That's wrong. In Canada the cop can lay the initial charge, the crown however can lay additional charges or modify the existing charge if the wrong one was laid.
This was small claims court. I suppose the crown could have amended the charges, but that's fantastically unlikely to happen. Read the linked court document. The crown was represented by the officer who wrote the ticket. The defendant represented himself.
I don't know about you, but my car an cellphone both can be operated without even touching it. Pretty much any vehicle with any type of console system has had that support for the last 4-5 years.
Yes, mine too. How is that relevant to my statement? The two laws are in conflict, at least in the light of this court decision. One says you can use (one) earbud to talk hands free on your phone, and the other (plus this decision) says no you can't.
Nope. BC provincial regs and laws state you can only have one ear in use leaving the other free to hear the environment around you.
You *quoted* me saying "a single earbud". Were you in a hurry and didn't read carefully? English as a second language? Troll?
I disagree. The cultural stereotypes you mentioned are, just like any stereotypes, inconsistent. There are rude Canadians and polite Canadians, and rude Americans and polite Americans. The concentration of each type usually varies a lot by location within country as well.
There are real differences between Canada and the US. When the American colonies rebelled, Canada not only remained loyal, but a decent chunk of the royalist population in the US ended up moving to Canada. That difference, and subsequent history, has tended to colour each country in a different way. For example, Americans tend more towards individualism and distrust of collective action, including government and other public institutions.
*Was* legal. Now it's not. If I understand correctly (I'm not a lawyer) this case sets the precedent that an earbud plugged into a phone is an extension of the phone, and that earbud in your ear is "holding" the phone in a proscribed way. Somebody is going to have to do some law rewriting to remove the conflict.
No, the law is quite specific. It applies only to electronic devices that have a telephone or e-mail function, and they have to be "held in a position in which they could be used". So you're probably okay having your phone in the car if it's out of reach or you can't see it. That smartwatch on your wrist is illegal though.
It's a poorly written law. Judges are supposed to exercise common sense when they encounter such things.
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
When you think about it, those laws are in conflict. Probably the distracted driving one is newer. How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touching is fine. But the judge went and screwed that up....
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
Yes. This judge's overly pedantic decision has set up a future headache for a lot of people. A digital watch is an "electronic device" and if it's on your wrist it is "held in a position in which it may be used." RIP.
If you click on the link in the summary you get to the judge's decision. It's short, and simple.
The defendant was not convicted of wearing earbuds. He was convicted of using a handheld electronic device while driving. The facts you dismiss are not interesting, they're critical, as the judge's reasoning was that the earbuds, because they were plugged into a phone constituted an extension of that phone, and the phone was thus "held in a position in which it may be used."
Perhaps the fact that the defendant was driving a Mercedes was also of relevance to the case.
Most people do choose the next thing they watch based on the last thing. That's one reason why Netflix is so popular: binge watching series. If you get tired of one, flip to whatever you want. Random access, you choose. Free YouTube is the same, the "channels" are just bins where a particular person can put all their videos. Like finding a webpage with Andy Warhol's collection on it.
I realize YouTube calls them channels when they're really not, but it's supremely ironic that YT, famous as one of the first big random access video content sites, is bundling content in their paid system.
It's also only true if you ever only look at your own code. One of the most irritating things about C++ is that in order to understand someone else's code you have to first essentially learn a new language by going through the project's style guide. If they have one. And it's any good.
Hey, I found this great open source project, I just need to add/tweak this little feature... OMG, KILL IT WITH FIRE.
Maybe. I think it's more likely that they just didn't think of extending the flaps, or didn't think of it until it was too late. They might well have reduced power since the pilots would have been trained to do that in response to overspeed.
I'd talk about how the vast majority of ideas are wrong, silly, impractical, or outright damaging. I'd give some examples of charismatic ideas that fall into this category. Then I'd discuss how we invented a great idea sieve, to sort out the few worthwhile ideas from the rest. I'd mention that the sieve is not called "a TED curator."
Not sure why you'd assume I'm a "lefty", whatever that is. As for standing up to extreme viewpoints, I like to think I have a fairly balanced record of pissing off all sides.
That's a good point. I think selection by viability implies some kind of fitness function embedded in the environment, but it doesn't have to be fixed, simple, or explicit.
