The GP is living in a bit of a fantasy - toll roads pay for their own upkeep, but they don't for the (even amortized) costs of actually building a road - at least all the toll roads/bridges I'm familiar with.
Typically toll roads/bridges which were designed as toll facilities to begin with DO pay for the costs of building the road. Amortized, of course; bonds are sold to build the road and paid off with toll revenues.
Mr Prosser said: "You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know."
No, Reality isn't imitating Adams. Adams was simply faithfully reproducing reality. Except the bit about the "Beware of the Leopard" sign, he made that up.
All those procedural hurdles the government in general and the courts in particular have serve multiple purposes. One is to make sure you can't navigate the system without a professional (else you'll make some small procedural mistake which blows your case away regardless of its merit). The other is to allow the court to get whatever outcome it wants merely by more strictly or more loosely enforcing various procedural requirements.
On topic: while having a camera sit and record license plates is no more intrusive on a public road than someone physically standing there doing so, recording my travels is tantamount to stopping all travelers and asking for their papers.
The first step along the slope was taken when license plates were required. It's just taken a while for technology to grease the slope.
In principle, I could hire an army of people all over the nation and write down license plates and times on index cards, and then another army of people to correlate those index cards and produce records of everyone's travel (or at least the plate's travel). In practice, that's too expensive to do. But make cheap license plate scanners that can be mounted on storefronts, add in telecommunications and cheap database systems, and now it's practical to do so. And it's really hard to see how any given step could be constitutionally restricted.
It depends on the serial-to-usb converter chip used. Some don't do a good job of replicating all the characteristics of the port. Best advice is try different types until you find one that works.
The biggest problem I've found even with the good ones is timing sensitive stuff. In some OSs (Linux included), when a synchronous write to a serial port concluded, pretty much all but the last character was already out on the line. With a USB serial port, the data is probably buffered on the device; it will go out many milliseconds later (because serial is slow). So if you've built timeouts into your code, they're all wrong now.
Like bicycles don't exist. Like you can't move closer to work.
Bicycles suck in bad weather, and not everyone can live close to work. If households were all one income (or at least everyone employed had the same employer), you'd need a company town system to manage that. Since they aren't, it's not even possible that way.
I agree...if you want to drive you need to pay insurance/tax/parking, etc., ie. act like a member of the society you're so happy to leech off.
Thank you, Thomas Hobbes. Any other arbitrary and capricious hoops you would like people to be required to jump through before engaging in ordinary activities?
ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras are widespread in the UK and they definitely get my vote.
Yeah, the UK, now there's an example to follow in the realm of privacy.
...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM. I expect this system will delay a crack. I hope this system will also delay and limit sales resulting in the game not making money after all. I think Vogel has overestimated the difficulty of hacking the game; it uses the Internet, and thus there's no major difference between talking to a far-away host and talking to good old 127.0.0.1. So there's no need to set up and maintain servers; a crack could contain a local server.
The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.
The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy.
You're stating the conclusion in advance of the investigation and you don't see how that's evidence of, if not conspiracy, something very wrong?
Personally, I think it's a pride thing. Like... "No one can tell me what to do!!!" How about voluntarily managing your behavior to avoid offense when you can? Would you really use a boatload of expletives and vulgar references around women, children, your girlfriend, her parents?
How about not being so fucking touchy? The problem with a definition of civility which requires one to cater to another's irrational preferences is that people will then start adopting irrational preferences in order to control discourse. It's a comedy staple: a person trying to get an idea across in mixed company and constantly being admonished to watch his language, despite his use of tamer and tamer euphemisms. But in real life it's really irritating.
Would you praise the Nazi's in a room full of Jews?
_I_ wouldn't praise the Nazis at all, except perhaps sarcastically. That's not a matter of civility; that's the matter of the Nazis having been a bunch of murderous bastards for whom no expletive is strong enough.
1. Number of Read/Write operations per task: Does the new format result in fewer head movements, therefore less wear on the hardware, thus increasing HD's life expectancy and MTBF?
Yes. By packing the bits more efficiently, each cylinder will have more capacity, thus requiring fewer cylinders and fewer head movements for any given disk capacity.
