Right. So if that coffee shop specifically advertizes "Free WiFi With Unlimited Bandwidth", and is not a coffee shop but a multibillion dollar IT company with a dedicated department of lawyers going over every detail of the deals they offer, what's the implied meaning of "Unlimited Bandwidth"?
I think in the Microsoft case, it's clear that unlimited storage on OneDrive is that it's unlimited storage for items relating to the imputed use as a collaborative tool. That would mean documents, photos, and the like. And, you know, be reasonable about it using your own internal ability to discern it.
[ Of course, now the rules lawyering begins. "Oh photos are allowed, I'm going to download every GIF on planet Earth and sync it because I'm on the spectrum and hence believe that technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct". And that might tempt me to say, "No, it's your own personal, non-commercial, photos, not the entire National Geographic archive since 1965". But I won't, because that just invites more rules-lawyering and concedes the idea that I'm supposed to enumerate every detail. ]
Oh, and for bandwidth, I would think "Unlimited Bandwidth" would imply something fuzzily-like "No numerical limit but users in the top 5% that are using more than 10-20x what the median user does should probably lay off a bit. We'll probably let them go at top speed unless the network is saturated, at which point we'll put them in the lowest priority QoS so that the other 95% of users don't experience degraded performance due to those hogs." But I'm not going to formulate that in a rules-lawyery way, because it's pretty obvious to the reasonable folks that when 5% of users are using 50% of the resource, they should a back a smidge.
At least in SF, my impression is that new supply is expensive which drives up the average price but suppresses the increase in prices for other units by soaking up high-end demand that would otherwise chase other units.
And that's the rub -- it's better to have two $5K condos and 10 $3K flats than to just have the 10 flats. In that case, the would-be-condo owners will just bid up the flats, pushing out whoever was in that segment. And those folks will bid up the next tier and so forth.
Or do you think that rich people that want to live in SF will look at the unavailability of high-end real estate and think "Oh well, nothing but cheaper units here, I'll pass" or will they buy up those properties and renovate them up?
Yes, the same thing should happen with banks, insurance companies, childcare and hospitals. Let's get the government regulations out of the way and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes. FREE MARKET!
Because clearly if person ever expresses the opinion that one particular regulation or set of regulations should be repealed, that person is forever committed to arguing that every single one should be repealed. And conversely, if one ever argues that a regulation has positive worth, they are permanently banned from arguing against any other. Analyzing each regulation independently and concluding that (like many other things) some are useful and some aren't (and a few really perverse ones are downright counterproductive) should definitely not be allowed.
Because we are humans and not machines and, as such, we are capable of understanding limiting principles that are fuzzy and imprecise. Moreover, in many cases we prefer such fuzzy limits because in most cases it's much less effort to rely on them than to expend the intellectual effort to precisely quantify the limits. Besides being a pain to draft, communicate and clarify, precise language creates two additional negative effects: first it displaces the existing fuzzy limits, which can actually lead to less heuristic control. Second, it encourages rules-lawyering that consumes more effort and bogs people down in nit-picking (except that pig likes wrestling in the mud).
To give a practical example, coffee shops are happy to offer "Free WiFi", often having a large sign to that effect. But if buy a small regular coffee and proceed to download/serve dozens of Linux ISOs at max bandwidth over Bittorrent (and degrade the service of everyone else in the shop), you will be asked to leave. It's implicit that "Free WiFi" here is understood in the context of things that normal people do in a coffee shop. It would be positively ridiculous for them to have to write the rules out instead of just assuming that people will be reasonable.
You can only use X MB per hour and $Z of baked goods minus A MB every time you harass the baristas. At no time can your peak bandwidth, as measured by the rolling average over the last 60 second period as computed every 10 seconds, exceed A/B Kbps download/upload. A first offense under this section shall be punishable by a discrete warning. A second offense under this section shall be punishable by a public shaming in front of the other patrons. Third and subsequent offenses shall be punished by having hot coffee poured on your laptop, phone or pants at the discretion of the barista. Offenses shall toll at the rate of 1 offense per calendar week, provided that you visit the coffee shop at least twice during said calendar week.
