"The heat of passion" is a vaguely similar concept related to CRIMINAL culpability, most often mentioned as a difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd.
Civil law (suing somebody) is concerned with CAUSATION. Did the defendant do something which partially caused the harm? Comparative negligence specifically is the idea that separate actions by two or more people are often involved, so one may be 75% liable and the other 25%.
The general causation test is the "but for" test. Plaintiff asserts that the harm wouldn't have happened but for the defendant's action or inaction. In other words, is this statement true: If Snapchat didn't advertise the speed , the collision would not have occurred.
If the above is true, they helped cause the accident and share liability unless they have some specific defense. The fact that they knowingly market the app to the 16-22 year old market could suggest they would be negligent (not careful) about promoting unsafe driving, given that they know their users in in age group prone to unsafe driving.
Nothing above represents my opinion of how the case should be decided. I don't know all of the relevant facts of the case. The above comments are about what the relevant law is, not what I think it -should- be.
> I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
There's a well-established legal principle that the recipient of a slap can indeed incite the slap. For example, if I were to call your wife a nasty hoe, a fucking cunt, and you immediately punched me in the nose, most jurisdictions would recognize that I would indeed have some responsibility for what happened.
Whether or not you or I LIKE that principle is a different matter, but in fact calling your wife a disease-ridden whore would actually make a punch in the nose likely, and the law does recognise that.
What that says to me is that the manufacturer knew about the problem and shipped it anyway. The usual and customary practice with Windows systems, especially older versions, is to install anti-virus. On critical systems, anti-virus would be considered best practice and not installing AV could be considered reckless. The manufacturer knew that protecting the machine in the ordinary manner would endanger patients and they did nothing to either alleviate the danger (don't CRASH just because an AV scan is running) or prevent it (don't provide administrator access to the OS on a surgical device).
> (I bet Trump would hire a dude off the street with no experience but yuuuge hair for CEO in a second)
Trump says some really stupid things. On the other hand, he hires really good people, people like Steve Wynn. I could easily list ten things about Trump that worry me, but "hires idiots" certainly wouldn't be on that list.
I HOPE that he says the things he does for the same reason that Hillary does - because those comments poll well with the voters he's targeting. The guy does know something about marketing. I hope he's smarter than his more outrageous comments make him appear.
> It looks like most plants use a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate.
Which are the same oxidizers used in making fireworks. Nitrates + carbon = black powder. Nitrates + metal = flash powder (a few mg of which provide the bang in a firecracker) .
Large quantities of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate heated to very high temperatures will undoubtedly provide some pretty impressive explosions from time to time.
The energy striking the surface per square meter of full sun is in fact about 100 greater than the energy striking the surface on of overcast day. That's a fact. Look it up anywhere you like.
If instead of capturing 100 times as much, your system only captures four times as much, that can only mean that your system is failing to capture 96% of the available energy on sunny days. That of course assumes you aren't mistaken.
It wouldn't be terrible unusual for a home solar-electric system to be extremely inefficient, as they are designed as much around taxpayer subsidies and marketing as they are technical effectiveness.
> Well there is still solar collection when it is cloudy. There is very few times where it rains so hard that it is like night outside.
Unfortunately your eyes are tricking you. Your eyes perceive brightness exponentially. It looks like a cloudy day is maybe half as bright as a sunny day, and your house maybe half as bright as that. In fact, a sunny day is around 100,000 lux, a cloudy day around 1,000. Inside your home is probably around 50 lux.
So the cloudy day has only 1% of the energy as a sunny day.
> This limit should also extend to your phone. If they are searching your phone for communications to confirm that you spoke with someone, then the warrant should be restricted to the call logs on the phone
And perhaps a search of communications (again based on good probable cause, with a proper warrant) would also include text messages, Snapchat, Facebook, etc I suppose? It's interesting because unlike a TV, which can't fit in a drawer (though the remote can), communications can fit in many applications.
In at least one well-known case, it was held that a subpoena for the contents of a phone (protected by a password) to be used or provided depends on one factual question. The same question that applies to documents locked in an old-fashioned safe that has a combination.
If there is a question about whether or not the phone belongs to the defendant, providing the password would be admitting ownership. That would be testimony, which is protected by the 5th.