2. Energy efficiency: Does the new format have lower power consumption, leading to lower operating temperature and better laptop/netbook battery autonomy?
Probably slightly but not significantly.
3. Are there differences in sustained read/write performance? E.g. is the new format more suitable for video editing than the old one?
One of my favorite definitions of courtesy is "acting so that those around you are most comfortable". All too often, people who use swear words are completely oblivious to those around them who would rather not hear them.
I'm uncomfortable around those who are offended by my language. The need to constantly invent circumlocutions for "offensive" words, and the distractions engendered when such circumlocutions are skipped and someone takes offense, add significant effort to discourse... which may, in fact, be the reason for such rules.
And that makes it ok to deliberately offend people?
If people are offended by swear words not directed at them, the problem lies with them and not the speaker.
"That f-ing dog bit me!"
Given that the dog was not actually attempting to copulate with anything, using the expletive adds no meaning to the sentence.
Number one, it's a dog; it probably was trying to copulate with something, perhaps the leg of the victim. Number two, conveying emotion is a perfectly valid use of language.
Use of expletives as an intensifier, as in "You're a fucking moron", is also a perfectly valid use of language. If you object to deliberately offending people, it's not the expletive which is the problem.
None of the examples you presented REQUIRE software they might use it, but they don't "depend" on it.
Having worked in the field, I assure you that both MRI and CT (that's "Computed Tomography") require software. Unless you can do reconstruction algorithms in your head or with pencil and paper.
Further, computers and software are much older than the 70s; we did NOT go to the moon on slide rules: Apollo had computers.
I wonder what this says about the degree of power different entities have when they choose to resist DMCA requests. Would Google's upstream provider(s) ever dare to take Google offline should Google decide not to comply with a particular DMCA request like Cryptome's provider has done?
No part of the DMCA requires an upstream provider (that is, a 17 USC 512(a) service provider) to disconnect a user. Only hosting providers (17 USC 512(c)) and search providers (17 USC 512(d)) are required to take down material. Google is presumably self-hosted.
Doesn't GM's system put a microcontroller at each lamp? Sure, it's pretty dumb; all it can do is watch the bus for the signal to turn its light on. But it is an actual microcontroller.
Finally, 100 million lines of code sounds like an awful lot of code for a throttle and/or braking system. I have a feeling that number is bloated to include things like when to pop on the low fuel light or seatbelt warning sounds.
If the number isn't wholly fictional, I'd guess the largest single component is the navigation system. (Which hopefully does NOT have input into the throttle... but nowadays, who knows?)
Unfortunately, all the actual engine control stuff DOES work together. It's not simply an doing an electronic simulation of a throttle cable.
Jaywalking is relatively harmless, but if you get caught by a cop that cares you'll get punished.
Sure, with a small fine. Not the death penalty.
Driving 30MpH in a 25MpH zone is arguably harmless, but some cops will pull you over and ticket you.
With a larger fine than jaywalking, and a smaller fine than for driving 100mph in the 25mph zone. And there's no fine at all for doing 24mph in a 25mph zone.
Using another employee's PC while when nobody is looking to quickly log onto the Internet can be relatively harmless, but good luck keeping your job if you get reported.
I've never been at an employer where that would be an offense at all, let along a firing offense.
There are rules, they may seem foolish to you but they have their reasons. Break them and you get punished.
Or, in other words "RESPECT MY AUTHOWITAH!".
If you don't agree with them, try to have them changed via PTA meetings and such./blockquote. Doesn't work. These sorts of policies come down from on high. Nobody you can actually get to will admit to being able to change the rules. If you get to the highest rulemaking authority (e.g. the superintendent of schools), they'll claim their hands are tied because of their lawyers, the legislature, their insurance company, or what have you. This is a lie, of course; pretending powerlessness in order to exercise power arbitrarily is a common trick.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote.
Hell, Clarence, you're a frigging Justice of the Supreme Court. Second-guessing is pretty much the JOB DESCRIPTION. If the idea is to just defer to one side or another, we don't NEED you; we'll just look up the complaining parties in a table and decide the case that way.