TLDR: Summarized succinctly in a single-pane webcomic.
...and if they are reluctant to take responsibility like Johnson and Farage have been they should be forced to
First of all, I'm not aware of any democratic system since ancient Greece or Rome that contemplates the power to compel a citizen to serve as an official against his or her will. That alone would be pretty remarkable. I'm not sure such a thing would be consistent with the UNCHR or the ECHR (to which the UK is still bound).
Second, if those were indeed the terms, the Referendum Act of Parliament probably should have mentioned them. Compelled service aside, now you're talking about surprise compelled service:-)
You completely missed the point, didn't you? The point is that you are going to have a PC in your house anyway, unless you're one of the old people who doesn't own a computer. Since you already have a PC regardless of whether or not you use it to play games, you don't need to factor the cost of that PC into your gaming cost, because the gaming cost is only the extra money spent to turn your regular PC into a gaming PC.
Not at all true. My laptop has been going strong doing all my personal computing needs for a few years now, with the added bonus of weighing only a few pounds and fitting in my backpack. If it weren't for my gaming habit, I wouldn't have a desktop PC at all. So the entire cost of the desktop[1] is attributable to the need for gaming.
This is not a strange situation among the generation that grew up with portable computing. Those of us (myself incl) that grew up in the 386 era have not all moved on, but that's the way things are going.
[1] OK, so maybe I can save $100 or so using the desktop instead of my USB external for storage overflow. Still need the $5/mo Crashplan account in case of a physical disaster. I could set the desktop always-on and use it to stream music to myself rather than pay for a streaming service ($25/year saved minus the power used idling it). I don't think most of those can work too well.
Cops are individuals. There are good ones and bad ones, and they have good days and bad days. Their lives are often at risk. Sometimes they do heroic things, sometimes they do horrific things. You cannot solve problems like this by painting with too wide a brush.
OK, but let's talk brass tacks for just a second. Baton Rouge offers new recruits the princely sum of $25K a year, maybe rising to $35-40K after a decade. Your average nice suburb in Louisiana starts at $32-35K and goes up to $50-55K or more.
So you know what, cops are individuals and there are good ones and bads one -- 100% agree. It's just that Baton Rouge gets a lot of the crappier ones. You get what you pay for, and poor places just don't get very much good police.
The control belongs with the parent, not the government.
Control hasn't moved at all, only the default settings. If you ever read TFA:
If they don't respond, we will switch it on for them and invite them to amend or switch it off themselves.
I cannot fathom how you can say this removes control from anyone. Is there any evidence to believe
A) That a customer that gets a porn page blockage will not know why or how to turn it off
B) That the switch to disable this filter is difficult to find on their customer web portal
C) That SKY will not respect the customer's desire in that switch
D) That any of the parade-of-horribles you may counter with are realistic and not just slippery-slope hypotheticals
I don't like censorship and nanny-State-ism one whit, but this just doesn't set off my CAPITAL LETTERS. It's merely a default settings -- one that might make sense for non-tech-savvy parents and which porn consumers can very easily switch off.
Board schematics are a factual description of a physical object. Factual information cannot be copyrighted; 1st amendment issue. You can patent the board, but that doesn't allow you to prevent dissemination of facts..
YANAL, and you have misinterpreted the distinction between facts that cannot be copyrighted, and a particular representation of facts that can be copyrighted.
For instance, I can open the phonebook and copy the entries into a separate database and sell it, because the phone numbers themselves are facts that are not covered by copyright, see [1]. But I could not photocopy an entire page of the phonebook and sell it elsewhere without permission. Similarly, I can take the same ingredients/methods in a recipe book and republish those recipes, see [2]. But I cannot simply photocopy the recipe book and sell it as my own. To quote [2] at length (my emphasis):
[PLAINTIFF's] compilation copyright in [ORIGINAL WORK] therefore may not extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner and order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates that the [DEFENDANT] offer these recipes in substantially altered form and in a manner and order different from that found in [ORIGINAL WORK] we hold that [PLAINTIFF] has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits.
