The rules specifically apply to checkpoint information that is NOT published by law enforcement agencies.
Out of curiosity, at what point does the existence of the checkpoint itself count as "published by law enforcement?" At the very least it would be at the point where the first ticket was written, since the ticket is a public record and it contains the address closest to the infraction. Right?
What bothers me about this is that Apple has, essentially, banned an app for publishing a certain class of facts. Is there any way that this sounds OK once it's been framed that way? I get the motivation but I'm just not willing to advocate for censoring facts unless you prove to me that there's no viable alternative.
I'd make a significant distinction between refusing to exercise a right and surrendering a right. I have the right to remain silent. If I choose to say something it doesn't imply I've surrendered by right to stop speaking later. You can always choose to not exercise a right because you feel it is in your best interest (waiving your right to a trial for instance). Depending on the type of right choosing to surrender it may imply a future obligation. An example would be testifying in your own defense at court. Choosing to testify on your own behalf may open you to answering questions that you might otherwise have been able to remain silent.
Which leads us directly to the question of natural (inalienable, or, in other words non-surrender-able) rights versus legal rights. With this judgement our Supreme Court seems to have clarified that the right to seek justice is a legal rather than an inalienable right, and can, therefore, be surrendered. I fundamentally disagree. One of the roles of government is to foster justice, not establish it. Unfortunately the constitution disagrees:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..."
or at least appears to. I *think* they (the framers) mean to establish what justice *is* rather than establish the right to seek justice. In that case there can be no arbiter above the government for the defining of just practice. I could then choose to waive my right to trial but never surrender it. Clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
We (Citizens of the USA) don't live in a democracy. If we did our particular mechanism of repression wouldn't work. We live in a republic, and the representatives have discovered that we will vote based on our emotions about their views on a small subset of policy choices (abortion, taxation, welfare, social security, etc). Whenever we express concern over some non-emotive issue (abstract things like "justice", "equality", "fairness", etc) we can be distracted (and therefore controlled) by attacking our emotive issues.
Our representatives no longer represent our best interests, they represent our biggest interests. If we lived in a democracy corporations couldn't buy up all the representatives and "encourage" them to vote specific ways on given non-emotive issues.
The more I think about it the more I come to believe that the reasons Blu-Ray has received any negative reception can be tied to (i.e. blamed on) the presence of DRM. Think of all the actively negative things about it:
* Ridiculous disc load times: key lookup, verification, and revocation in action. Plus the decryption overhead (particularly on imperfect discs). * Poor device compatibility with displays: HDCP is the bane of my existence, and I'm not alone * Regular disc incompatibilities requiring updated firmware: gotta patch those DRM holes, and bump the required Blu-Ray version * Buggy playback devices: Development and testing time wasted verifying DRM rather than *basic system operations*
Eliminate all of that crap, and you are left with a moderately improved viewing experience, a somewhat higher price, and some interesting, but supplemental features (3D, streaming, downloadable content, etc). The difference is that all those positives are just not sufficiently good to motivate a purchase. The DRM negatives *are* motivating buyers...to avoid Blu-Ray.
Just about everyone who has ever purchased a Blu-Ray player has had to fight the DRM, either with a display/TV that wouldn't work (or flickers for a few minutes on startup, like mine used to), or a disc that wouldn't play. Almost no one notices the DRM on DVDs (I'm betting the *awareness* of it is less than 5%). To borrow some Apple marketing phrases: DVD just works, and Blu-Ray is a big bag of hurt.
I agree (I think) with the releases by wikileaks, but as I see it the major difference is that the New York Times is a paper of record, and Ellsberg is a US citizen. Frankly I think it just terrifies every government on the planet that a foreign national could choose to publish anything they receive with no real recourse.
In the end I do believe wikileaks is in the right, but I can understand why the US is so keen to make it as painful as possible.
It seems to me that this discovery yielded a change in the calculated number of stars in the universe, while doing next to nothing about "the total number of known stars in the universe".
In that case give that dude a cookie and make Apple hire him. It's nothing short of magical that he could push a 10Gbps DDoS from a single 386 and a VB script, I don't care what his mitichlorian count is.