On the other hand, if the defendant admits it's his phone (or safe) , they have no 5th amendment right to interfere with a lawful subpoena just because unlocking the documents requires a combination that they know in their head, rather than one they wrote down.
> the warrant specifies what they are looking for.
There's no law which prevents them from seeing things they aren't looking for. Yeah, your phone may contain nudie pics. Your house may also contain nudie pics. That doesn't mean police can't get a warrant to search a house, or that such a warrant would be improper, given probable cause.
Any of the items you mentioned which may be on a phone may also be in a house or a car. With a warrant, properly obtained, authorities can rightfully search a house, car, or phone.
The summary is also misleading in saying that "Amazon CEO made...". He was paid $80,000 for being CEO.
Separately, he was also the principal investor in the company at its founding, the owner of company. The OWNERS/investors made made money (on paper) when the stock went up. That has nothing to do with whether he's the CEO, or even works there.
To make that more clear, I founded a company about 20 years ago. About four years ago, I got burned out on being CEO, so I quit working for that company and got another job. I don't get paid by that company since I don't work there. However, I still OWN the company, all of the stock, so profits end up with me. My gains as the sole investor have nothing to do with whether I work there, which I don't. Bezos is similar- he's done well on his investment in Amazon. Coincidentally, he also happens to work there, but that's separate.
If I accidentally bump your car in a parking lot and cause a dent, I have to pay for it to be repaired, and for your rental car while it's in the shop. I "make up for" the damage I caused.
If I get mad and go out to the parking lot with a baseball bat, and put dents in your car because I'm TRYING to cause damage, I would reasonably by liable for punitive damages - money paid as punishment.
In-between those extremes, I might be reckless, not caring whether I hit your car, or negligent, meaning I wasn't as careful as I should have been.
It's reasonable to distinguish between the cases, and many legal systems do. I can't say for certain about German copyright law in particular, but I would expect they probably have rules similar to most western countries.
Did the hotel have the images marked as "licensed for use", and some employee didn't know exactly what the license said? Were they unlabeled and the employee assumed it was okay? Did they know it was a violation of the license and send an email saying "fuck the photographer "?
> redefining an assault weapon to be a semiautomatic rifle
Only the scary-looking black ones.:)
His second amendment policies were all kinds of stupid, but didn't really do that much harm. Precisely the same weapon, with exactly the same capabilities is legal with different aesthetics.
Of the last 25 years, arguably the best president was Bill Clinton. Why, what did he do? Not much, he pretty much stayed busy getting laid and dealing with the consequences of getting laid. He didn't have a lot of time to screw things up.
Jacking around voting a "national mammal " may be the best thing for our politicians to do.
If you're shared medium, your office backbone, is a dial up connection then yes, small messages are inefficient.
In the US, dozens of packets from a user using this protocol are nothing compared to the billions of packets used by an HD video stream.
The other way around is much bigger problem. High bandwidth connections with lots of traffic means a lot of big queues. Queues murder latency and jitter. Telcos can and do use a lot of processing to try to speed the few latency-sensitive packets through the sea of data, but that's not free. Wireless carriers have to be good at doing so because 150ms or 250ms of latency is quite noticeable on a voice call.
I haven't used Windows much recently, but my memory of Windows was a lot of really silly reboots . You upgraded your web browser, you must reboot. Wtf? On one of my Linux machines, a CPU was replaced without rebooting.
Another segment of Macbook users have Mac because it's a well-supported Unix, on consistently decent hardware. Assuming I can install Linux or another OS of my choice on this Chromebook as easily as I have on others, I may be interested.
> You're either a liar or an idiot. It seems you're the idiot who can't read more than one sentence, and you're a jerk too.
Try sounding out these words, we'll wait:
> > During a demo, I needed to reboot. Windows decided this would be the perfect time...
In case you're not aware, Windows installs updates when you shutdown or reboot. This can be rather annoying when you're in a hurry to leave. You work until time to leave the office, then click shut down on your laptop to leave. At which point Windows pops up with "Installing Updates. Do not unplug or shut down the computer. Time remaining: 12 minutes. "
> The very term "encyclopedia" means a comprehensive store of information. The default stance to take should be there is a compelling reason to include pretty much everything and everyone.
No, the word encyclopedia is greek for "general education ", much like high school provides a general education. It does not mean "a gargantuan database of every sentence ever uttered, whether useful or not".