So the question here is did the defendant copy the schematics verbatim or he did he read the schematics and produce a different form of the same factual information separately? Until you answer that question, you cannot reach the question of whether he violated Apple's copyright in the schematic.
[ And, FWIW, I haven't seen the schematics he posted versus the originals, so I can't answer that question and take a side. ]
Further Reading:
[1] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991) [2] Publications International v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir., 1996)
Or maybe the fact that human beings can't stand the kind of acceleration levels that have no effect at all on computers will make this whole question moot.
This, plus the fact that AI have no problem going Kamikaze if the situation becomes desperate enough to warrant it.
There may be a future when the boundary between missile and fighter jet becomes blurred from both directions. Missiles are gaining sophisticated tactical and cooperative abilities. From the other end, AI-controlled jets can be programmed to be used as missiles in a pinch.
I accept your point about how it used to be taught, but I hardly see how that's relevant. No one would claim that stuff learned decades ago in school still applies in the face the overwhelming consensus from traffic engineers. That's just not how facts works.
Nor do I see how we need to re-educate all drivers all at once. Programmable signage is already deployed and so long as enough drivers are doing it the right way, it doesn't matter how many continue to merge wrong. The only thing those drivers do is slow down the destination lane, further incentivizing people to remain in the source lane until the proper merge point.
Finally, this is a pretty good example of why you shouldn't teach kids that certain behavior is "rude" as opposed to merely conveying the best knowledge about what's the most efficient. Once you do, it's much harder to revise that emotional judgment if and when facts change in the future. The added benefits of civility should also be fairly evident:-)
Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.
This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.
The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them
They are not obligated to serve the city if they don't want to. And you certainly cannot blame them for the fact that the same people that voted to restrict their operations chose to be shitheads and risk others' lives by driving drunk.
As to the public safety argument, I think one has to be aware that measures that were intended to increase public safety do not always work in the way intended. I'm sure the voters believed at the time (and perhaps justly so) that the background checks would increase safety. As an empirical matter, that may or may not turn out to be true -- the measures might have that effect, no effect or may have the opposite effect than what was intended.
And nobody (I think?) disputes that the voters have the right to pass (almost any) laws they see fit in their own town.
What people are saying is that voters should consider unintended consequences. Of course those voters surely wanted the provisions to increase safety. If (big if!) it's true that these provisions actually decreased safety (hey, the world is unpredictable) then those same voters be aware of this outcome.
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for committing a crime is really pathetic.
No one is blaming a lack of taxis or saying that the scumbags that drive drunk are not ethically reprehensible. What we are saying is that people are marginally shitty and if you make it marginally-harder for them to do the right thing then marginally fewer will do the right thing. That's not a moral statement, it's an empirical one.
That's not an argument anyone accused of drunk driving should be able to raise a defense, but it is certainly an argument to present to a legislative authority debating whether or not fingerprinting or background checking will make things more or less safe.
Quite possibly. But when you ask people, what they say they want isn't a thinner phone, it's more battery life, which you get by making the phone thicker.
If some customers want more battery life, a good approach would be to remove a component wasting a lot of internal volume, which also allows you to eliminate various large-ish components from the logic board. The saved space could be used to expand the battery. Every cubic mm in the iPhone is used for something...
Another approach might be to sell a case with a battery to those customers.
The last approach you would logically take is forcing everyone to buy a bulkier phone.
That sounds about right. The Pareto Principle suggests that the top 20% of all titles are responsible for 80% of all the sales/listens/interest. Digitizing the remaining 80% of the titles that make up the remaining 20% of interest is simply not worth it. Each one of those titles would be interesting to a smaller and smaller audience until you were doing it for practically no reason at all.