I suspect you could look at GANs in a few different ways in a co-evolutionary framework. Goodfellow presents them as adversarial (it's even in the name) and gives the example of an art forger (the generator) and an art authenticator (the critic). That's kind of a predator-prey setup. Personally, I think a better way to look at it is more of a student-teacher relationship, with the teacher having to do some learning on the job to keep up with a bright student.
One of the big differences between a GAN and a typical evolutionary-type experiment is that there's only one generator and one critic, both of which are updated via gradient descent. In an evolutionary setup normally you'd have multiple individuals competing and optimization would be done via selection.
Deep neural networks are special because of how flexible they are. Many of the really cool applications, like reinforcement learning (e.g. AlphaGo) have been around forever but when you stick a DNN in you suddenly get something really useful. I expect there's going to be a lot of interesting work involving DNNs and evolutionary algorithms. I think you would probably arrive pretty naturally at a GAN via combining DNNs and co-evolution.
Your aggressive rhetorical style is quaint. I didn't claim Popper was right, I said he originated the idea, and his politics are more complicated than "left" or "right". Popper also gives specific examples of necessary intolerances, including noting that diverging viewpoints should normally be tolerated unless they are specifically opposed to civil discussion.
Your appeal to binary labels is interesting. Research suggests that the extreme viewpoints I assume you're referring to don't represent the general left-of-centre majority, but instead are a tiny, but vocal, minority.
India apparently has a pretty bewildering set of laws about marriage. In all but one state you can be married according to one of several different religious traditions, and none of these actually define marriage as between a man and a woman. The religious diversity in India might contribute to a lot of eye rolling and "whatever" as popular positions on such things.
I don't think MCAS interacts with the throttles. Possibly they could have reduced speed, again if they'd thought of it soon enough.
One of the reasons for the MCAS system is that in any 737 (not just the MAX) you must not throttle up when in or approaching a stall because the under-wing engines contribute a pitch up moment. In the old 737s if you got into a stall and increased throttle you could get yourself into a situation where the plane would not pitch down. The engine placement on the MAX makes that normal tendency a bit worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Tell an Irishman in a Belfast pub that he's British (an inhabitant of the British Isles) and see how well it goes.
This was small claims court. I suppose the crown could have amended the charges, but that's fantastically unlikely to happen. Read the linked court document. The crown was represented by the officer who wrote the ticket. The defendant represented himself.
Yes, mine too. How is that relevant to my statement? The two laws are in conflict, at least in the light of this court decision. One says you can use (one) earbud to talk hands free on your phone, and the other (plus this decision) says no you can't.
You *quoted* me saying "a single earbud". Were you in a hurry and didn't read carefully? English as a second language? Troll?
I disagree. The cultural stereotypes you mentioned are, just like any stereotypes, inconsistent. There are rude Canadians and polite Canadians, and rude Americans and polite Americans. The concentration of each type usually varies a lot by location within country as well.
There are real differences between Canada and the US. When the American colonies rebelled, Canada not only remained loyal, but a decent chunk of the royalist population in the US ended up moving to Canada. That difference, and subsequent history, has tended to colour each country in a different way. For example, Americans tend more towards individualism and distrust of collective action, including government and other public institutions.
*Was* legal. Now it's not. If I understand correctly (I'm not a lawyer) this case sets the precedent that an earbud plugged into a phone is an extension of the phone, and that earbud in your ear is "holding" the phone in a proscribed way. Somebody is going to have to do some law rewriting to remove the conflict.
It's possible, but the judge states up front that he believes the defendant's account.
No, the law is quite specific. It applies only to electronic devices that have a telephone or e-mail function, and they have to be "held in a position in which they could be used". So you're probably okay having your phone in the car if it's out of reach or you can't see it. That smartwatch on your wrist is illegal though.
It's a poorly written law. Judges are supposed to exercise common sense when they encounter such things.
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
When you think about it, those laws are in conflict. Probably the distracted driving one is newer. How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touching is fine. But the judge went and screwed that up....
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
Yes. This judge's overly pedantic decision has set up a future headache for a lot of people. A digital watch is an "electronic device" and if it's on your wrist it is "held in a position in which it may be used." RIP.
If you click on the link in the summary you get to the judge's decision. It's short, and simple.
