They need to define what 'self driving' means to get an answer. Self driving features such as parking assist or other very specific functions are already here, but I don't consider it self driving if I can't get from one location to another without driving. Maybe if I could travel an interstate with no interaction, that might qualify.
To understand Germany's energy use, just look at this graph. 75% of it is fossil fuel based. The idea that it had so much renewable it had to pay people to use it is ridiculous and simply a function of the bureaucracy, not the reality.
You might find this interesting;
On Jan 1, 2016 at 10:00 am Total German Wind Output was at 0.49 GW, only about 1% of demand at that time. There are many other times like this during the year. (and solar was only at 0.14GW, so it didn't help much)
No, it doesn't. The global wind average is not a constant.
You are right, and furthermore not all wind is useful for wind power. Gusty winds or multi-directional winds are pretty much useless. "the wind is always blowing somewhere' is a statement of ignorance of all the other factors that matter. Even in Germany, when averaging all their wind across the country, they have times when almost no wind energy is generated.
On Jan 1, 2016 at 10:00 am Wind Output was at 0.49 GW, only about 1% of demand at that time. There are many other times like this during the year. (and solar was only at 0.14GW, so it didn't help much)
I said nothing about the jury. You cited the definition of proprietorial discretion, but not the standards by which it is implemented. Its not simply them doing what they feel they want to. Precedence and quality of evidence are key factors. A DA will not be employed long ignoring cases with clear evidence. Its not like there is any lack of clarity on which laws were apparently broken.
Going forward, the DA may decide to drop the charges once defense lawyers present more information, or plea bargain, or to go ahead with trial. That's how the process works, and ignoring a case with clear evidence is not going to happen under any normal circumstance. And when we are dealing with anything to do with elections, its not something you just dismiss immediate. This is a case where the guy apparently decided consciously to break the law, and could have taken a different approach. If he had been caught before he revealed it would probably be even worse for him in the end. At least now he has some defense evidence as well.
I see you've taken it all in nicely, the exact list they fed you, word for word. Why does it matter what I believe? I don't believe any politicians will achieve their promises, if that makes you feel better. All I am saying is use the actual facts and words, which you were not doing. There is plenty to criticize without make stuff up and twisting what is actually said.
I do believe people whose views are based entirely on biased interpretative reporting are easy to spot by what they repeat, and are ill equipped to make rational judgements about any candidate.
You make good points, but you can't simply expect 'good intentions' to take precedence when solid evidence is at hand. I said there is evidence a crime as been committed, not that he is guilty, if I miss-spoke, my apologies. The courts decide if he is guilty of anything.
What you appear to be saying here is that the only thing that matters is that an intrusion took place, and that, context be damned, he's guilty as a result
I am absolutely not saying that. Being charged or prosecuted does not make one guilty. Having strong evidence pretty much requires a prosecutor move forward with the prosecution but does not mean one is guilty. I'm simply saying the prosecutor is doing his/her job, regardless of the intent of the hacker. What happens next is called the legal process. It may be a dropping of the charges, a plea bargain, an acquittal, a conviction. They can take into account all the stuff you mentioned. I don't want him to go to jail, and frankly I don't know what other information exists.
Don't know. The legal system is the place where we find out. Some are charged, some are then prosecuted, some acquitted, etc. But if they broke a law, and there is evidence, then they'll be at risk of at least getting charged.
Thanks, but the details come within the rules on how that discretion is exercised. They can't just arbitrarily ignore solid evidence. They can choose to not prosecute based on lack of evidence. Its not like they can just say "I like this guy and he had good intentions, so we'll ignore this strong evidence he committed a felony."
At this point, we know he's been charged and arrested. Since the charges have been brought up, the DA/PA has to have a strong reason to dismiss the charges, based primarily on lack of evidence.
Why not? I've seen it before. Pushing someone out of the way of a falling piano is assault. But permission is generally given after the fact, given that the battery was performed for the benefit of the "victim".
Pushing someone out of the way of a falling piano is not assault. Making stupid stuff up like this is an assault on common sense though, with or without permission.
Interesting that you call bias toward and advertising client "political bias". I would not be surprised to see any magazine refraining to post negative articles about a key advertiser's products. I know cigarettes are a particularly easy target these days. I'd guess you may have had strong feelings, politically, about this particular organization for some other reason beside cigarette ads to start with.
That you are not convinced is a good thing. Healthy skepticism by a journalist. I'm not convinced either, I don't have enough information but it would not surprise me.
But, also, you can't dismiss the claims because they come from conservative minded people. I would not expect liberal mined ones to notice such a thing, so they would not likely be a source.