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, includes objective, verifiable facts about noteworthy topics. Let's call that approach A.
You CAN of course have a site with the approach you suggest- any and all random facts about all random people. If someone wants to post what you ate for breakfast, they can. Let's call that approach B.
A site which implements B is Facebook. The web as a whole is approach B. These are useful, but do not serve the same purpose that Wikipedia serves with approach A. Wikipedia has a different kind of value as it is, as it has developed under approach A.
Wikipedia isn't the entire internet, and it isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be a summary of the most important verifiable information about important topics.
As far as "wasting time", it seems to me, without any inside knowledge, that it should be simple enough to have an emoji committee, which does most of the emoji work separate from anyone who doesn't care to be involved in that aspect.
> If YouTube wants money they can get it from the ISPs.
So under your proposal, YouTube would charge ISPs for access to their site. As would Slashdot and all of the other free (advertising-supported) sites, I suppose. If your ISP doesn't pay up, you can;t access YouTube, correct?
So you only get access to those sites that your ISP pays for. Obviously your ISP isn't going to jack around making contracts for $10/year to access HowToFixAppliances.com, or any of the other 99.99% of web sites that aren't in the top 500 most popular. So you get access to whichever portion of the Alexa top 500 that your ISP negotiates a satisfactory deal with, and nothing else.
I don't care for that plan. What I prefer is that I buy access to the INTERNET as a whole, Slashdot, YouTube, and VeggieRecipes.com get access to the internet, and I can access any site. Time Warner and Comcast aren't involved with paying the bills for third-party web sites, and don't control what I can access.
My experience has been that Libre Office has better compatibility with the dozens of MS Office versions than any version of MS Office does. In other words, if I want to edit a Word document created three years ago, I'll tend to get better results in Libre than in Office 365.
I have some documents created in MS Word about ten years ago, which is maybe four file formats ago. MS Office won't open them at all, Libre has no trouble with them.
Slashdot Mirror
"The heat of passion" is a vaguely similar concept related to CRIMINAL culpability, most often mentioned as a difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd.
Civil law (suing somebody) is concerned with CAUSATION. Did the defendant do something which partially caused the harm? Comparative negligence specifically is the idea that separate actions by two or more people are often involved, so one may be 75% liable and the other 25%.
The general causation test is the "but for" test. Plaintiff asserts that the harm wouldn't have happened but for the defendant's action or inaction. In other words, is this statement true:
If Snapchat didn't advertise the speed , the collision would not have occurred.
If the above is true, they helped cause the accident and share liability unless they have some specific defense. The fact that they knowingly market the app to the 16-22 year old market could suggest they would be negligent (not careful) about promoting unsafe driving, given that they know their users in in age group prone to unsafe driving.
Nothing above represents my opinion of how the case should be decided. I don't know all of the relevant facts of the case. The above comments are about what the relevant law is, not what I think it -should- be.
> I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
There's a well-established legal principle that the recipient of a slap can indeed incite the slap. For example, if I were to call your wife a nasty hoe, a fucking cunt, and you immediately punched me in the nose, most jurisdictions would recognize that I would indeed have some responsibility for what happened.
Whether or not you or I LIKE that principle is a different matter, but in fact calling your wife a disease-ridden whore would actually make a punch in the nose likely, and the law does recognise that.
What that says to me is that the manufacturer knew about the problem and shipped it anyway. The usual and customary practice with Windows systems, especially older versions, is to install anti-virus. On critical systems, anti-virus would be considered best practice and not installing AV could be considered reckless. The manufacturer knew that protecting the machine in the ordinary manner would endanger patients and they did nothing to either alleviate the danger (don't CRASH just because an AV scan is running) or prevent it (don't provide administrator access to the OS on a surgical device).
> Dude it's not 1995 anymore
I was figuring it must be 1992; Clinton is running for president and the Democrats are saying all the problems are Bush's fault.
> (I bet Trump would hire a dude off the street with no experience but yuuuge hair for CEO in a second)
Trump says some really stupid things. On the other hand, he hires really good people, people like Steve Wynn. I could easily list ten things about Trump that worry me, but "hires idiots" certainly wouldn't be on that list.
I HOPE that he says the things he does for the same reason that Hillary does - because those comments poll well with the voters he's targeting. The guy does know something about marketing. I hope he's smarter than his more outrageous comments make him appear.