In fact, since the Pareto Principle is recursive, after two iterations you've got 36% of the titles digitized representing 96% of the total interest. Now you're suggesting that it makes sense for anyone to digitize the remaining 64% despite that representing less than 4% of the total value of those recordings?
74% of Netflix Subscribers who are Reddit members and respond to surveys would [something something].
How is it that a community dedicated to Science(TM) would ignore the massive sampling bias here? The survey tells you absolutely nothing about Netflix subscribers at all unless you also make the assertion that the sub-population that are also Reddit members is representative of the group as a whole.
Or do we collectively fail to turn our skeptical demand-for-rigor brain when we see a survey or article that we support? (
The 'Nikola One' comes equipped with a massive 320 kWh battery pack that the company hopes can allow it to travel up to 1,200 miles with the natural gas range extender.
And my fart-powered motorcycle can travel 400 miles with its gasoline-powered range extender!
And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!
Yes, iOS 7 was vulnerable to a very simple hardware hack:
(1) Hook up your own battery emulator to replace the battery (2) Try a passcode, if it fails, cut power before the phone has a chance to write down the failure attempt (3) Profit (seriously, these hack-boxes were like $50k each while they worked)
The solution on the phone side is reordering the events -- first execute failedAttempts++ and make sure it's synced to persistent storage, then evaluate the passcode and, if it's good, write failedAttempts=0 and unlock the phone. Not too complicated but counterintuitive to declare each attempt a failure beforehand and the undo your work later.
Oh, and syncing it one of those simple things that are notoriously difficult to nail down in practice. fsync is perennially misunderstood as ensuring data is written to persistent storage, it actually only means it's moved out to the device (cf F_FULLFSYNC). Linux spent a while on write barriers, but then settled on different IO ordering semantics.
Yes, iOS 7 was vulnerable to a very simple hardware hack:
(1) Hook up your own battery emulator to replace the battery (2) Try a passcode, if it fails, cut power before the phone has a chance to write down the failure attempt (3) Profit (seriously, these hack-boxes were like $50k each while they worked)
The solution on the phone side is reordering the events -- first execute failedAttempts++ and make sure it's synced to persistent storage, then evaluate the passcode and, if it's good, write failedAttempts=0 and unlock the phone. Not too complicated but counterintuitive to declare each attempt a failure beforehand and the undo your work later.
Oh, and syncing it one of those simple things that are notoriously difficult to nail down in practice. fsync is perennially misunderstood as ensuring data is written to persistent storage, it actually only means it's moved out to the device (cf F_FULLFSYNC). Linux spent a while on write barriers, but then settled on different IO ordering semantics.
Hold on a second... Let's suppose I take some code that's licensed under the GPL (any language) and I'm creating a derivative work. Of course, I must make the source code freely available, but consider the following set of hypotheticals.
(1) During the creation of my derivative work, I embed comments into the source file at various locations.
(2) During the creation of my derivative work, I make a branch for debugging/exploration and embed various comments and perhaps insert debugging traces such as printf("%s %d\n", __LINE__, __FILE__); all over the code. The branch was solely for my own edification, so after I am edified, I discard it and work off the main branch. I never distribute the binaries derived from this branch to anyone.
(3) During the creation of my derivative work, I take notes in a spiral bound notebook describing how the code works. These notes may even refer to the code by filename and line number.
(4) During the creation of my derivative work, I take notes in another application that I save apart from the source code. These notes may even refer to the code by filename and line number.
(5) I do (3), but I also write/use a fancy editor that finds comments by file/line and overlays them next to the source on screen, but doesn't modify the source file.
Under which conditions do I have to release the source with my comments? I'm pretty sure I do for (1) but not (2) or (3). The last two are just meant as an exercise in proving that GPL makes distinctions that don't matter much in principle. After all, if you can refuse to release the "comments" for (5) then it's operationally no different than (1) at all.
Plus these sort of things amuse me. Things that have the same effects should be subject to the same rules. Things that have the same process should be subject to the same rules. But ultimately it doesn't work out...