It would be nice to see real numbers, but as a reporter would you follow up on the accusation with more or less vigor depending on the slant?
I don't believe every news source is taking Trump out of context, but I am certain many reporters are. If you think they are not, then so be it, just tell me you believe everything you read about him and we can be done.
I don't care about what you think about someones interpretation of something Trump mentioned about printing money. If he didn't say he's going to do it, or even plans to do it, I'm not sure why it matters.
What other things that Trump didn't say bother you as much?
So, we are not allowed to discuss if this definition of unemployment, and how it is actually calculated in any given report is not open to discussion? I guess its perfect as it is, never misleading, never open to interpretation, and can't be improved upon, and understood by all. I don't believe that, but if that is your opinion, so be it.
Thanks. I was beginning to be disillusioned with all the people here who simply can't understand how the law works, and seem to think someone can arbitrarily decide not to prosecute because in their opinion he was doing a good thing. For all we know, the prosecutor may actually agree that he was dong a good thing, but he/she has a job to do.
You can in fact ignore it. If you are doing something to prevent a worse evil than the one you committed you can attempt to present an affirmative defense. Civil disobedience is another case where you break the law as a form of first amendment protest and can trump lesser laws.
And if there is a law that trumps this one, they'll find out during the process of prosecution. We don't just take a slashdot poll up front and decide a law applies or not. The law is clear, the evidences shows it was broken, it gets prosecuted. If there is a legal reason the law doesn't apply, we find out with due process.
"...but he still broke the law and MUST be prosecuted if there is evidence, which there clearly is. It not like there is a choice in the matter."
Actually there is, the prosecutor has discretion.
That discretion is based on quality of evidence. If the evidence is clear, there is no choice. Its not the movies.
I'm having trouble even knowing where to start with someone who thinks that robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is in any way analogous to a security researcher reporting a flaw they discovered.
First off, if what he did is illegal under the current law (which has yet to be decided in court), then the law should be repealed and the jury should vote for nullification
For the first part, it was simply an example of why you can't justify breaking the law on 'good intentions'. That is all.
On your second point, if you think the law should be repealed then that should be your point. But we can't let criminals go because some people think the law should be repealed. The way the legal system works, is you repeal the law, then it no longer applies. Until then, you must prosecute if you have evidence the law has been broken. Whether he gets convicted is another story, and if so what his punishment will be is another. But we can't just decide arbitrarily to not prosecute. Who decides then when we should or shouldn't prosecute any crime?
That you applaud his actions matters zero. That someone reported the crime for their own personal reasons matters zero. What matters is the crime was committed, and the evidence is enough to prosecute. That is how it works. Sorry, but its simple reality. If it is enough evidence to convict and the court/jury agrees, then he'll be sentenced. That's simple reality as well, and your opinion or the motivation of the person who reported him are irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Sorry, but that's how the real world works.
You may not like it or agree with it, but that's how it works. If you don't like the law, fight to have it changed. Argue with the law, not those doing their job in enforcing the law.
I didn't give him a pass, there are things he says I don't agree with, but at least I check to see what he actually said and meant. In this case, I'm just asking what he actually said and in what context. I still haven't gotten the response. I bet you don't even know.
So you're saying that a savvy businessman and financial genius like Trump doesn't know the meaning of, "unemployment rate"?
Did I say that, or is this yet another great example of how words get put into the mouths of others?
If you have a philosophical discussion regarding the real unemployment rate and what the definition SHOULD be, you can include many of the non-working who simply are not on a payroll, and not just those reported in the actual job seeking numbers. There is an official number, but there are a lot of opinions on how well that official number represents reality. So, in that context, you can argue the real rate is higher, or lower, or different. You can assume someone having that discussion does not understand the official numbers if you want, but that simply an assumption with no basis to back it up. You are really just trying to play a game of 'gotcha' instead of caring about the point of the discussion. If he later spoke in another context using the more accepted numbers, that is fine.
I'm not a big Trump fan, and did not vote for him in the primaries, but the more I see people twist words or play gotcha, the more I like the idea of having someone who can plow through all that stupid petty bullshit.
If they were actually interested in providing a secure system they would have rewarded him instead.
Permission can't come in hindsight. Maybe there are pissed off people who reported him, but he still broke the law and MUST be prosecuted if there is evidence, which there clearly is. It not like there is a choice in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
They need to define what 'self driving' means to get an answer. Self driving features such as parking assist or other very specific functions are already here, but I don't consider it self driving if I can't get from one location to another without driving. Maybe if I could travel an interstate with no interaction, that might qualify.
