My rights are worth more than you got. What're you bringing to the table, again? Give me my fucking jury trial.
What the DA is bringing is "Tiny" and "Bubba". Your new cellmates. They like breaking in fresh meat... like it a lot. The guards pay no mind to the screams.
I am equally astonished that you can be summarily convicted with no due process. Standing in front of a judge explaining your story and that the cop has it wrong is not due process. Judges can be in bad moods and need to move along a huge case load.
Mood or no mood, there ain't no justice. If it's your word against the cop's, you're going down. If it's your word and the word of six other witnesses against a cop's, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, and a pile of circumstantial evidence, against the word of a cop, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, a pile of circumstantial evidence, and a fuzzy videotape against the word of a cop, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, a pile of circumstantial evidence, and a quite clear video recording against the word of the cop's, you might get off... but you'll spend a lot of time (possibly in jail) and money doing so.
Same goes for a jury trial, unfortunately. Juries are made up of "good citizens" who believe in our institutions, particularly including the police.
It's pretty clear Franklin was trolling big time with that letter.
Re:I have an organ donor card...
on
When Are You Dead?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Brain death is irreversible, you don't come back from that. If something comes back, it will be a vegetable, not the original person.
If you RTFAd, you'd find out that one person who was certified brain dead and whose organs were about to be harvested DID come back and was not vegetative. You can argue that they weren't really brain dead, but that just moves the argument up a level to how you determine brain death.
Pay by the day data is not the same as pay as you go data. You pay the day price if you use the phone at all for that day, which means you have to turn the phone off to avoid getting charged (even if you don't use the phone and turn off data, an incoming text message can trigger the full day's fee). With their old pay as you go data, you paid $1.50/day for data, but you had to explicitly turn it on, and you could use pay-as-you-go voice at $0.10/minute without paying the data price.
In the linked article: "Bing's freshness -- search quality in terms of freshness -- is at least on par with Google" and "Shum believes that Bing has finally reached a point where it can compete with Google on a technical level".
So I go to Bing and search for [bings freshness]. What do I get.... "Including results for bings gall", and only one relevant result, the linked article at position 10. OK, there's a link which says "Do you want results for bings freshness", so I click on that... and hilarity ensues. #1 and #2 are "property for sale in Bings health". There's a bunch of results about cherries, one about candy, and one about dog food. No relevant results.
Now, Google. #1 result, the linked article (as a news result). #2, a wired blog quoting the linked article. #3, a different blog. #4-#6 are irrelavent, #7 is findlaw quoting the article, #8-9 are irrelevant, and #10 is a sourcecon article, relevant but not the same one.
I am biased here, but I think Google's results are better and fresher.
One situation where then "non-randomness" comes to mind is bowling games. Once you figure out the right settings (angle and speed, some of the fancy games let you choose ball weight and alley slickness too), you can pretty much score a perfect game every time by just repeating the same settings each frame.
Works in real life, too -- not with real bowling, but with the arcade games which have a bowling ball running on a track with a hill, the idea being to shove the ball over the hill and have it get stuck on the other side. Once you've dialed yourself in, you can score tickets consistently until you get bored.
For bowling games, maybe it would be sufficient to simulate the effects of scuffing of the ball and alley wax transferred to the ball.
That would explain why a cop claimed he measured me at 91, even though my cruise control had been set to 79 (plus four over the speed limit). His equipment was probably not calibrated and giving false readings.
No. Cops know the difference between 90 and 80. Anyone who has been driving for a while does. If he claimed he measured you at 91 and you had your cruise control set at 79, he was simply lying. Cops do it all the time, and get away with it because the judges believe them no matter what.
The usual anti-car stuff from the usual anti-car suspects. There's no point in paying any attention to that set; they'll say whatever it takes to promote their vision of how people should live, which generally means people renting tiny places in a rat warren, taking public transit to work and walking everywhere else. The private car is anathema to them, as are low-density suburbs and single family homes.
