally be responsible because you clearly knew that was wrong. The law on that is "clearly established". Same for the cops.
Rights can be violated and rights can be infringed.
Suppose the last year the government put you in prison for saying "Obama sucks". This year, you're still in prison. Are your rights being violated this year?
I would say yes, as long as you're still in prison, your rights are still being violated. Agreed?
I would also say it's impossible to violate a non-existent right someone doesn't have. Agreed?
If your rights are being violated today, you must have rights today, rights that are being violated. If you have rights that are being violated, your rights weren't taken away; they were violated, not removed.
This may sound pedantic, but it's important. There are reasons the Constitution and the Declaration say that the government may not *infringe* your human rights, which you were born with. They don't say that the government should grant you rights, or shouldn't take them away. They say you're born with certain human rights, you die with those rights, and all the government can do is either infringe your rights or protect your rights.
This is important when the government purports to curtail or remove your human rights. If it was possible for the government to create or remove rights, we might disagree about which rights should be taken from whom. We might dislike having certain rights removed, get annoyed for a bit about having our rights taken away, then get over it - the government can take our rights if they choose too, so we'd just have to get over it. The founders took a different view - our human rights are a part of being human, they are permanent, and no government can ever remove them, only protect or violate them.
Possibly more importantly, any definition of "rights" which allows government to grant them turns rights into "privileges". It removes the essential nature of rights, as opposed to "privileges" or "license". Government-granted or removed rights are no right at all, merely a statement of "we'll let you do that, because we don't mind you doing that - for now. We'll let you know when it bugs us and you have to stop". That's not a right. A right is something I can do *even if* it annoys politicians.
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising.
That's what she said. Where "she" is the judge you're pissed off about. Basically this is what has happened:
Judge: 2 + 1 = 3 ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot!
The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights. Maybe they didn't train the officers well enough or whatever, but anyway the city of Fort Worth is going to have to pay the guy. All the judges agree with you. They all agree the government is in the wrong (or may be, that wasn't in question at this hearing).
Where one judge disagrees with the others is on the topic of this ruling - what should be done about the individual cops involved. In many instances, two different courts make opposite rulings on some question*. The fifth district court says "these cops can do X in these circumstances", the sixth district says "cops can't do X in these similar circumstances". Then some cop does X in some other, similar circumstances. Judges don't even agree if what the cop did is okay or not. Should the *cop*, personally, be sued, or is the government who employs and trains the cop liable? That was the question in this case. The dissent said basically "cops aren't required to be smarter than judges. If it's unclear, sue the police department, not the individual cop."
"Clearly established" doesn't have anything to do with the *government*. "Clearly established" is the standard eaxh individual cop is *personally* held to - they don't have to understand the law better than judges do.
* The one other person here who actually read the ruling will note that in order to more clearly explain the -general idea- to ooloorie, I've intentionally given up precision. I realize that, but I'm trying to get ooloorie to understand what the purpose of the hearing was and why "clearly established" matters.
Slashdot Mirror
> Presumably Intel thinks it can do better than the open market.
And empirically they do in fact get better per-core, single-threaded performance. Performance per dollar and per watt, they often lose. Their priority is single threaded performance, and their approach does achieve that goal.
Okay, I'll play along. Each year Intel spends $10 billion on fab upgrades and $13 billion on R&D. So the cost was about $50 billion to get ready to make this generation of CPUs. Based on the $50 billion up-front cost, what do you think the retail price should be?
Everybody is forgetting the $50 billion Intel had to spend before they could even start making these CPUs. Intel might lose money at even the "old" (non-Microcenter) price.
It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.
Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept.
Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets.
You materials cost is $1/widget.
Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each.
After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00.
Your currently $60,000 in the hole.
Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each.
Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets?
Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.
That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.
Not necessarily.
It costs several billion dollars to build or upgrade a fab. Intel spends about $10 billion each year on upgrading its equipment, and $12 bilion on R&D. In order to survive, they need to have a high gross profit on each unit sold, in order to recover the $50 billion or so they spent getting ready to build a new processor. In other words, they could make $200 per cpu, and still lose money overall.
Let's work through it with smaller numbers to demonstrate the concept.
Suppose you buy a machine for $100,000 in order to make widgets.
You materials cost is $1/widget.
Hoping to make your $100,000 back, you start selling widgets for $5 each.