> It looks like most plants use a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate.
Which are the same oxidizers used in making fireworks. Nitrates + carbon = black powder. Nitrates + metal = flash powder (a few mg of which provide the bang in a firecracker) .
Large quantities of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate heated to very high temperatures will undoubtedly provide some pretty impressive explosions from time to time.
The energy striking the surface per square meter of full sun is in fact about 100 greater than the energy striking the surface on of overcast day. That's a fact. Look it up anywhere you like.
If instead of capturing 100 times as much, your system only captures four times as much, that can only mean that your system is failing to capture 96% of the available energy on sunny days. That of course assumes you aren't mistaken.
It wouldn't be terrible unusual for a home solar-electric system to be extremely inefficient, as they are designed as much around taxpayer subsidies and marketing as they are technical effectiveness.
> Well there is still solar collection when it is cloudy. There is very few times where it rains so hard that it is like night outside.
Unfortunately your eyes are tricking you. Your eyes perceive brightness exponentially. It looks like a cloudy day is maybe half as bright as a sunny day, and your house maybe half as bright as that. In fact, a sunny day is around 100,000 lux, a cloudy day around 1,000. Inside your home is probably around 50 lux.
So the cloudy day has only 1% of the energy as a sunny day.
Thanks for the analysis.
> What to use as a lifting gas would be a big question. Helium ... Hydrogen ... Methane
UAE has a plentiful supply of hot air. If the fabric/skin were black, it may well keep the air hot enough.
> This limit should also extend to your phone. If they are searching your phone for communications to confirm that you spoke with someone, then the warrant should be restricted to the call logs on the phone
And perhaps a search of communications (again based on good probable cause, with a proper warrant) would also include text messages, Snapchat, Facebook, etc I suppose? It's interesting because unlike a TV, which can't fit in a drawer (though the remote can), communications can fit in many applications.
In at least one well-known case, it was held that a subpoena for the contents of a phone (protected by a password) to be used or provided depends on one factual question. The same question that applies to documents locked in an old-fashioned safe that has a combination.
If there is a question about whether or not the phone belongs to the defendant, providing the password would be admitting ownership. That would be testimony, which is protected by the 5th.
On the other hand, if the defendant admits it's his phone (or safe) , they have no 5th amendment right to interfere with a lawful subpoena just because unlocking the documents requires a combination that they know in their head, rather than one they wrote down.
> the warrant specifies what they are looking for.
There's no law which prevents them from seeing things they aren't looking for. Yeah, your phone may contain nudie pics. Your house may also contain nudie pics. That doesn't mean police can't get a warrant to search a house, or that such a warrant would be improper, given probable cause.
Any of the items you mentioned which may be on a phone may also be in a house or a car. With a warrant, properly obtained, authorities can rightfully search a house, car, or phone.
The summary is also misleading in saying that "Amazon CEO made ...". He was paid $80,000 for being CEO.
Separately, he was also the principal investor in the company at its founding, the owner of company. The OWNERS/investors made made money (on paper) when the stock went up. That has nothing to do with whether he's the CEO, or even works there.
To make that more clear, I founded a company about 20 years ago. About four years ago, I got burned out on being CEO, so I quit working for that company and got another job. I don't get paid by that company since I don't work there. However, I still OWN the company, all of the stock, so profits end up with me. My gains as the sole investor have nothing to do with whether I work there, which I don't. Bezos is similar- he's done well on his investment in Amazon. Coincidentally, he also happens to work there, but that's separate.
If I accidentally bump your car in a parking lot and cause a dent, I have to pay for it to be repaired, and for your rental car while it's in the shop. I "make up for" the damage I caused.
If I get mad and go out to the parking lot with a baseball bat, and put dents in your car because I'm TRYING to cause damage, I would reasonably by liable for punitive damages - money paid as punishment.
In-between those extremes, I might be reckless, not caring whether I hit your car, or negligent, meaning I wasn't as careful as I should have been.
It's reasonable to distinguish between the cases, and many legal systems do. I can't say for certain about German copyright law in particular, but I would expect they probably have rules similar to most western countries.
Did the hotel have the images marked as "licensed for use", and some employee didn't know exactly what the license said? Were they unlabeled and the employee assumed it was okay? Did they know it was a violation of the license and send an email saying "fuck the photographer "?
