"What value are you adding to Knight Rider by watching it?"
The same value slashdot is adding to their ebooks and blog. Advertising. By watching Knight Rider I am exposing those around me to the show and the brand. This provides them more opportunities for sales.
I'm not following? This is an author posting a success story. His assertion about possibly making more through traditional publishers isn't really accurate. Feel free to ask an IT author going that route. First time authors generally get far less from a book.
Not only has he made more money but from the quote below we've determined that about 450 times as many people are able to enjoy the content. Sounds like a win for everyone.
"I have to give away 446 copies of the eBook for every sale of the print edition"
Yeah, nice white collar bribe leaks. No more of that anti warm/fuzzy US Afghanistan death squads and evidence of wiping out entire villages to artificially increase insurgent death counts.
"pet peeve, is it really necessary to quote the fucking post right above yours when your not pointing out a specific part?"
Necessary? No. Courteous? Yes. I for one don't want to have to read back through previous posts to figure out which of my posts you are replying to when your response comes up in my messages three weeks later.
Note how you don't have to dig back through the previous posts to know what I'm talking about. Isn't that nice? I think so too.
I disagree. I use my android tablet to stream video into the weight room while working out or the kitchen while working on things in there. In the yard while working on outside projects, etc.
TWC/RR is engaging in the bait and switch, not the app store. The cost of providing this service comes out of your subscription fees.
This is no different than the idiots who think instant viewing from netflix is 'free' or on demand from comcast. The cost of those 'free' services is built into your subscription. If they weren't included they could subtract their costs to provide those services from your bill.
For those who signed up for the subscription for the primary purpose of instant viewing, on demand, or other streaming, it is those services they are paying for and the other services which are the add-on.
"Has it been shown that newborns know they are babies, or that they are capable of meta-cognition?"
That is another question altogether but he question is taken out of our hands at that point. Nature, god, or what have you has declared via the act of birth that the new potential human is 'done'.
"The logic here is, that human embryos are potential humans."
That is about as valid as defining damages based on "potential" profits.
You can't sanely define value based on a potential alternate future which can't be predicted. Today it is a lump of cells incapable of higher thought vs a lump of cells that IS capable of higher thought. The lump of cells that can grasp "I think, therefore I am" wins. That is a pretty simple ethical challenge in my view.
He is defining the earliest attribute that could be argued to constitute a THINKING human. It isn't the human part that raises ethical issues, it's the thinking part. An organism that is completely human but not thinking raises no ethical issues and a thinking organism that isn't related to humans in any ways shares all the same ethical considerations.
So please. Let's stop pretending the question is "when it becomes a human". The question is if it has higher thought and self awareness and it certainly has no chance of that without a neo-cortex.
"You're still going to need real people in there to make that judgement call."
We are talking about a quadruped not AI. The point of a robot is that the real human doesn't have to be 'in there' he can stand back and control think for the robot remotely.
Its traffic court. Its doubtful it was even a judge. It was probably a judge advocate which is nothing more than a lawyer playing judge for the day. Sometimes by draft.
It's true the judge is a person but in traffic court the standard and de facto way to beat a speeding ticket is to establish that either the cop or the gun wasn't calibrated in accord with manufacturer and/or state specifications. The other way to lock in victory is if the cop or the 'traffic officer' (the equivalent of a prosecutor) doesn't show up at all. In all of these cases your ticket will be rapidly and systematically dismissed without any consideration at all. It happens all day, every day.
The judge advocate is happy for a reason to summarily convict you, dismiss you, or agree to a nice easy settlement because the sooner he gets through the cases that morning the sooner he gets to go home and play golf. Unless you've pissed him off somehow, like by trying to conduct some sort of grand trial in traffic court, he doesn't have any reason to be inclined more toward any of those outcomes. Presenting fancy GPS data when you have already given him an excuse to dismiss the ticket and get rid of you is only wasting his time and running the risk of annoying him into making you the exception to the rule. Traffic court decisions don't set precedent anyway.
"I think it did plant enough doubt in the judge's mind to be more skeptical about the police testimony."
Let me repeat. If the ruling remains the same regardless of how convinced the judge was by GPS data then the GPS data was not a factor in the decision.
The judge could have felt the GPS data was a lock and absolute definitive proof. It doesn't matter because the ruling would have been exactly the same, minus the statement that the GPS data wasn't a factor.
If you can show either the officer or the gun wasn't trained/calibrated according to manufacturer and/or state requirements the verdict is not guilty pretty much every time... without GPS data.
Maybe but I doubt it. The problem is that like most of us in tech he has advanced knowledge of the capabilities of the application but spends very little time producing word documents. When he does produce one he is expecting to be able to utilize the consistent windows menu interface to find the advanced functionality he knows to be present. Instead he is presented with no menu interface but instead with a bunch of graphical buttons with unintuitive placement.