Slashdot Mirror
Right. So if that coffee shop specifically advertizes "Free WiFi With Unlimited Bandwidth", and is not a coffee shop but a multibillion dollar IT company with a dedicated department of lawyers going over every detail of the deals they offer, what's the implied meaning of "Unlimited Bandwidth"?
I think in the Microsoft case, it's clear that unlimited storage on OneDrive is that it's unlimited storage for items relating to the imputed use as a collaborative tool. That would mean documents, photos, and the like. And, you know, be reasonable about it using your own internal ability to discern it.
[ Of course, now the rules lawyering begins. "Oh photos are allowed, I'm going to download every GIF on planet Earth and sync it because I'm on the spectrum and hence believe that technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct". And that might tempt me to say, "No, it's your own personal, non-commercial, photos, not the entire National Geographic archive since 1965". But I won't, because that just invites more rules-lawyering and concedes the idea that I'm supposed to enumerate every detail. ]
Oh, and for bandwidth, I would think "Unlimited Bandwidth" would imply something fuzzily-like "No numerical limit but users in the top 5% that are using more than 10-20x what the median user does should probably lay off a bit. We'll probably let them go at top speed unless the network is saturated, at which point we'll put them in the lowest priority QoS so that the other 95% of users don't experience degraded performance due to those hogs." But I'm not going to formulate that in a rules-lawyery way, because it's pretty obvious to the reasonable folks that when 5% of users are using 50% of the resource, they should a back a smidge.
At least in SF, my impression is that new supply is expensive which drives up the average price but suppresses the increase in prices for other units by soaking up high-end demand that would otherwise chase other units.
And that's the rub -- it's better to have two $5K condos and 10 $3K flats than to just have the 10 flats. In that case, the would-be-condo owners will just bid up the flats, pushing out whoever was in that segment. And those folks will bid up the next tier and so forth.
Or do you think that rich people that want to live in SF will look at the unavailability of high-end real estate and think "Oh well, nothing but cheaper units here, I'll pass" or will they buy up those properties and renovate them up?
Yes, the same thing should happen with banks, insurance companies, childcare and hospitals. Let's get the government regulations out of the way and rely on Yelp reviews and Facebook likes. FREE MARKET!
Because clearly if person ever expresses the opinion that one particular regulation or set of regulations should be repealed, that person is forever committed to arguing that every single one should be repealed. And conversely, if one ever argues that a regulation has positive worth, they are permanently banned from arguing against any other. Analyzing each regulation independently and concluding that (like many other things) some are useful and some aren't (and a few really perverse ones are downright counterproductive) should definitely not be allowed.
Because we are humans and not machines and, as such, we are capable of understanding limiting principles that are fuzzy and imprecise. Moreover, in many cases we prefer such fuzzy limits because in most cases it's much less effort to rely on them than to expend the intellectual effort to precisely quantify the limits. Besides being a pain to draft, communicate and clarify, precise language creates two additional negative effects: first it displaces the existing fuzzy limits, which can actually lead to less heuristic control. Second, it encourages rules-lawyering that consumes more effort and bogs people down in nit-picking (except that pig likes wrestling in the mud).
To give a practical example, coffee shops are happy to offer "Free WiFi", often having a large sign to that effect. But if buy a small regular coffee and proceed to download/serve dozens of Linux ISOs at max bandwidth over Bittorrent (and degrade the service of everyone else in the shop), you will be asked to leave. It's implicit that "Free WiFi" here is understood in the context of things that normal people do in a coffee shop. It would be positively ridiculous for them to have to write the rules out instead of just assuming that people will be reasonable.
You can only use X MB per hour and $Z of baked goods minus A MB every time you harass the baristas. At no time can your peak bandwidth, as measured by the rolling average over the last 60 second period as computed every 10 seconds, exceed A/B Kbps download/upload. A first offense under this section shall be punishable by a discrete warning. A second offense under this section shall be punishable by a public shaming in front of the other patrons. Third and subsequent offenses shall be punished by having hot coffee poured on your laptop, phone or pants at the discretion of the barista. Offenses shall toll at the rate of 1 offense per calendar week, provided that you visit the coffee shop at least twice during said calendar week.
