Of course it's about a man's refusal to show his ID. There was a video with the cop flatly asking for a driver's license. Now admittedly, the guy was being obtuse about it, but it came down to his not showing a license and getting arrested. And that's exactly what happened.
He also refused to give his name. And that's where the court found in favor of the cop. It's a little bit sketchy because he was in the vicinity of his car, and if he'd been driving he would have been required to show a license. Here in Oregon, if you're passed out drunk behind the steering wheel, even if parked on the side of the road, they can convict you of DUI. That's also a bit sketchy, in my opinion, because some people live in their cars.
I hate to tell you, but your "facts" are incorrect. Customer service is not in India.
Well, I don't think I said I was in "customer service," because I was in tech support. And I think the page you pointed me to is outdated; the call center in Eugene, Oregon was closed down over a year ago. There's something in Springfield, but I don't think it's tech support. It was a bit presumptive of me to think that tech support must have gone to India, but most of the time that is the case when a US call center is closed.
You're already required to carry ID or a driver's license, this bill doesn't change that fact.
Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification.
Also, Declan's article was misleading on this point:
Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.
Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID. The case was about a man's refusal to identify himself, not refusal to show ID. You are required to identify yourself, but that can be as simple as saying "my name is [insert name here]." If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest.
But to answer your question, why do I care? The first reason is that having to present this ID to board an airplane is a hindrance to both interstate commerce and freedom of assembly (note the environmental activists who were prevented from flying due to the secret watch list). But John Gilmore does a much better job explaining this point.
I briefly worked for a Symantec call center in the anti-virus division, and very often the call would consist of me telling people: "Go to lavasoft and download AdAware" because we refused to try and fix a computer loaded with spyware. Now, the call center people (relocated to India since two years ago) can tell the customers to buy Norton Anti-Spyware instead.
Parents lie. Children lie. When you have your word against a child's word, you will soon find yourself against a family's word (Or a parent could originate the idea, an attention craving child loves a suddenly caring parent), even with a complete lack of physical evidence from your accuser, it is nearly inevitable that a jury of disgusted parents will state 'Guilty' before your head stops spinning. And then you can rot in prison for the next several years.
I didn't forget anything. I was talking about people who were actually molested, not those who lied to get attention. You're saying there is a possibility that the accused are innocent, so the punishment should be less severe. I say the burden of proof needs to be high because the punishment is so severe. Most child molesters cannot be rehabilitated. I feel the same way about rapists, by the way, who generally serve sentences of less than 10 years. People are often falsely accused of rape, but that doesn't mean the punishment for rape should be less severe. It means the proof better be solid.
So what you're saying is, someone is molested, it messes them up and they later molest someone else, and we throw them all in jail for life because this will break the cycle?
No, what I'm saying is that child molestation, like other forms of abuse, spreads like a disease. If someone molests a single child, that child may end up becoming an abuser his/herself. But a single child molester can hurt dozens of children, and the probability is that one or two of those dozen will go on to molest others. So like the diseased creatures they are, child molesters should be permanently quarantined from children. Because the punishment is so (necessarily) severe, juries need really solid evidence, not just testimony from a single child. Some of the abusers will fall through the cracks that way, but the US legal system still requires (on paper) proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you haven't recognized the template yet, hopefully you will from now on. This troll posts on every apple discussion. So next time you see I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? just move along.
And what's to say that this even makes sense? An eighteen-year-old having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend is legally a sex crime in most states. How exactly is tracking this now-50-something guy going to somehow make your 12-year-old daughter safe from child molesters?
Some of the statutory rape laws were the first things that came to my mind, but I actually read the article, so I know that it only applies to "people convicted of certain sex crimes against children 11 and younger," not even to pedophiles who molest children 12 years old. I actually believe that pedophilia can be worse than murder, because the victims are often so fucked up (mentally) that they a) continue the cycle, and molest children themselves, or b) become so despondent and depressed that they can't hold down jobs, end up in prison or murdering people.
I would rather they rot in jail for life, for molesting young children, but if they are to be released, I don't think this GPS requirement is unreasonable. Tagging innocent people would be unconscionable, but parolees (for example) have very severe restrictions imposed on where they travel, with whom they associate, etc.
I'm not a ballistics expert, but I believe different guns leave different identification marks on bullets, and unless Gil Grissom is lying to me, that's how some crimes are solved.
It's the rifling (the spiral grooves that make the bullet spin) that leave unique identifying marks. Rounds from a shotgun don't have distinct rifling marks. And it is simple to drill out the barrel of a handgun or rifle (though you're sacrificing accuracy if you do so).