It is impossible for an advanced user to sit down with the new system and access advanced functionality without regular use of the application to learn where things are.
Microsoft broke the number one law of UI design which is consistency.
"This video is NOT showcasing what "Windows 8" will be or even might be. I don't even know why they would try connecting the dots like that."
Agreed. This is the same tabletop UI crap that Microsoft has been showing as 'the future of computing' for years now. Big table that you can touch and can interact with your cell, etc. Same old shit.
The state had a radar gun reading which was witnessed by a police officer. You can't just look at a car and know its speed. If the officer isn't qualified to read the gun or the gun isn't calibrated according to state law and manufacturer specifications to give an accurate reading then its reading isn't evidence in the eyes of the law no matter who saw it.
So, since the gun wasn't calibrated and the officer couldn't prove he was qualified to use the gun there was no evidence and the witness wasn't a factor. No evidence = not guilty.
"It could have played a HUGE factor in his decision."
No, it couldn't have. There is no such thing as an eyewitness for speeding. The only thing to witness is the reading on the gun. If you aren't qualified to read the gun or if the gun is not calibrated in accord with manufacturer specifications and the requirements of state law then its reading is not evidence in the eyes of the court. No evidence means not guilty 99.9% of the time if a judge is making the call.
If the ruling remains the same regardless of how convinced the judge was by GPS data then the GPS data was not a factor in the decision.
It is an extra step that you have to go out of your way to make but you can normally demand your right to a real trial in criminal court vs traffic court.
"In many states, traffic court is its own beast and (because all penalties are administrative, not criminal) has neither juries nor (generally) a right of appeal."
It's sad and illegal by any sane reckoning but true. Of course what most people don't know is that you don't normally have to agree to settle the matter in traffic court at all.
"Exactly. The Judge could have asked Katta the last time he attended GPS training, when the smartphone was last calibrated, or the unit's model number — none of which the Katta would be able to answer."
He didn't get off because the judge was in a good mood. The judge didn't ask him those questions because the burden of proof is on the state, and its witness (the cop) not the defendant. Katta had no obligation to prove innocence but the state DID have an obligation to prove guilt.
The GPS is irrelevant. There are legal requirements for radar training and gun calibration. This is the standard way to get out of a speeding ticket. You know the whole innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the state thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"What value are you adding to Knight Rider by watching it?"
The same value slashdot is adding to their ebooks and blog. Advertising. By watching Knight Rider I am exposing those around me to the show and the brand. This provides them more opportunities for sales.
I'm not following? This is an author posting a success story. His assertion about possibly making more through traditional publishers isn't really accurate. Feel free to ask an IT author going that route. First time authors generally get far less from a book.
Not only has he made more money but from the quote below we've determined that about 450 times as many people are able to enjoy the content. Sounds like a win for everyone.
"I have to give away 446 copies of the eBook for every sale of the print edition"
Yeah, nice white collar bribe leaks. No more of that anti warm/fuzzy US Afghanistan death squads and evidence of wiping out entire villages to artificially increase insurgent death counts.
"pet peeve, is it really necessary to quote the fucking post right above yours when your not pointing out a specific part?"
Necessary? No. Courteous? Yes. I for one don't want to have to read back through previous posts to figure out which of my posts you are replying to when your response comes up in my messages three weeks later.
Note how you don't have to dig back through the previous posts to know what I'm talking about. Isn't that nice? I think so too.
I pay for apps all the time.
This is supposed to be "fixed" in 3.0.
I disagree. I use my android tablet to stream video into the weight room while working out or the kitchen while working on things in there. In the yard while working on outside projects, etc.
TWC/RR is engaging in the bait and switch, not the app store. The cost of providing this service comes out of your subscription fees.
This is no different than the idiots who think instant viewing from netflix is 'free' or on demand from comcast. The cost of those 'free' services is built into your subscription. If they weren't included they could subtract their costs to provide those services from your bill.
For those who signed up for the subscription for the primary purpose of instant viewing, on demand, or other streaming, it is those services they are paying for and the other services which are the add-on.
stop feeding the trolls!
"Has it been shown that newborns know they are babies, or that they are capable of meta-cognition?"
That is another question altogether but he question is taken out of our hands at that point. Nature, god, or what have you has declared via the act of birth that the new potential human is 'done'.
"So we have prior art for pretty much everything any human will ever think up inside this little ball we're walking on.
Point being : discoveries are patentable too, in general."
Amazing, you can come to that realization and still think of patents as having validity at all.
"The logic here is, that human embryos are potential humans."
That is about as valid as defining damages based on "potential" profits.
You can't sanely define value based on a potential alternate future which can't be predicted. Today it is a lump of cells incapable of higher thought vs a lump of cells that IS capable of higher thought. The lump of cells that can grasp "I think, therefore I am" wins. That is a pretty simple ethical challenge in my view.