After selling 10,000 widgets, you've received $50,000, and spent $110,00.
Your currently $60,000 in the hole.
Your neighbor starts selling widgets for $3 each.
Should you match the $3 price in order to keep selling widgets?
Yes, you want to sell more widgets, so you'll need to match the $3 price.
That doesn't mean you were "gouging", or even recovering your costs at $5. It means only that your MARGINAL cost to produce one MORE widget is less than $3. You may still lose money overall, because you haven't got your $100,000 capital expenditure back yet.
I said that it's not like accidentally hitting your hand with a hammer. A couple hours later, I accidentally hit my hand with a hammer.
I think I should point out that it's also not like making love to Sofia Vergara.
I can't wait to see what happens in a couple hours.
I see what you mean, and I don't see any reason to *not* include similar language. Accounting for contributions, even small patches, from non-government sources will probably require some small change to the wording, but that's no big deal. Anyway you'd state that the code as published there is published by or on behalf of the original authors, who disclaim any rights under copyright law.
I could *claim* copyright to the Mac OS or Microsoft Windows, or to your post. I could sue you right now for using Windows or Mac or whatever you're using - I'd just lose since I didn't write either of those operating systems.
Anyone can claim anything they want, and there is no way to stop people from making stupid claims. The thing is, they'd need to *prove* their claims or at very least convince people the claim has some likelihood of being proven.
Can you give me an example of some wording you think should be added, which will somehow prevent frivolous claims?
* I started to use Apache and Linux as my examples, saying "I could -claim- copyright to Apache or to Linux, but since I didn't write them ..." Then I realized I actually -do- have copyrights, because I have contributed code. Many years ago I asserted my Apache copyright against a major web hosting company, demanding that they provide the source package for the exact version they were distributing on servers. This was for the dev headers, so people could compile Apache modules on and for the servers.
Some countries and international copyright treaties have no concept of "public domain". Other countries use those words to mean something else. The Morris Public License allows users to do anything they want with the code. Morris PL would therefore be suitable:
Morris Public License Version 1.0
1) Authorization to copy, modify, and distribute
Any person, may copy, modify, distribute, or otherwise use the work in any form, without copyright restriction of any kind. All copy rights are hereby disclaimed.
2) Disclamer of warranties
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM âoeAS ISâ WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
It could be released under the WTFPL and there are two big reasons to do so that I can think of. Before going into the reasons, here is the text of the WTFPL:
----
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing this license is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
-----
Off the top of my head, there are two or three big reasons to do that:
1) Some countries, and international treaties, have no concept of "public domain". So public domain is not sufficient for projects that may involve people, including users, outside of the US.
2) Even in the US, copyright "all rights resrved" is the default - if you find some code floating around, with no license or similar statement, you can't legally copy it. So you need at least a statement disclaiming copyright attached to the code.
3) Related to number 2, companies and organized projects are set up to keep track of the license for code they might use, in order to a) avoid violating the license and b) be able to prove to an auditor or whomever that they do have the right to distribute the code.
The WTFPL, which is essentially a disclaimer of copyright, but written in the form of a one-sentence license, addresses all of those issues. It allows you to have a license, as expected by international law and organization policy, without putting any restrictions on the code whatsoever.
> Toys that deserve a modicum of respect.
Respect, yes, of course.
> I wouldn't want to get smacked by the props on one, and a phantom is no joke.
Two weeks ago I did something kinda stupid. I stuck my hand in the prop of a Phantom-sized one as it was flying. This was one that has parts interchangeable with a Phantom, a clone or knock off. Anyway while it was hovering a sudden wind gust sent it toward my two year old daughter. Parental instinct kicked in and I snatched it out the air. Acting immediately, instinctively, I didn't think to grab it from the bottom, I just reached out and grabbed the arm of the drone, putting my fingers right through the spinning prop.
Fortunately, the manufacturers of these sub-$2000 drones have thought to use soft plastic for the props. The finger that took the force of the prop hurt for several minutes. There was a very small but very dark "bruise" where the edge of the prop hit my finger, a little pocket of blood under the skin. It takes two weeks for a bruise like that to come to the surface and disappear. I'd rate it similar to closing an interior door on your hand. It hurt significantly less than hitting your thumb with a hammer, maybe similar to a mousetrap.