TLDR: Summarized succinctly in a single-pane webcomic.
...and if they are reluctant to take responsibility like Johnson and Farage have been they should be forced to
First of all, I'm not aware of any democratic system since ancient Greece or Rome that contemplates the power to compel a citizen to serve as an official against his or her will. That alone would be pretty remarkable. I'm not sure such a thing would be consistent with the UNCHR or the ECHR (to which the UK is still bound).
Second, if those were indeed the terms, the Referendum Act of Parliament probably should have mentioned them. Compelled service aside, now you're talking about surprise compelled service :-)
Not at all true. My laptop has been going strong doing all my personal computing needs for a few years now, with the added bonus of weighing only a few pounds and fitting in my backpack. If it weren't for my gaming habit, I wouldn't have a desktop PC at all. So the entire cost of the desktop[1] is attributable to the need for gaming.
This is not a strange situation among the generation that grew up with portable computing. Those of us (myself incl) that grew up in the 386 era have not all moved on, but that's the way things are going.
[1] OK, so maybe I can save $100 or so using the desktop instead of my USB external for storage overflow. Still need the $5/mo Crashplan account in case of a physical disaster. I could set the desktop always-on and use it to stream music to myself rather than pay for a streaming service ($25/year saved minus the power used idling it). I don't think most of those can work too well.
OK, but let's talk brass tacks for just a second. Baton Rouge offers new recruits the princely sum of $25K a year, maybe rising to $35-40K after a decade. Your average nice suburb in Louisiana starts at $32-35K and goes up to $50-55K or more.
So you know what, cops are individuals and there are good ones and bads one -- 100% agree. It's just that Baton Rouge gets a lot of the crappier ones. You get what you pay for, and poor places just don't get very much good police.
Control hasn't moved at all, only the default settings. If you ever read TFA:
I cannot fathom how you can say this removes control from anyone. Is there any evidence to believe
I don't like censorship and nanny-State-ism one whit, but this just doesn't set off my CAPITAL LETTERS. It's merely a default settings -- one that might make sense for non-tech-savvy parents and which porn consumers can very easily switch off.
YANAL, and you have misinterpreted the distinction between facts that cannot be copyrighted, and a particular representation of facts that can be copyrighted.
For instance, I can open the phonebook and copy the entries into a separate database and sell it, because the phone numbers themselves are facts that are not covered by copyright, see [1]. But I could not photocopy an entire page of the phonebook and sell it elsewhere without permission. Similarly, I can take the same ingredients/methods in a recipe book and republish those recipes, see [2]. But I cannot simply photocopy the recipe book and sell it as my own. To quote [2] at length (my emphasis):
So the question here is did the defendant copy the schematics verbatim or he did he read the schematics and produce a different form of the same factual information separately? Until you answer that question, you cannot reach the question of whether he violated Apple's copyright in the schematic.
[ And, FWIW, I haven't seen the schematics he posted versus the originals, so I can't answer that question and take a side. ]
Further Reading:
[1] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991)
[2] Publications International v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir., 1996)
Or maybe the fact that human beings can't stand the kind of acceleration levels that have no effect at all on computers will make this whole question moot.
This, plus the fact that AI have no problem going Kamikaze if the situation becomes desperate enough to warrant it.
There may be a future when the boundary between missile and fighter jet becomes blurred from both directions. Missiles are gaining sophisticated tactical and cooperative abilities. From the other end, AI-controlled jets can be programmed to be used as missiles in a pinch.
I accept your point about how it used to be taught, but I hardly see how that's relevant. No one would claim that stuff learned decades ago in school still applies in the face the overwhelming consensus from traffic engineers. That's just not how facts works.