He is defining the earliest attribute that could be argued to constitute a THINKING human. It isn't the human part that raises ethical issues, it's the thinking part. An organism that is completely human but not thinking raises no ethical issues and a thinking organism that isn't related to humans in any ways shares all the same ethical considerations.
So please. Let's stop pretending the question is "when it becomes a human". The question is if it has higher thought and self awareness and it certainly has no chance of that without a neo-cortex.
"You're still going to need real people in there to make that judgement call."
We are talking about a quadruped not AI. The point of a robot is that the real human doesn't have to be 'in there' he can stand back and control think for the robot remotely.
Its traffic court. Its doubtful it was even a judge. It was probably a judge advocate which is nothing more than a lawyer playing judge for the day. Sometimes by draft.
It's true the judge is a person but in traffic court the standard and de facto way to beat a speeding ticket is to establish that either the cop or the gun wasn't calibrated in accord with manufacturer and/or state specifications. The other way to lock in victory is if the cop or the 'traffic officer' (the equivalent of a prosecutor) doesn't show up at all. In all of these cases your ticket will be rapidly and systematically dismissed without any consideration at all. It happens all day, every day.
The judge advocate is happy for a reason to summarily convict you, dismiss you, or agree to a nice easy settlement because the sooner he gets through the cases that morning the sooner he gets to go home and play golf. Unless you've pissed him off somehow, like by trying to conduct some sort of grand trial in traffic court, he doesn't have any reason to be inclined more toward any of those outcomes. Presenting fancy GPS data when you have already given him an excuse to dismiss the ticket and get rid of you is only wasting his time and running the risk of annoying him into making you the exception to the rule. Traffic court decisions don't set precedent anyway.
"I think it did plant enough doubt in the judge's mind to be more skeptical about the police testimony."
Let me repeat. If the ruling remains the same regardless of how convinced the judge was by GPS data then the GPS data was not a factor in the decision.
The judge could have felt the GPS data was a lock and absolute definitive proof. It doesn't matter because the ruling would have been exactly the same, minus the statement that the GPS data wasn't a factor.
If you can show either the officer or the gun wasn't trained/calibrated according to manufacturer and/or state requirements the verdict is not guilty pretty much every time... without GPS data.
Maybe but I doubt it. The problem is that like most of us in tech he has advanced knowledge of the capabilities of the application but spends very little time producing word documents. When he does produce one he is expecting to be able to utilize the consistent windows menu interface to find the advanced functionality he knows to be present. Instead he is presented with no menu interface but instead with a bunch of graphical buttons with unintuitive placement.
It is impossible for an advanced user to sit down with the new system and access advanced functionality without regular use of the application to learn where things are.
Microsoft broke the number one law of UI design which is consistency.
"This video is NOT showcasing what "Windows 8" will be or even might be. I don't even know why they would try connecting the dots like that."
Agreed. This is the same tabletop UI crap that Microsoft has been showing as 'the future of computing' for years now. Big table that you can touch and can interact with your cell, etc. Same old shit.
"The state had both evidence and an eyewitness."
The state had a radar gun reading which was witnessed by a police officer. You can't just look at a car and know its speed. If the officer isn't qualified to read the gun or the gun isn't calibrated according to state law and manufacturer specifications to give an accurate reading then its reading isn't evidence in the eyes of the law no matter who saw it.
So, since the gun wasn't calibrated and the officer couldn't prove he was qualified to use the gun there was no evidence and the witness wasn't a factor. No evidence = not guilty.
"It could have played a HUGE factor in his decision."
No, it couldn't have. There is no such thing as an eyewitness for speeding. The only thing to witness is the reading on the gun. If you aren't qualified to read the gun or if the gun is not calibrated in accord with manufacturer specifications and the requirements of state law then its reading is not evidence in the eyes of the court. No evidence means not guilty 99.9% of the time if a judge is making the call.
If the ruling remains the same regardless of how convinced the judge was by GPS data then the GPS data was not a factor in the decision.
It is an extra step that you have to go out of your way to make but you can normally demand your right to a real trial in criminal court vs traffic court.
"In many states, traffic court is its own beast and (because all penalties are administrative, not criminal) has neither juries nor (generally) a right of appeal."
It's sad and illegal by any sane reckoning but true. Of course what most people don't know is that you don't normally have to agree to settle the matter in traffic court at all.
"Exactly. The Judge could have asked Katta the last time he attended GPS training, when the smartphone was last calibrated, or the unit's model number — none of which the Katta would be able to answer."
He didn't get off because the judge was in a good mood. The judge didn't ask him those questions because the burden of proof is on the state, and its witness (the cop) not the defendant. Katta had no obligation to prove innocence but the state DID have an obligation to prove guilt.
The GPS is irrelevant. There are legal requirements for radar training and gun calibration. This is the standard way to get out of a speeding ticket. You know the whole innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the state thing.
That might be the reputation but anyone who thinks RHEL is easier to admin than Ubuntu Server is out of their mind.