To understand Germany's energy use, just look at this graph. 75% of it is fossil fuel based. The idea that it had so much renewable it had to pay people to use it is ridiculous and simply a function of the bureaucracy, not the reality.
You might find this interesting; On Jan 1, 2016 at 10:00 am Total German Wind Output was at 0.49 GW, only about 1% of demand at that time. There are many other times like this during the year. (and solar was only at 0.14GW, so it didn't help much)
https://www.energy-charts.de/p...
No, it doesn't. The global wind average is not a constant.
You are right, and furthermore not all wind is useful for wind power. Gusty winds or multi-directional winds are pretty much useless. "the wind is always blowing somewhere' is a statement of ignorance of all the other factors that matter. Even in Germany, when averaging all their wind across the country, they have times when almost no wind energy is generated.
On Jan 1, 2016 at 10:00 am Wind Output was at 0.49 GW, only about 1% of demand at that time. There are many other times like this during the year. (and solar was only at 0.14GW, so it didn't help much)
https://www.energy-charts.de/p...
In Germany, on April 8 2016 at 15:30, Solar and Wind generated only 2.1 % of demand at that time.
In simplest terms, it is single atom oxygen molecules, or O, whereas normal oxygen we think of is O2, and Ozone is O3.
Yes, I suppose its not as absolute as I made it to be, but I'd put forth that it is still quite an exception where there is strong evidence.
I said nothing about the jury. You cited the definition of proprietorial discretion, but not the standards by which it is implemented. Its not simply them doing what they feel they want to. Precedence and quality of evidence are key factors. A DA will not be employed long ignoring cases with clear evidence. Its not like there is any lack of clarity on which laws were apparently broken.
Going forward, the DA may decide to drop the charges once defense lawyers present more information, or plea bargain, or to go ahead with trial. That's how the process works, and ignoring a case with clear evidence is not going to happen under any normal circumstance. And when we are dealing with anything to do with elections, its not something you just dismiss immediate. This is a case where the guy apparently decided consciously to break the law, and could have taken a different approach. If he had been caught before he revealed it would probably be even worse for him in the end. At least now he has some defense evidence as well.
I see you've taken it all in nicely, the exact list they fed you, word for word. Why does it matter what I believe? I don't believe any politicians will achieve their promises, if that makes you feel better. All I am saying is use the actual facts and words, which you were not doing. There is plenty to criticize without make stuff up and twisting what is actually said.
I do believe people whose views are based entirely on biased interpretative reporting are easy to spot by what they repeat, and are ill equipped to make rational judgements about any candidate.
What you appear to be saying here is that the only thing that matters is that an intrusion took place, and that, context be damned, he's guilty as a result
I am absolutely not saying that. Being charged or prosecuted does not make one guilty. Having strong evidence pretty much requires a prosecutor move forward with the prosecution but does not mean one is guilty. I'm simply saying the prosecutor is doing his/her job, regardless of the intent of the hacker. What happens next is called the legal process. It may be a dropping of the charges, a plea bargain, an acquittal, a conviction. They can take into account all the stuff you mentioned. I don't want him to go to jail, and frankly I don't know what other information exists.
What about them?
So, all whistle blowers are criminals?
Don't know. The legal system is the place where we find out. Some are charged, some are then prosecuted, some acquitted, etc. But if they broke a law, and there is evidence, then they'll be at risk of at least getting charged.
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Thanks, but the details come within the rules on how that discretion is exercised. They can't just arbitrarily ignore solid evidence. They can choose to not prosecute based on lack of evidence. Its not like they can just say "I like this guy and he had good intentions, so we'll ignore this strong evidence he committed a felony."
At this point, we know he's been charged and arrested. Since the charges have been brought up, the DA/PA has to have a strong reason to dismiss the charges, based primarily on lack of evidence.
Why not? I've seen it before. Pushing someone out of the way of a falling piano is assault. But permission is generally given after the fact, given that the battery was performed for the benefit of the "victim".
Pushing someone out of the way of a falling piano is not assault. Making stupid stuff up like this is an assault on common sense though, with or without permission.
Interesting that you call bias toward and advertising client "political bias". I would not be surprised to see any magazine refraining to post negative articles about a key advertiser's products. I know cigarettes are a particularly easy target these days. I'd guess you may have had strong feelings, politically, about this particular organization for some other reason beside cigarette ads to start with.
That you are not convinced is a good thing. Healthy skepticism by a journalist. I'm not convinced either, I don't have enough information but it would not surprise me.