So yeah, I try to fly safe, and I very much would not want one those props to hit my daughter. On the other hand, from experience I'd rather grab a spinning prop than hit my thumb with a hammer.
I may practice grabbing one with an underhand motion, though, coming up from the bottom and grabbing a leg. A lot of people routinely catch them that way.
Part of what I do for a living, and have done for many years, is evaluate these kinds of vulnerabilities. This could have been really, really bad, a major story. Certainly it would be a big deal if all of the following were true:
If the issue existed for a long time.
If the bad guys knew about it before it was fixed.
If it affected sites that had something vaguely resembling valid html.
If it could have leaked tls/ssl keys.
In the security field, we have a mostly objective scoring system called CVSS which gives a numeric score to how bad the risk is. This scores high enough that it needed to be fixed right away - and it was fixed right away, probably before any bad guys knew about it.
Given the details of the issue, and how it was handled by first Google and then Cloudflare, I don't think it's the biggest story of the year. Cloudflare fixed it within hours and got cached copies of affected pages removed from search engine caches. All evidence indicates this was done before any bad guys were aware of the issue. I'm not too concerned. That's my professional opinion. My opinion would be different if it were left unfixed for six years after it was publicly known, then half fixed for six more years (looking at you, Microsoft).
That would be a very long list. I wouldn't be surprised if over half of major sites use Cloudflare, for some definition of "major sites".
Yes, those are the bigger drones sold in big box stores. You mentioned Parrot as an example - I'm guessing you had the Parrot AR 2.0 in mind (Parrot also makes much smaller ones). That's still under a pound, of plastic. Not 15 pounds of steel or anything that would even damage a shingle, much less "crash through a roof".
I'm not necessarily in favor of drones being sold in big box retailers either. These things can potentially do a lot of damage (imagine a 15 lb drone crashing through a roof
That's hilarious. The larger size quadcopters sold by big box retailers are closer 15 OUNCES, not 15 POUNDS. The biggest I found was 38 ounces (1000 grams). When I mess up with my quad, it *can* damage some leaves. A hobby drone crash through a roof? I doubt it would crash through a piece of paper. I may test that to see.
If you actually got certified, that's scary because others have pointed out you're clueless about even the most basic laws, and it's apparent you've never so much as picked up a drone at the store. It's ounces of plastic bro, chill out.
I'm going to mention one clear example of what I'm talking about. This isn't at all limited to one party, I'm just going to use Hillary's name as an example:
Many of us have probably seen video clips where someone goes to a political rally or whatever and asks people who are holding signs with a politician's name, or wearing a "Hillary" shirt, a question something like this:
"Hillary is very experienced, she's been involved in politics for 30 years; what's something she's done that you like?"
Of course the answer, from someone holding a "Hillary for President" sign, is something like this:
Person holding sign: 30 years? ... She supports women!
Interviewer: Yes. What do you like that she's done?
Person holding sign: Oh uhm
Interviewer: Yeah, okay. What's something she's done to support women?
Person holding sign: Um
Interviewer: Like when she supported Paula Jones, that was good, right?
Person holding sign: Yeah, she supported Paul and Joan.
That's typical, it seems. Not just Clinton supporters, but Trump supporters too, a majority of the country can't even name the vice president.
> Actually, I don't think that would be legal
I don't necessarily disagree. Certainly it would still be questionable, which was the point - a scenario where it's not 100% crystal clear.
> the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps
That's a reasonable argument. It could also be argued that getting the supervisor's assistance *is* a further step. Of course in this case it seems at least one cop was acting out of anger.
As you noted, even in this case, in which he wasn't hiding, it was slightly unclear which amendment(s) apply. Therefore if the situation were a bit different, with him hiding in the bushes etc, I think it would be possible for a well-meaning cop to mess up.
> But one way or another, we will pay for it.
How exactly does paying Al Gore and his partner hundreds of millions of dollars help anyone other than Al Gore and his partner?
Let me answer that for you. When you let the famous face of the global warming movement run a huge scam, using global warming fears to make a law putting hundreds of millions of dollars in his pocket, it makes it look like the whole global warming thing is a scam. When you defend Gore's carbon credit scam / kickback arrangement, it shows that you are completely untrustworthy and people should disregard what you say.