I believe if you really look into it you will find that cars are designed so that (if properly cared for) the stock brakes can overcome the maximum output of the stock engine. This is a fundamental safety feature, which, if ignored, would certainly earn a offending car company a legal black eye. Feel free to give it a try on your way home today, but, if you do, your brakes will no longer be "properly cared for". You will stop though.
I seriously thought this was about a 3D printer that could print the blocks, but instead I'm presented with a pretty unimpressive assembly machine. 1. Build Lego assembly machine 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Call me when you've got something to custom fabricate Lego blocks. 1. Build Lego block printer 2. Sell one to every Lego store on the planet 3. Profit!
I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?
What 'Citizen Kane' really needed was some CGI. Then Welles could have made the movie he was really dreaming of, where Rosebud was shark with a frickin' laser on its head! What a let down.
There's a much more accurate parallel here than licensed software. Open up any paperback book to the publication page. On it you'll find text similar to this (found in my copy of "The Pelican Brief"):
If you purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen properly. It was reported as "unsold and destroyed" to the publisher and neither the author nor the publisher has received any payment for this "stripped book"
The guys at AutoDesk said "you don't need to ship that back to us, just destroy it" regarding the old versions R14. They did this to save money and allow cheaper upgrade pricing. After shaking hands on that deal those R14 disks, if sold, seem to me more analogous to stolen property than previously licensed editions.
The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV.
I sign my name on an agreement every time I use my credit card for anything of substance. From last weeks Pizza Receipt:
"I agree to pay the above total amount according to card issuer agreement."
I figure it will take about 10 seconds for someone at VISA to realize that they can charge the Merchant a little bit more to have that signature cover a licensing agreement.
Sooner or later you get into the question, do people have the right to dislike other groups of people?
Absolutely. My question is this: Why are they burning this particular book at this particular time? Are they making some statement about their beliefs? Or is their goal to foster fear and hatred of someone elses? Would they be offended if I got all my friends together to have a Bible Burning and Weenie Roast?
I don't believe in thought crimes, so I'm mostly against laws criminalizing some frame of mind. That said, I also believe in the Golden Rule. I'm hoping someone really does rent the yard across the street from their Quran cookoff and hold the first annual Bible Burning and Weenie Roast. Maybe with little brands of the cross or a Jesus fish on every frank.
Well, to be pedantic, that's not *strictly* quicksort. It's a two bin radix sort. The only difference, of course, is that in quicksort you pick your pivot based on some item(s) in your set, and in radix you select the boundary based on properties of the data distribution. I only mention it because I *have* seen something that uses radix sort on physical objects: an old punch card sorter.
I believe that there is an NP complete problem related to TeX (having to do with optimally allocating interstitial space in justified text or some such). If he's playing with anything relating to NP completeness it'll surely have something to do with that.
Yes, Jules, I have read it. Maybe my reading comprehension just sucks but it looks to me like, when written out longhand it says: The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and Post Roads. That's a grant of power, not a requirement to exercise it.
I also think it's interesting that they have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, but are only required to uniformly apply duties, imposts and excises. Apparently it's OK to tax Mr. Samuel L. Jackson into oblivion if you don't like his tone.
The accelerator isn't a binary input, since it's measuring an analog range of pedal positions. From your description (and from the nature of the type of sensor I'm guessing they use) I'm guessing you were seeing sudden (not slewing) jumps between low and high values. If the sensor registers consistent jumps without any intermediate values the sensor is broken (and the software should detect such, as that's not a totally unheard of failure mode). I guarantee the control loop is sampling faster than you can slam it to the floor, which means it should be logging the transition values.
Slashdot Mirror
Say, somebody DUI comes towards you... Can you shoot such person in self defence?
Depends on where you are, I'd say.
*Bump*Bump*Screech*
Never mind then.
Out of curiosity, at what point does the existence of the checkpoint itself count as "published by law enforcement?" At the very least it would be at the point where the first ticket was written, since the ticket is a public record and it contains the address closest to the infraction. Right?