So use a traditional charge plate (or a chipped one) once you lose the phone. Certainly in the short to medium term, your phone is unlikely to be the only way to use your cards. And if in the long run it is, maybe you'll be able to get a basic wallet-phone for $10 (in today's money).
A physical wallet costs $6. While a nuisance to replace any of the identification lost, in practice, even this might run a person no more than about $40 or so.
An iphone 4s starts at about $200.
Guess which one I'm keeping my credit cards in?
What difference does it make? If you lose your phone you need a new phone, regardless of whether it contains your credit card details. Putting your credit card info in your phone doesn't make it more likely you'll lose it.
Not true. Weight is determined by the insulin response triggered by an increase in blood sugar. Calories in/calories out is a good rough guide but Adkins adherents (and the previous low carb diets that have preceded it, starting with the Banting diet) have known for a long time that the endocrine system is the major player in weight gain/loss.
Atkins dieters eat fewer calories and lose weight that way. Fat and protein make you feel full with fewer calories than carbs.
In the Bodog.com case, State of Maryland prosecutors were able to obtain a warrant ordering Verisign, the company that manages the dot-com domain name registry, to redirect the website to a warning page advising that it has been seized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Wait... the _State of Maryland_ obtained a warrant to redirect a website to a warning page run by the _Department of Homeland Security_?
This doesn't make sense. Why would the State of Maryland redirect a website to DHS? A little research reveals they did not -- the warrant was obtained by the US Attorney for the District of Maryland.
Anyway, there's no question that the US has personal jurisdiction over Verisign (and hence.com and.net). Whether they have jurisdiction over a company's actions merely because those actions are done through a.com or.net domain is another question -- but not one at issue, as the prosecutors are claiming that bodog.com was taking bets from the US; Bodog denies this. As is whether a warrant should be sufficient to punitively seize a domain name before trial -- as far as I know, they've managed to avoid challenge in court on this issue.
The thing being touted is sampling it at 192kHz with 24bit resolution, which is much higher on both counts, and therefore, in theory, should produce better quality reproduction of the sound based on oversampling and reduction of the signal to quantization noise rate.
Sure, but with the loudness war, they're not really using the 16 bits they have, so what's the point?
Why bother? None of the "good citizens" of this country cares what the cops do to protesters or anyone else they want to go after.
Cops doing bad things are filmed all the time. Nothing really comes of it, except maybe the charges against their victim are dismissed.
You want something to happen to cops who do bad things? So far, the only proven way is to burn down part of the city, Los Angeles style. Then maybe a few cops will get some sort of punishment. That's what it takes.
I've tried to point this out to the "ban encryption" crowd for a while. There _should be_ no difference between properly encrypted data and properly compressed data. The goal of both is to create a bitstream that is indistinguishable from random noise.
Except that compressed data will have markers which tell you what it is. The enforcers could attempt to decompress such data to make sure it really is what it says it is. If it won't decompress, assume it's encrypted.
Which asserts that the copies made for the USPTO are "unauthorized", which conflicts with the previous the USPTO memo clearly indicating it is fair use.
A copy made under fair use is always unauthorized by the copyright holder; if it was authorized, fair use wouldn't come into play. So there's no conflict here.
As for the rest of it... yeah. They're attempting to abuse the reproduction right in order to make an enormous cash grab from patent filers.
But when do you get to use a loaded word like "extort" and when is it merely ordinary, run-of-the-mill patent licensing, which is very clearly part of the purpose of having patent law in the first place?
Guess that depends on how you feel about the patent system. If you think the whole thing is bad, you probably use words "extort" even for run-of-the-mill patent licensing. Personally I use it whenever a company appears to be offensively using an obviously bogus and overbroad patent -- Honeywell suing "The Nest" for having a round thermostat, for instance, when Honeywell made one in 1955 and any legitimate patent would be long since expired.
Whether IBM is a "blue chip" stock has nothing to do with whether they're a patent troll. Nobody said a patent troll couldn't be large or successful. IBM tends to use its patent portfolio mostly to make sure it doesn't have to pay any licensing fees; the exception is a small percentage of what it considers "high value" patents which it uses for revenue or to keep exclusivity. If they were to start having their lawyers dig through their patent portfolio and looking for companies doing something vaugely related so they could sue for damages, that would be patent trolling.