What would have been good for the planet would have been for environmentalists to call Gore out on his scam immediately, showing that they value truth and honesty. Had liberals put Gore in prison, they would have some credibility when they talk about the dangers of global warming / climate change / the coming human-triggered ice age. Supporting and defending a scam like Gore's carbon credit exchange (he passed a law requiring companies to buy carbin credits from the exchange - which he owned) just makes you look like a scammer.
I joked that politicians can do anything they want as long as they complain about big business while they do it.
The more serious explanation, I think, is that most Americans just pick a party or politician as their "team", then move on to other things. Most don't spend a lot of time, or have the inclination, to carefully watch what "their" politicians do after they are elected. Their attention span is just long enough to root for their favorite team/player, not enough to actually see what the politician is doing. So whoever originally decided they like Hillary, or Trump, or Gore, is unlikely to later hold them accountable for their actions. Once a majority of Americans "like" you, once they are rooting for you, you can do whatever you want with little consequences.
> How do your politicians, both left and right, so filthy rich?
In Gore's case, he wasn't filthy rich when he started. As a Senator, he sponsored a law forcing companies to buy something called "carbon credits" (pieces of paper) from another company called an "exchange". Guess who owned the exchange? Before that, he had hundreds of thousands of dollars, his carbon exchange made hundreds of millions by legally forcing people to buy his product.
You might ask how he got away with that. The key is, the whole time he whined about "big business" and polar bears. As long as a politician whines about big bad business people, they're allowed to do whatever they want.
> citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised.
That would give the government much, much more power the Constitution currently grants. A few examples:
The government was granted the power to tax.
- But may not violate citizens right to equal treatment, they can't tax hispanic people four times as high as asian people.
The government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce.
- But may not violate your first amendment rights by prohibiting the sale of conservative magazines across state lines.
The government was granted the power to build roads.
- But may not violate your property rights by building a road through your house, unless they buy it from you at fair value.
The government was granted the power to have courts.
- But may not force you to testify against yourself.
I don't think you really want to do away with the fifth amendment (and the rest of the bill of rights), to say that just because the government has the power to operate courts, you know longer have the right against self-incrimination. I don't think you really believe that the power to regulate interstate commerce isn't limited by the right of free speech.
I think that rather than just saying "oops, I misunderstood", you're grasping to find some other explanation for your words, but you haven't thought through what that would mean.
--
Moving to a completely different topic now.
Suppose you went to a drive-through for breakfast, and you were the first customer when they first opened. They cook put your egg sandwich on the grill and cook it for the designated amount of time. Later, you get sick because the cook didn't realize the grill hadn't yet heated fully, it was only 290 degrees instead of 350. Would you agree the restaurant is liable for making you sick? (This isn't a trick question - a simple yes or no wpuld be fine.)
Suppose on another day, the cook sees it's you ordering, and he doesn't like you. He blows his nose on your sandwich and you get sick. Should the cook also be liable for his actions, as well as the restaurant?
Note that in the first instance, the cook made a mistake, an understandable mistake. In the second instance, it wasn't a mistake - everybody knows that blowing your nose somebody's sandwich is not okay.
Is there a perhaps difference, in terms of the blame put on the cook personally, if he does something that he and everyone else clearly know is wrong?
Let me summarize what I just said, to perhaps make it more clear:
The judges had to decide if it was *possible* that the cops might have been stupid.
I don't think that's possible. I'm sure that the cops were mad, not stupid.
One judge thinks it's possible that the cops were stupid / poorly trained.
I'm not mad at the judge - it's not completely ridiculous to think that a cop might be stupid.
> Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied.
Let me quote myself for you, "he wasn't hiding in the bushes." Did you misread "wasn't" and think I said "was"?
Did you miss "here are two hypothetical examples"?
> Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight
It's interesting that after that long angry rant, at the end you ask me what I think about it. Perhaps you realized that in no point in the post you angrily replied to did I state my opinion on the matter. I explained the law and the judges' differing opinions. I just read the ruling, I didn't write it.
Since you seem quite upset about the reasoning I explained, let's be clear about what that was first (the dissenting judge's reasoning, not mine):
The dissenting judge thinks that given the recent incidents of cops being shot at by snipers in the area, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to go talk to the guy. The dissenting judge (not me, I wasn't involved in this particular case) also thinks that after the guy asked to speak to a supervisor, the cops might have *thought* it was okay to handcuff him for five minutes while waiting for the supervisor to come over.