Nor do I see how we need to re-educate all drivers all at once. Programmable signage is already deployed and so long as enough drivers are doing it the right way, it doesn't matter how many continue to merge wrong. The only thing those drivers do is slow down the destination lane, further incentivizing people to remain in the source lane until the proper merge point.
Finally, this is a pretty good example of why you shouldn't teach kids that certain behavior is "rude" as opposed to merely conveying the best knowledge about what's the most efficient. Once you do, it's much harder to revise that emotional judgment if and when facts change in the future. The added benefits of civility should also be fairly evident :-)
Sorry dude, the most efficient way for cars to handle a closing lane is to use all the available space and zipper with the next adjacent lane as near to the closure as possible. Those people are doing it right, and you are doing it wrong by merging a mile early and leaving that lane unused. See all the the guidance given or this study [PDF] or this one.
This might also be a good time to consider civility and not calling people 'dickheads'. Consider that even if you were right and they were wrong about the proper way to merge, that would just mean they were mistaken, nothing more.
The whole purpose of the referendum was to demand that these companies do background checks for "public safety" you fucking twit. No one forced them to leave, they weren't able to get their way and out of fear that it would set a precedent which would impact their bottom line they chose to leave. If you are mad, that anger should be directed squarely at them
They are not obligated to serve the city if they don't want to. And you certainly cannot blame them for the fact that the same people that voted to restrict their operations chose to be shitheads and risk others' lives by driving drunk.
As to the public safety argument, I think one has to be aware that measures that were intended to increase public safety do not always work in the way intended. I'm sure the voters believed at the time (and perhaps justly so) that the background checks would increase safety. As an empirical matter, that may or may not turn out to be true -- the measures might have that effect, no effect or may have the opposite effect than what was intended.
And nobody (I think?) disputes that the voters have the right to pass (almost any) laws they see fit in their own town.
What people are saying is that voters should consider unintended consequences. Of course those voters surely wanted the provisions to increase safety. If (big if!) it's true that these provisions actually decreased safety (hey, the world is unpredictable) then those same voters be aware of this outcome.
It's nothing to joke about. And trying to blame a lack of taxis for committing a crime is really pathetic.
No one is blaming a lack of taxis or saying that the scumbags that drive drunk are not ethically reprehensible. What we are saying is that people are marginally shitty and if you make it marginally-harder for them to do the right thing then marginally fewer will do the right thing. That's not a moral statement, it's an empirical one.
That's not an argument anyone accused of drunk driving should be able to raise a defense, but it is certainly an argument to present to a legislative authority debating whether or not fingerprinting or background checking will make things more or less safe.
Quite possibly. But when you ask people, what they say they want isn't a thinner phone, it's more battery life, which you get by making the phone thicker.
If some customers want more battery life, a good approach would be to remove a component wasting a lot of internal volume, which also allows you to eliminate various large-ish components from the logic board. The saved space could be used to expand the battery. Every cubic mm in the iPhone is used for something ...
Another approach might be to sell a case with a battery to those customers.
The last approach you would logically take is forcing everyone to buy a bulkier phone.
That sounds about right. The Pareto Principle suggests that the top 20% of all titles are responsible for 80% of all the sales/listens/interest. Digitizing the remaining 80% of the titles that make up the remaining 20% of interest is simply not worth it. Each one of those titles would be interesting to a smaller and smaller audience until you were doing it for practically no reason at all.
In fact, since the Pareto Principle is recursive, after two iterations you've got 36% of the titles digitized representing 96% of the total interest. Now you're suggesting that it makes sense for anyone to digitize the remaining 64% despite that representing less than 4% of the total value of those recordings?
74% of Netflix Subscribers who are Reddit members and respond to surveys would [something something].
How is it that a community dedicated to Science(TM) would ignore the massive sampling bias here? The survey tells you absolutely nothing about Netflix subscribers at all unless you also make the assertion that the sub-population that are also Reddit members is representative of the group as a whole.
Or do we collectively fail to turn our skeptical demand-for-rigor brain when we see a survey or article that we support? (
The 'Nikola One' comes equipped with a massive 320 kWh battery pack that the company hopes can allow it to travel up to 1,200 miles with the natural gas range extender.