What bothers me about this is that Apple has, essentially, banned an app for publishing a certain class of facts. Is there any way that this sounds OK once it's been framed that way? I get the motivation but I'm just not willing to advocate for censoring facts unless you prove to me that there's no viable alternative.
I'd make a significant distinction between refusing to exercise a right and surrendering a right. I have the right to remain silent. If I choose to say something it doesn't imply I've surrendered by right to stop speaking later. You can always choose to not exercise a right because you feel it is in your best interest (waiving your right to a trial for instance). Depending on the type of right choosing to surrender it may imply a future obligation. An example would be testifying in your own defense at court. Choosing to testify on your own behalf may open you to answering questions that you might otherwise have been able to remain silent.
Which leads us directly to the question of natural (inalienable, or, in other words non-surrender-able) rights versus legal rights. With this judgement our Supreme Court seems to have clarified that the right to seek justice is a legal rather than an inalienable right, and can, therefore, be surrendered. I fundamentally disagree. One of the roles of government is to foster justice, not establish it. Unfortunately the constitution disagrees:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..."
or at least appears to. I *think* they (the framers) mean to establish what justice *is* rather than establish the right to seek justice. In that case there can be no arbiter above the government for the defining of just practice. I could then choose to waive my right to trial but never surrender it. Clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
We (Citizens of the USA) don't live in a democracy. If we did our particular mechanism of repression wouldn't work. We live in a republic, and the representatives have discovered that we will vote based on our emotions about their views on a small subset of policy choices (abortion, taxation, welfare, social security, etc). Whenever we express concern over some non-emotive issue (abstract things like "justice", "equality", "fairness", etc) we can be distracted (and therefore controlled) by attacking our emotive issues.
Our representatives no longer represent our best interests, they represent our biggest interests. If we lived in a democracy corporations couldn't buy up all the representatives and "encourage" them to vote specific ways on given non-emotive issues.
The more I think about it the more I come to believe that the reasons Blu-Ray has received any negative reception can be tied to (i.e. blamed on) the presence of DRM. Think of all the actively negative things about it:
* Ridiculous disc load times: key lookup, verification, and revocation in action. Plus the decryption overhead (particularly on imperfect discs).
* Poor device compatibility with displays: HDCP is the bane of my existence, and I'm not alone
* Regular disc incompatibilities requiring updated firmware: gotta patch those DRM holes, and bump the required Blu-Ray version
* Buggy playback devices: Development and testing time wasted verifying DRM rather than *basic system operations*
Eliminate all of that crap, and you are left with a moderately improved viewing experience, a somewhat higher price, and some interesting, but supplemental features (3D, streaming, downloadable content, etc). The difference is that all those positives are just not sufficiently good to motivate a purchase. The DRM negatives *are* motivating buyers...to avoid Blu-Ray.
Just about everyone who has ever purchased a Blu-Ray player has had to fight the DRM, either with a display/TV that wouldn't work (or flickers for a few minutes on startup, like mine used to), or a disc that wouldn't play. Almost no one notices the DRM on DVDs (I'm betting the *awareness* of it is less than 5%). To borrow some Apple marketing phrases: DVD just works, and Blu-Ray is a big bag of hurt.
Colossus hums: "WX7KF9L CBL3 GZDQDD"
WOPR asks: "Shall we play a game?"
Sky-Net retorts: "Global Thermonuclear War"
Well, *they* thought it was funny.
I agree (I think) with the releases by wikileaks, but as I see it the major difference is that the New York Times is a paper of record, and Ellsberg is a US citizen. Frankly I think it just terrifies every government on the planet that a foreign national could choose to publish anything they receive with no real recourse.
In the end I do believe wikileaks is in the right, but I can understand why the US is so keen to make it as painful as possible.
Even Earth girls aren't *that* easy.
It seems to me that this discovery yielded a change in the calculated number of stars in the universe, while doing next to nothing about "the total number of known stars in the universe".
In that case give that dude a cookie and make Apple hire him. It's nothing short of magical that he could push a 10Gbps DDoS from a single 386 and a VB script, I don't care what his mitichlorian count is.
a car engine will easily overpower its breaks
I believe if you really look into it you will find that cars are designed so that (if properly cared for) the stock brakes can overcome the maximum output of the stock engine. This is a fundamental safety feature, which, if ignored, would certainly earn a offending car company a legal black eye. Feel free to give it a try on your way home today, but, if you do, your brakes will no longer be "properly cared for". You will stop though.