> redefining an assault weapon to be a semiautomatic rifle
Only the scary-looking black ones. :)
His second amendment policies were all kinds of stupid, but didn't really do that much harm. Precisely the same weapon, with exactly the same capabilities is legal with different aesthetics.
Of the last 25 years, arguably the best president was Bill Clinton. Why, what did he do? Not much, he pretty much stayed busy getting laid and dealing with the consequences of getting laid. He didn't have a lot of time to screw things up.
Jacking around voting a "national mammal " may be the best thing for our politicians to do.
If you're shared medium, your office backbone, is a dial up connection then yes, small messages are inefficient.
In the US, dozens of packets from a user using this protocol are nothing compared to the billions of packets used by an HD video stream.
The other way around is much bigger problem. High bandwidth connections with lots of traffic means a lot of big queues. Queues murder latency and jitter. Telcos can and do use a lot of processing to try to speed the few latency-sensitive packets through the sea of data, but that's not free. Wireless carriers have to be good at doing so because 150ms or 250ms of latency is quite noticeable on a voice call.
Maybe a demo being run on Windows.
I haven't used Windows much recently, but my memory of Windows was a lot of really silly reboots . You upgraded your web browser, you must reboot. Wtf? On one of my Linux machines, a CPU was replaced without rebooting.
Another segment of Macbook users have Mac because it's a well-supported Unix, on consistently decent hardware. Assuming I can install Linux or another OS of my choice on this Chromebook as easily as I have on others, I may be interested.
> You're either a liar or an idiot.
It seems you're the idiot who can't read more than one sentence, and you're a jerk too.
Try sounding out these words, we'll wait:
> > During a demo, I needed to reboot. Windows decided this would be the perfect time ...
In case you're not aware, Windows installs updates when you shutdown or reboot. This can be rather annoying when you're in a hurry to leave. You work until time to leave the office, then click shut down on your laptop to leave. At which point Windows pops up with "Installing Updates. Do not unplug or shut down the computer. Time remaining: 12 minutes. "
> The very term "encyclopedia" means a comprehensive store of information. The default stance to take should be there is a compelling reason to include pretty much everything and everyone.
No, the word encyclopedia is greek for "general education ", much like high school provides a general education. It does not mean "a gargantuan database of every sentence ever uttered, whether useful or not".
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, includes objective, verifiable facts about noteworthy topics. Let's call that approach A.
You CAN of course have a site with the approach you suggest- any and all random facts about all random people. If someone wants to post what you ate for breakfast, they can. Let's call that approach B.
A site which implements B is Facebook. The web as a whole is approach B. These are useful, but do not serve the same purpose that Wikipedia serves with approach A. Wikipedia has a different kind of value as it is, as it has developed under approach A.
Wikipedia isn't the entire internet, and it isn't supposed to be. It's supposed to be a summary of the most important verifiable information about important topics.
As far as "wasting time", it seems to me, without any inside knowledge, that it should be simple enough to have an emoji committee, which does most of the emoji work separate from anyone who doesn't care to be involved in that aspect.
If Slashdot supported Unicode, I'd have to reply by saying U+E115 U+1F988
> If YouTube wants money they can get it from the ISPs.
So under your proposal, YouTube would charge ISPs for access to their site. As would Slashdot and all of the other free (advertising-supported) sites, I suppose. If your ISP doesn't pay up, you can;t access YouTube, correct?
So you only get access to those sites that your ISP pays for. Obviously your ISP isn't going to jack around making contracts for $10/year to access HowToFixAppliances.com, or any of the other 99.99% of web sites that aren't in the top 500 most popular. So you get access to whichever portion of the Alexa top 500 that your ISP negotiates a satisfactory deal with, and nothing else.
I don't care for that plan. What I prefer is that I buy access to the INTERNET as a whole, Slashdot, YouTube, and VeggieRecipes.com get access to the internet, and I can access any site. Time Warner and Comcast aren't involved with paying the bills for third-party web sites, and don't control what I can access.
My experience has been that Libre Office has better compatibility with the dozens of MS Office versions than any version of MS Office does. In other words, if I want to edit a Word document created three years ago, I'll tend to get better results in Libre than in Office 365.
I have some documents created in MS Word about ten years ago, which is maybe four file formats ago. MS Office won't open them at all, Libre has no trouble with them.