And my fart-powered motorcycle can travel 400 miles with its gasoline-powered range extender!
And it's not like they are just not looking at anything, in one case I head about someone who submitted an app update, the reviewer found a crashing bug, the developer fixed and resubmitted and it was approved - all within the same day!
Wow, it's faster and I can lay off my QA guy?
How about we just rename the Nebulas the "Female Power Fantasy Awards" instead?
What, and science fiction is never a "Human Power Fantasy" wank?
Yes, but those only get you access to Class C and D files. You need the actual passcode to unlock the Class A and Class B files, because the encryption key for those is actually derived from the passcode itself.
So you need to be able to make 1000 attempts on the passcode, and to do that, you need to be able to revert the counter of failed attempts.
Yes, iOS 7 was vulnerable to a very simple hardware hack:
(1) Hook up your own battery emulator to replace the battery
(2) Try a passcode, if it fails, cut power before the phone has a chance to write down the failure attempt
(3) Profit (seriously, these hack-boxes were like $50k each while they worked)
The solution on the phone side is reordering the events -- first execute failedAttempts++ and make sure it's synced to persistent storage, then evaluate the passcode and, if it's good, write failedAttempts=0 and unlock the phone. Not too complicated but counterintuitive to declare each attempt a failure beforehand and the undo your work later.
Oh, and syncing it one of those simple things that are notoriously difficult to nail down in practice. fsync is perennially misunderstood as ensuring data is written to persistent storage, it actually only means it's moved out to the device (cf F_FULLFSYNC). Linux spent a while on write barriers, but then settled on different IO ordering semantics.
Yes, iOS 7 was vulnerable to a very simple hardware hack:
(1) Hook up your own battery emulator to replace the battery
(2) Try a passcode, if it fails, cut power before the phone has a chance to write down the failure attempt
(3) Profit (seriously, these hack-boxes were like $50k each while they worked)
The solution on the phone side is reordering the events -- first execute failedAttempts++ and make sure it's synced to persistent storage, then evaluate the passcode and, if it's good, write failedAttempts=0 and unlock the phone. Not too complicated but counterintuitive to declare each attempt a failure beforehand and the undo your work later.
Oh, and syncing it one of those simple things that are notoriously difficult to nail down in practice. fsync is perennially misunderstood as ensuring data is written to persistent storage, it actually only means it's moved out to the device (cf F_FULLFSYNC). Linux spent a while on write barriers, but then settled on different IO ordering semantics.
Hold on a second... Let's suppose I take some code that's licensed under the GPL (any language) and I'm creating a derivative work. Of course, I must make the source code freely available, but consider the following set of hypotheticals.
(1) During the creation of my derivative work, I embed comments into the source file at various locations.
(2) During the creation of my derivative work, I make a branch for debugging/exploration and embed various comments and perhaps insert debugging traces such as printf("%s %d\n", __LINE__, __FILE__); all over the code. The branch was solely for my own edification, so after I am edified, I discard it and work off the main branch. I never distribute the binaries derived from this branch to anyone.
(3) During the creation of my derivative work, I take notes in a spiral bound notebook describing how the code works. These notes may even refer to the code by filename and line number.
(4) During the creation of my derivative work, I take notes in another application that I save apart from the source code. These notes may even refer to the code by filename and line number.
(5) I do (3), but I also write/use a fancy editor that finds comments by file/line and overlays them next to the source on screen, but doesn't modify the source file.
Under which conditions do I have to release the source with my comments? I'm pretty sure I do for (1) but not (2) or (3). The last two are just meant as an exercise in proving that GPL makes distinctions that don't matter much in principle. After all, if you can refuse to release the "comments" for (5) then it's operationally no different than (1) at all.
Plus these sort of things amuse me. Things that have the same effects should be subject to the same rules. Things that have the same process should be subject to the same rules. But ultimately it doesn't work out ...