No offense, but if you got a restraining order for that, you either did something far in excess of what you posted above, or you need to acquire the services who completed at least their second year of law school. It's not as though the school can arbitrarily hand those out...
Maybe not, but some judges issue temporary restraining orders, ex parte, at the drop of a hat, on only the word of the aggrieved party.
Any drugs, even asprin must be administered by a school nurse. Always.
Of course, school nurses will not actually dispense aspirin or other analgesics, or antihistamines or decongestants, or any other over the counter medication for that matter. They'll only dispense prescription medicine with a doctors note, preferably signed in blood. And often not even then.
Development will need to participate, but mostly this comes down to educating the team(s) to percolate up requests like: "hey, I'd like to use package X which has license Y, is that license OK?" This query either hits cache ("license Y is known to be {good,bad}"), or misses and becomes a review request to an attorney.
The problem is that unless you're in a large company which considers the occasional copyright lawsuit as a method of sharpening its lawyers' claws, the lawyer is going to tell you in ambiguous cases, or even non-ambiguous cases where the copyright holder is known to be a bastard: "Well, the letter of the law says you can use it, but they could sue and we could lose and I can't recommend the risk". You may as well replace your lawyer with button which plays the word "No" when pushed. Few companies are going to be willing to risk litigation even if they are in the right.
But the protocol itself??? So my clean room implementation without ever seeing any of the work of the protocol author violates their copyright? What did I copy?
Ask the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that bnetd infringed upon Blizzard's copyrights (as well as violating the DMCA) despite the bnetd authors not even having access the code for the servers which implemented the protocol they reverse engineered.
Slashdot Mirror
Typically toll roads/bridges which were designed as toll facilities to begin with DO pay for the costs of building the road. Amortized, of course; bonds are sold to build the road and paid off with toll revenues.
No, Reality isn't imitating Adams. Adams was simply faithfully reproducing reality. Except the bit about the "Beware of the Leopard" sign, he made that up.
All those procedural hurdles the government in general and the courts in particular have serve multiple purposes. One is to make sure you can't navigate the system without a professional (else you'll make some small procedural mistake which blows your case away regardless of its merit). The other is to allow the court to get whatever outcome it wants merely by more strictly or more loosely enforcing various procedural requirements.
The first step along the slope was taken when license plates were required. It's just taken a while for technology to grease the slope.
In principle, I could hire an army of people all over the nation and write down license plates and times on index cards, and then another army of people to correlate those index cards and produce records of everyone's travel (or at least the plate's travel). In practice, that's too expensive to do. But make cheap license plate scanners that can be mounted on storefronts, add in telecommunications and cheap database systems, and now it's practical to do so. And it's really hard to see how any given step could be constitutionally restricted.
The biggest problem I've found even with the good ones is timing sensitive stuff. In some OSs (Linux included), when a synchronous write to a serial port concluded, pretty much all but the last character was already out on the line. With a USB serial port, the data is probably buffered on the device; it will go out many milliseconds later (because serial is slow). So if you've built timeouts into your code, they're all wrong now.
Bicycles suck in bad weather, and not everyone can live close to work. If households were all one income (or at least everyone employed had the same employer), you'd need a company town system to manage that. Since they aren't, it's not even possible that way.
Thank you, Thomas Hobbes. Any other arbitrary and capricious hoops you would like people to be required to jump through before engaging in ordinary activities?
Yeah, the UK, now there's an example to follow in the realm of privacy.
...and maybe it won't, because not enough hackers will bother to obtain the thing when they hear about the horrid DRM. I expect this system will delay a crack. I hope this system will also delay and limit sales resulting in the game not making money after all. I think Vogel has overestimated the difficulty of hacking the game; it uses the Internet, and thus there's no major difference between talking to a far-away host and talking to good old 127.0.0.1. So there's no need to set up and maintain servers; a crack could contain a local server.
You're stating the conclusion in advance of the investigation and you don't see how that's evidence of, if not conspiracy, something very wrong?
All I see in the story is innuendo; no hint of any actual evidence.
It's also somewhat hard to believe that the Korean conglomerates are conspiring with the Japanese ones.