If the cop is messing with you, gather your witnesses and sue his ass later.
You'll lose and waste your time and harm yourself trying; this comes into the category of "wrestling with a pig". If a cop is messing with you, you can resist RIGHT THEN, and at least ruin his day, probably at the cost of your freedom or your life. Or you can submit. Talking about giving in then while somehow suing later is just assuaging your shame for surrendering; it isn't going to happen: ask any lawyer about your chances.
A patent troll is a company that makes nothing of note (typically nothing at all) yet sues other companies for patent infringement. In fact, it can be best summed up that a patent troll's business model is generating revenues from suing other companies for patent infringement.
Not all trolls are non-practicing entities. A company which does make stuff, but makes a practice of filing broad patents on every aspect of what they make, however trivial, and then digs them up and uses them to extort payment from others is also engaging in patent trolling. Thus Unisys with the LZW patent, Microsoft with the various FAT long-file-name patents, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It'll just get most people obeying. Tyranny: it works, bitch.
Ask for docs on NSA and Slashdot, or NSA and the local pizza place, or NSA and your mother, and you'll get the same non-response.
What the DA is bringing is "Tiny" and "Bubba". Your new cellmates. They like breaking in fresh meat... like it a lot. The guards pay no mind to the screams.
Mood or no mood, there ain't no justice. If it's your word against the cop's, you're going down. If it's your word and the word of six other witnesses against a cop's, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, and a pile of circumstantial evidence, against the word of a cop, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, a pile of circumstantial evidence, and a fuzzy videotape against the word of a cop, you're going down. If it's your word, the word of six other witnesses, a pile of circumstantial evidence, and a quite clear video recording against the word of the cop's, you might get off... but you'll spend a lot of time (possibly in jail) and money doing so.
Same goes for a jury trial, unfortunately. Juries are made up of "good citizens" who believe in our institutions, particularly including the police.
It's pretty clear Franklin was trolling big time with that letter.
If you RTFAd, you'd find out that one person who was certified brain dead and whose organs were about to be harvested DID come back and was not vegetative. You can argue that they weren't really brain dead, but that just moves the argument up a level to how you determine brain death.
Pay by the day data is not the same as pay as you go data. You pay the day price if you use the phone at all for that day, which means you have to turn the phone off to avoid getting charged (even if you don't use the phone and turn off data, an incoming text message can trigger the full day's fee). With their old pay as you go data, you paid $1.50/day for data, but you had to explicitly turn it on, and you could use pay-as-you-go voice at $0.10/minute without paying the data price.
So I go to Bing and search for [bings freshness]. What do I get.... "Including results for bings gall", and only one relevant result, the linked article at position 10.
OK, there's a link which says "Do you want results for bings freshness", so I click on that... and hilarity ensues. #1 and #2 are "property for sale in Bings health". There's a bunch of results about cherries, one about candy, and one about dog food. No relevant results.
Now, Google. #1 result, the linked article (as a news result). #2, a wired blog quoting the linked article. #3, a different blog. #4-#6 are irrelavent, #7 is findlaw quoting the article, #8-9 are irrelevant, and #10 is a sourcecon article, relevant but not the same one.
I am biased here, but I think Google's results are better and fresher.
Except T-mobile dropped pay-as-you-go data, so if you want talk and data, you're stuck with a monthly plan.
Works in real life, too -- not with real bowling, but with the arcade games which have a bowling ball running on a track with a hill, the idea being to shove the ball over the hill and have it get stuck on the other side. Once you've dialed yourself in, you can score tickets consistently until you get bored.
For bowling games, maybe it would be sufficient to simulate the effects of scuffing of the ball and alley wax transferred to the ball.
No. Cops know the difference between 90 and 80. Anyone who has been driving for a while does. If he claimed he measured you at 91 and you had your cruise control set at 79, he was simply lying. Cops do it all the time, and get away with it because the judges believe them no matter what.