The defendant was not convicted of wearing earbuds. He was convicted of using a handheld electronic device while driving. The facts you dismiss are not interesting, they're critical, as the judge's reasoning was that the earbuds, because they were plugged into a phone constituted an extension of that phone, and the phone was thus "held in a position in which it may be used."
Perhaps the fact that the defendant was driving a Mercedes was also of relevance to the case.
Most people do choose the next thing they watch based on the last thing. That's one reason why Netflix is so popular: binge watching series. If you get tired of one, flip to whatever you want. Random access, you choose. Free YouTube is the same, the "channels" are just bins where a particular person can put all their videos. Like finding a webpage with Andy Warhol's collection on it.
What is a "channel"? Is that like a tube?
I realize YouTube calls them channels when they're really not, but it's supremely ironic that YT, famous as one of the first big random access video content sites, is bundling content in their paid system.
Which evoke a couple more: "perverse incentive."
It's also only true if you ever only look at your own code. One of the most irritating things about C++ is that in order to understand someone else's code you have to first essentially learn a new language by going through the project's style guide. If they have one. And it's any good.
Hey, I found this great open source project, I just need to add/tweak this little feature... OMG, KILL IT WITH FIRE.
In my experience, the expressiveness of C++ has always made it non-simple. So maybe pick one?
That's some elite level corporate doublespeak. I wonder what would happen if a big company stopped shamelessly lying and just told the truth?
Maybe. I think it's more likely that they just didn't think of extending the flaps, or didn't think of it until it was too late. They might well have reduced power since the pilots would have been trained to do that in response to overspeed.
I'd talk about how the vast majority of ideas are wrong, silly, impractical, or outright damaging. I'd give some examples of charismatic ideas that fall into this category. Then I'd discuss how we invented a great idea sieve, to sort out the few worthwhile ideas from the rest. I'd mention that the sieve is not called "a TED curator."
Not sure why you'd assume I'm a "lefty", whatever that is. As for standing up to extreme viewpoints, I like to think I have a fairly balanced record of pissing off all sides.
That's a good point. I think selection by viability implies some kind of fitness function embedded in the environment, but it doesn't have to be fixed, simple, or explicit.
I suspect you could look at GANs in a few different ways in a co-evolutionary framework. Goodfellow presents them as adversarial (it's even in the name) and gives the example of an art forger (the generator) and an art authenticator (the critic). That's kind of a predator-prey setup. Personally, I think a better way to look at it is more of a student-teacher relationship, with the teacher having to do some learning on the job to keep up with a bright student.
One of the big differences between a GAN and a typical evolutionary-type experiment is that there's only one generator and one critic, both of which are updated via gradient descent. In an evolutionary setup normally you'd have multiple individuals competing and optimization would be done via selection.
Deep neural networks are special because of how flexible they are. Many of the really cool applications, like reinforcement learning (e.g. AlphaGo) have been around forever but when you stick a DNN in you suddenly get something really useful. I expect there's going to be a lot of interesting work involving DNNs and evolutionary algorithms. I think you would probably arrive pretty naturally at a GAN via combining DNNs and co-evolution.
It is more convenient than flipping DIP switches with a watchmaker's screwdriver, I'll give you that.
Your aggressive rhetorical style is quaint. I didn't claim Popper was right, I said he originated the idea, and his politics are more complicated than "left" or "right". Popper also gives specific examples of necessary intolerances, including noting that diverging viewpoints should normally be tolerated unless they are specifically opposed to civil discussion.
Your appeal to binary labels is interesting. Research suggests that the extreme viewpoints I assume you're referring to don't represent the general left-of-centre majority, but instead are a tiny, but vocal, minority.
India apparently has a pretty bewildering set of laws about marriage. In all but one state you can be married according to one of several different religious traditions, and none of these actually define marriage as between a man and a woman. The religious diversity in India might contribute to a lot of eye rolling and "whatever" as popular positions on such things.
I don't think MCAS interacts with the throttles. Possibly they could have reduced speed, again if they'd thought of it soon enough.
One of the reasons for the MCAS system is that in any 737 (not just the MAX) you must not throttle up when in or approaching a stall because the under-wing engines contribute a pitch up moment. In the old 737s if you got into a stall and increased throttle you could get yourself into a situation where the plane would not pitch down. The engine placement on the MAX makes that normal tendency a bit worse.
The paradox of tolerance was first pointed out by Karl Popper. His philosophy is pretty thoughtful to be labelled "left" or "right."