We don't know exactly how long he was handcuffed - long enough for the sargeant to come from across the street.
Here's what I think. I think they shouldn't have handcuffed the guy (and nobody says they should have). I think the cop probably knew better, and his "this is what happens" comment is evidence that he was acting out of anger. So I disagree with the judge who said the cop might have thought it was okay. On the other hand, I don't think it's ridiculous for the judge to *think* that a cop might *think* it was okay. That last sentence is double meta, so it may be unclear. I wonder if I can diagram it:
I think this:
- the judge thinks
- that the cop *might have*
- mistakenly *thought* it was okay
Is wrong, but not ridiculous. There are three levels of mushiness there - the judge *thinks* (wrongly) that it is *possible*, not proven but possible, that a cop might *think* that was okay. No, it's not possible, but the judge isn't stupid for thinking that it's possible for a cop to be stupid.
Actually the rule is similar for civilian employees. If, in the course of your job duties, you do something wrong and someone sues, it's generally your employer who is liable. The legal term is "respondeat superior", latin for "let the boss respond".
This is because it's the company who benefits from the work, and therefore should take the risks of work being done imperfectly. The present case applies this same principle to policing - the police department is liable for the actions of their employees.
If, while working at McDonald's, you intentionally stab someone, you'd personally be responsible because you clearly knew that was wrong. The law on that is "clearly established". Same for the cops.
Rights can be violated and rights can be infringed.
Suppose the last year the government put you in prison for saying "Obama sucks". This year, you're still in prison. Are your rights being violated this year?
I would say yes, as long as you're still in prison, your rights are still being violated. Agreed?
I would also say it's impossible to violate a non-existent right someone doesn't have. Agreed?
If your rights are being violated today, you must have rights today, rights that are being violated. If you have rights that are being violated, your rights weren't taken away; they were violated, not removed.
This may sound pedantic, but it's important. There are reasons the Constitution and the Declaration say that the government may not *infringe* your human rights, which you were born with. They don't say that the government should grant you rights, or shouldn't take them away. They say you're born with certain human rights, you die with those rights, and all the government can do is either infringe your rights or protect your rights.
This is important when the government purports to curtail or remove your human rights. If it was possible for the government to create or remove rights, we might disagree about which rights should be taken from whom. We might dislike having certain rights removed, get annoyed for a bit about having our rights taken away, then get over it - the government can take our rights if they choose too, so we'd just have to get over it. The founders took a different view - our human rights are a part of being human, they are permanent, and no government can ever remove them, only protect or violate them.
Possibly more importantly, any definition of "rights" which allows government to grant them turns rights into "privileges". It removes the essential nature of rights, as opposed to "privileges" or "license". Government-granted or removed rights are no right at all, merely a statement of "we'll let you do that, because we don't mind you doing that - for now. We'll let you know when it bugs us and you have to stop". That's not a right. A right is something I can do *even if* it annoys politicians.
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising.
That's what she said. Where "she" is the judge you're pissed off about. Basically this is what has happened:
Judge: 2 + 1 = 3
ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot!
The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights. Maybe they didn't train the officers well enough or whatever, but anyway the city of Fort Worth is going to have to pay the guy. All the judges agree with you. They all agree the government is in the wrong (or may be, that wasn't in question at this hearing).
Where one judge disagrees with the others is on the topic of this ruling - what should be done about the individual cops involved. In many instances, two different courts make opposite rulings on some question*. The fifth district court says "these cops can do X in these circumstances", the sixth district says "cops can't do X in these similar circumstances". Then some cop does X in some other, similar circumstances. Judges don't even agree if what the cop did is okay or not. Should the *cop*, personally, be sued, or is the government who employs and trains the cop liable? That was the question in this case. The dissent said basically "cops aren't required to be smarter than judges. If it's unclear, sue the police department, not the individual cop."
"Clearly established" doesn't have anything to do with the *government*. "Clearly established" is the standard eaxh individual cop is *personally* held to - they don't have to understand the law better than judges do.
* The one other person here who actually read the ruling will note that in order to more clearly explain the -general idea- to ooloorie, I've intentionally given up precision. I realize that, but I'm trying to get ooloorie to understand what the purpose of the hearing was and why "clearly established" matters.