The usual anti-car stuff from the usual anti-car suspects. There's no point in paying any attention to that set; they'll say whatever it takes to promote their vision of how people should live, which generally means people renting tiny places in a rat warren, taking public transit to work and walking everywhere else. The private car is anathema to them, as are low-density suburbs and single family homes.
So use a traditional charge plate (or a chipped one) once you lose the phone. Certainly in the short to medium term, your phone is unlikely to be the only way to use your cards. And if in the long run it is, maybe you'll be able to get a basic wallet-phone for $10 (in today's money).
Reporters might find it hard to advance in their profession when they're on the no-fly list.
What difference does it make? If you lose your phone you need a new phone, regardless of whether it contains your credit card details. Putting your credit card info in your phone doesn't make it more likely you'll lose it.
Because it's the only game in town.
Atkins dieters eat fewer calories and lose weight that way. Fat and protein make you feel full with fewer calories than carbs.
Wait... the _State of Maryland_ obtained a warrant to redirect a website to a warning page run by the _Department of Homeland Security_?
This doesn't make sense. Why would the State of Maryland redirect a website to DHS? A little research reveals they did not -- the warrant was obtained by the US Attorney for the District of Maryland.
Anyway, there's no question that the US has personal jurisdiction over Verisign (and hence .com and .net). Whether they have jurisdiction over a company's actions merely because those actions are done through a .com or .net domain is another question -- but not one at issue, as the prosecutors are claiming that bodog.com was taking bets from the US; Bodog denies this. As is whether a warrant should be sufficient to punitively seize a domain name before trial -- as far as I know, they've managed to avoid challenge in court on this issue.
Sure, but with the loudness war, they're not really using the 16 bits they have, so what's the point?
Why bother? None of the "good citizens" of this country cares what the cops do to protesters or anyone else they want to go after.
Cops doing bad things are filmed all the time. Nothing really comes of it, except maybe the charges against their victim are dismissed.
You want something to happen to cops who do bad things? So far, the only proven way is to burn down part of the city, Los Angeles style. Then maybe a few cops will get some sort of punishment. That's what it takes.
Except that compressed data will have markers which tell you what it is. The enforcers could attempt to decompress such data to make sure it really is what it says it is. If it won't decompress, assume it's encrypted.
A copy made under fair use is always unauthorized by the copyright holder; if it was authorized, fair use wouldn't come into play. So there's no conflict here.
As for the rest of it... yeah. They're attempting to abuse the reproduction right in order to make an enormous cash grab from patent filers.
Guess that depends on how you feel about the patent system. If you think the whole thing is bad, you probably use words "extort" even for run-of-the-mill patent licensing. Personally I use it whenever a company appears to be offensively using an obviously bogus and overbroad patent -- Honeywell suing "The Nest" for having a round thermostat, for instance, when Honeywell made one in 1955 and any legitimate patent would be long since expired.
Whether IBM is a "blue chip" stock has nothing to do with whether they're a patent troll. Nobody said a patent troll couldn't be large or successful. IBM tends to use its patent portfolio mostly to make sure it doesn't have to pay any licensing fees; the exception is a small percentage of what it considers "high value" patents which it uses for revenue or to keep exclusivity. If they were to start having their lawyers dig through their patent portfolio and looking for companies doing something vaugely related so they could sue for damages, that would be patent trolling.
You'll lose and waste your time and harm yourself trying; this comes into the category of "wrestling with a pig". If a cop is messing with you, you can resist RIGHT THEN, and at least ruin his day, probably at the cost of your freedom or your life. Or you can submit. Talking about giving in then while somehow suing later is just assuaging your shame for surrendering; it isn't going to happen: ask any lawyer about your chances.
Not all trolls are non-practicing entities. A company which does make stuff, but makes a practice of filing broad patents on every aspect of what they make, however trivial, and then digs them up and uses them to extort payment from others is also engaging in patent trolling. Thus Unisys with the LZW patent, Microsoft with the various FAT long-file-name patents, etc.