But, also, you can't dismiss the claims because they come from conservative minded people. I would not expect liberal mined ones to notice such a thing, so they would not likely be a source.
It would be nice to see real numbers, but as a reporter would you follow up on the accusation with more or less vigor depending on the slant?
I don't believe every news source is taking Trump out of context, but I am certain many reporters are. If you think they are not, then so be it, just tell me you believe everything you read about him and we can be done.
I don't care about what you think about someones interpretation of something Trump mentioned about printing money. If he didn't say he's going to do it, or even plans to do it, I'm not sure why it matters.
What other things that Trump didn't say bother you as much?
So, we are not allowed to discuss if this definition of unemployment, and how it is actually calculated in any given report is not open to discussion? I guess its perfect as it is, never misleading, never open to interpretation, and can't be improved upon, and understood by all. I don't believe that, but if that is your opinion, so be it.
Thanks. I was beginning to be disillusioned with all the people here who simply can't understand how the law works, and seem to think someone can arbitrarily decide not to prosecute because in their opinion he was doing a good thing. For all we know, the prosecutor may actually agree that he was dong a good thing, but he/she has a job to do.
That may or may not be a legal defense. His lawyers can present that. That's how it works. The guys has not been convicted of anything.,
You can in fact ignore it. If you are doing something to prevent a worse evil than the one you committed you can attempt to present an affirmative defense. Civil disobedience is another case where you break the law as a form of first amendment protest and can trump lesser laws.
And if there is a law that trumps this one, they'll find out during the process of prosecution. We don't just take a slashdot poll up front and decide a law applies or not. The law is clear, the evidences shows it was broken, it gets prosecuted. If there is a legal reason the law doesn't apply, we find out with due process.
"...but he still broke the law and MUST be prosecuted if there is evidence, which there clearly is. It not like there is a choice in the matter." Actually there is, the prosecutor has discretion.
That discretion is based on quality of evidence. If the evidence is clear, there is no choice. Its not the movies.
I'm having trouble even knowing where to start with someone who thinks that robbing from the rich and giving to the poor is in any way analogous to a security researcher reporting a flaw they discovered.
First off, if what he did is illegal under the current law (which has yet to be decided in court), then the law should be repealed and the jury should vote for nullification
For the first part, it was simply an example of why you can't justify breaking the law on 'good intentions'. That is all.
On your second point, if you think the law should be repealed then that should be your point. But we can't let criminals go because some people think the law should be repealed. The way the legal system works, is you repeal the law, then it no longer applies. Until then, you must prosecute if you have evidence the law has been broken. Whether he gets convicted is another story, and if so what his punishment will be is another. But we can't just decide arbitrarily to not prosecute. Who decides then when we should or shouldn't prosecute any crime?
That you applaud his actions matters zero. That someone reported the crime for their own personal reasons matters zero. What matters is the crime was committed, and the evidence is enough to prosecute. That is how it works. Sorry, but its simple reality. If it is enough evidence to convict and the court/jury agrees, then he'll be sentenced. That's simple reality as well, and your opinion or the motivation of the person who reported him are irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Sorry, but that's how the real world works.
You may not like it or agree with it, but that's how it works. If you don't like the law, fight to have it changed. Argue with the law, not those doing their job in enforcing the law.
I didn't give him a pass, there are things he says I don't agree with, but at least I check to see what he actually said and meant. In this case, I'm just asking what he actually said and in what context. I still haven't gotten the response. I bet you don't even know.
So you're saying that a savvy businessman and financial genius like Trump doesn't know the meaning of, "unemployment rate"?
Did I say that, or is this yet another great example of how words get put into the mouths of others?
If you have a philosophical discussion regarding the real unemployment rate and what the definition SHOULD be, you can include many of the non-working who simply are not on a payroll, and not just those reported in the actual job seeking numbers. There is an official number, but there are a lot of opinions on how well that official number represents reality. So, in that context, you can argue the real rate is higher, or lower, or different. You can assume someone having that discussion does not understand the official numbers if you want, but that simply an assumption with no basis to back it up. You are really just trying to play a game of 'gotcha' instead of caring about the point of the discussion. If he later spoke in another context using the more accepted numbers, that is fine.
I'm not a big Trump fan, and did not vote for him in the primaries, but the more I see people twist words or play gotcha, the more I like the idea of having someone who can plow through all that stupid petty bullshit.
If they were actually interested in providing a secure system they would have rewarded him instead.
Permission can't come in hindsight. Maybe there are pissed off people who reported him, but he still broke the law and MUST be prosecuted if there is evidence, which there clearly is. It not like there is a choice in the matter.