Nine track drives like that were still in use the 1980s. Into the 1990s, even.
How about not being so fucking touchy? The problem with a definition of civility which requires one to cater to another's irrational preferences is that people will then start adopting irrational preferences in order to control discourse. It's a comedy staple: a person trying to get an idea across in mixed company and constantly being admonished to watch his language, despite his use of tamer and tamer euphemisms. But in real life it's really irritating.
_I_ wouldn't praise the Nazis at all, except perhaps sarcastically. That's not a matter of civility; that's the matter of the Nazis having been a bunch of murderous bastards for whom no expletive is strong enough.
Yes. By packing the bits more efficiently, each cylinder will have more capacity, thus requiring fewer cylinders and fewer head movements for any given disk capacity.
Probably slightly but not significantly.
There should be.
I'm uncomfortable around those who are offended by my language. The need to constantly invent circumlocutions for "offensive" words, and the distractions engendered when such circumlocutions are skipped and someone takes offense, add significant effort to discourse... which may, in fact, be the reason for such rules.
If people are offended by swear words not directed at them, the problem lies with them and not the speaker.
Number one, it's a dog; it probably was trying to copulate with something, perhaps the leg of the victim. Number two, conveying emotion is a perfectly valid use of language.
Use of expletives as an intensifier, as in "You're a fucking moron", is also a perfectly valid use of language. If you object to deliberately offending people, it's not the expletive which is the problem.
Having worked in the field, I assure you that both MRI and CT (that's "Computed Tomography") require software. Unless you can do reconstruction algorithms in your head or with pencil and paper.
Further, computers and software are much older than the 70s; we did NOT go to the moon on slide rules: Apollo had computers.
No part of the DMCA requires an upstream provider (that is, a 17 USC 512(a) service provider) to disconnect a user. Only hosting providers (17 USC 512(c)) and search providers (17 USC 512(d)) are required to take down material. Google is presumably self-hosted.
Doesn't GM's system put a microcontroller at each lamp? Sure, it's pretty dumb; all it can do is watch the bus for the signal to turn its light on. But it is an actual microcontroller.
If the number isn't wholly fictional, I'd guess the largest single component is the navigation system. (Which hopefully does NOT have input into the throttle... but nowadays, who knows?)
Unfortunately, all the actual engine control stuff DOES work together. It's not simply an doing an electronic simulation of a throttle cable.
Right, because government officials are both benevolent and competent. As with Chernobyl, as with China's pollution.
Sure, with a small fine. Not the death penalty.
With a larger fine than jaywalking, and a smaller fine than for driving 100mph in the 25mph zone. And there's no fine at all for doing 24mph in a 25mph zone.
I've never been at an employer where that would be an offense at all, let along a firing offense.
Or, in other words "RESPECT MY AUTHOWITAH!".
Hell, Clarence, you're a frigging Justice of the Supreme Court. Second-guessing is pretty much the JOB DESCRIPTION. If the idea is to just defer to one side or another, we don't NEED you; we'll just look up the complaining parties in a table and decide the case that way.
Maybe not, but some judges issue temporary restraining orders, ex parte, at the drop of a hat, on only the word of the aggrieved party.
Of course, school nurses will not actually dispense aspirin or other analgesics, or antihistamines or decongestants, or any other over the counter medication for that matter. They'll only dispense prescription medicine with a doctors note, preferably signed in blood. And often not even then.
They also will not dispense Mike&Ikes.
The problem is that unless you're in a large company which considers the occasional copyright lawsuit as a method of sharpening its lawyers' claws, the lawyer is going to tell you in ambiguous cases, or even non-ambiguous cases where the copyright holder is known to be a bastard: "Well, the letter of the law says you can use it, but they could sue and we could lose and I can't recommend the risk". You may as well replace your lawyer with button which plays the word "No" when pushed. Few companies are going to be willing to risk litigation even if they are in the right.
Ask the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that bnetd infringed upon Blizzard's copyrights (as well as violating the DMCA) despite the bnetd authors not even having access the code for the servers which implemented the protocol they reverse engineered.