I seriously thought this was about a 3D printer that could print the blocks, but instead I'm presented with a pretty unimpressive assembly machine.
1. Build Lego assembly machine
2. ???
3. Profit!
Call me when you've got something to custom fabricate Lego blocks.
1. Build Lego block printer
2. Sell one to every Lego store on the planet
3. Profit!
I didn't realize scrip/acting and 3D were mutually exclusive.. does the same apply to CGI, HD video at home, surround sound and color, too?
What 'Citizen Kane' really needed was some CGI. Then Welles could have made the movie he was really dreaming of, where Rosebud was shark with a frickin' laser on its head! What a let down.
There's a much more accurate parallel here than licensed software. Open up any paperback book to the publication page. On it you'll find text similar to this (found in my copy of "The Pelican Brief"):
If you purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen properly. It was reported as "unsold and destroyed" to the publisher and neither the author nor the publisher has received any payment for this "stripped book"
The guys at AutoDesk said "you don't need to ship that back to us, just destroy it" regarding the old versions R14. They did this to save money and allow cheaper upgrade pricing. After shaking hands on that deal those R14 disks, if sold, seem to me more analogous to stolen property than previously licensed editions.
The only good news is that it is much harder to enforce a license when buying an actual good, because people aren't used to having to sign a document when buying a stove or a TV.
I sign my name on an agreement every time I use my credit card for anything of substance. From last weeks Pizza Receipt:
"I agree to pay the above total amount according to card issuer agreement."
I figure it will take about 10 seconds for someone at VISA to realize that they can charge the Merchant a little bit more to have that signature cover a licensing agreement.
Sooner or later you get into the question, do people have the right to dislike other groups of people?
Absolutely. My question is this: Why are they burning this particular book at this particular time? Are they making some statement about their beliefs? Or is their goal to foster fear and hatred of someone elses? Would they be offended if I got all my friends together to have a Bible Burning and Weenie Roast?
I don't believe in thought crimes, so I'm mostly against laws criminalizing some frame of mind. That said, I also believe in the Golden Rule. I'm hoping someone really does rent the yard across the street from their Quran cookoff and hold the first annual Bible Burning and Weenie Roast. Maybe with little brands of the cross or a Jesus fish on every frank.
He risked his life for your right to be an asshole.
So *that's* why 4chan is celebrating!
Well, to be pedantic, that's not *strictly* quicksort. It's a two bin radix sort. The only difference, of course, is that in quicksort you pick your pivot based on some item(s) in your set, and in radix you select the boundary based on properties of the data distribution. I only mention it because I *have* seen something that uses radix sort on physical objects: an old punch card sorter.
What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing?
Sheikh Squad?
I've tried this. It constantly replaces VI commands with "I'm an erudite prick". I didn't have the courage to try emacs...
I don't think that's what "tab based browsing" really means...
I believe that there is an NP complete problem related to TeX (having to do with optimally allocating interstitial space in justified text or some such). If he's playing with anything relating to NP completeness it'll surely have something to do with that.
Yes, Jules, I have read it. Maybe my reading comprehension just sucks but it looks to me like, when written out longhand it says: The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and Post Roads. That's a grant of power, not a requirement to exercise it.
I also think it's interesting that they have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, but are only required to uniformly apply duties, imposts and excises. Apparently it's OK to tax Mr. Samuel L. Jackson into oblivion if you don't like his tone.
The accelerator isn't a binary input, since it's measuring an analog range of pedal positions. From your description (and from the nature of the type of sensor I'm guessing they use) I'm guessing you were seeing sudden (not slewing) jumps between low and high values. If the sensor registers consistent jumps without any intermediate values the sensor is broken (and the software should detect such, as that's not a totally unheard of failure mode). I guarantee the control loop is sampling faster than you can slam it to the floor, which means it should be logging the transition values.
Yes, but he rolls ones FROM SPACE.