And in some installations I built, the "servers" were actually regural 1GHz desktops
Add it handled regural tasks just fine.
If the servers or network break in regural fat-client environments, you will also have problems.
What happens if the server goes down in a regural fat-client environment?
I thought "regural" was some leet hacker term that I wasn't aware of, because you used the word so frequently. It wasn't until a google search for the word turned up results on "regural expressions" that I realized what you meant to say.
In fact, I'm shocked that Apple ever released the Mac mini! Who wants to see some crappy old PC monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers next to the elegant Mac mini?
I would never have purchased a Mac in the first place if I had to be stuck with a crappy one-button mouse. I got a free one with my new PowerMac, but I gave it away. It may be prettier than my Logitech, but I'm more concerned with function than style. I also have an old Hitachi monitor, which is nowhere near as stylish as the Apple monitors.
Otherwise, you make some really great points. Besides the hardware compatibility, I've found most UNIX software is cake to build with OS X, although you often have to set the -no-cpp-precomp flag manually (I hope I got that right).
I recently got a dish network PVR, and I wanted to know my options for moving content to my computer. Ideally, I would want to extract the video from the hard drive, but that is a really pain, if even possible on the particular model I got. Anyway, I decided if I ever do want to save any shows, it would make more sense to get a box that can do the capturing and encoding. If I were a sucker for high definition, this would not be an option, but the signal quality I get is not great enough that I would expend much effort worrying about recompression. I found a Macworld review of several devices that fit the bill. The Datavideo DAC-100 and Canopus ADVC-100 looked great. No TV tuner, but that doesn't always matter. I haven't bought either one, but it's nice to know they exist.
I discovered, while I was writing this, that "sudo open < filepath" won't launch as sudo./me thinks it's because sudo executes an Apple app called "open" that digs into the app package and opens the app. Problem is, the app doesn't get executed as root....only the package opener does. Not sure why that is the way it is, but this seems to work pretty well (for Cocoa apps...)
Maybe you can use pico instead of a GUI editor? I'm pretty sure that sudo pico works.
Yes, sudo pico definitely works. What's most frustrating is when I've made major modifications to a file with pico, then can't write out my changes. Well, at least I can't write them to the file I want. I'm sure there must be some way to change permissions of a GUI application (this is also relevant if you want to do some silly hack like change the bootup image in Photoshop, which I did back in the day when I logged in as root; I don't know of any decent CLI image editors;)).
Hell, Tiger is coming out in less than three weeks, so everything may have changed.
Thanks for the tip, but I don't think that works anymore. I'm pretty sure I tried the
sudo open
route the first time around. And yeah, enabling the root login works, but I'm trying not to do that (I was running as root for way too long for this very reason).
However, now that there is fast user switching, it might not be so terrible to login as root once in awhile . . . so I may go back to my perilous ways.
Oh, and I might add that I never had problems reading the system files (probably because I am in the admin group), but when I tried to write my changes I got permission errors.
The deficit, eh. A huge percentage of that was to fight the Cold War, which I am very happy we did. I am not happy about all the increases in social spending, but so what? How could I ever be happy with everything anyone does?
I guess I'm just unclear on the ideology here. Do you believe in fiscal responsibility? That's generally a "conservative" principle, whereas the pattern of spending during the Reagan years is anything but responsible. Do you believe in a nation's right to self-determination? That's another principle generally considered conservative, but fighting the Cold War went directly against it. Protecting a foreign country from communist invaders is one thing, but that is not what happened in Nicaragua, where the US funded the foreign invaders to try to overthrow a democratically elected Sandinistas. You may not agree with Sandinista politics, but do you really think they were a threat to the United States?
As to lying... he is a "documented liar unless you believe"... ? If it is left up to belief, he is not therefore a documented liar, and saying he is is, well, a documented lie on your part.
Point taken. That was poorly worded. I guess I should say that Reagan has been documented saying things that would be considered lies beyond a reasonable doubt. He was the commander in chief, and it is unreasonable to believe that he had no knowledge of what Oliver North was doing, or what the CIA was doing. In retrospect, Reagan's Alzheimer's makes his "I don't remember" statements slightly more believable, but not enough to exculpate him. But since there is really no way to determine someone's memory, it is untestable. He was certainly involved in some despicable covert operations, and that is documented (they happened on his watch, and he--not Congress, not anyone else--was responsible for the CIA's activities).
Anyway, more directly to the point: what President has not had terrible problems on his watch, some even caused by him? Abe Lincoln essentially started the Civil War, suspended habeas corpus, etc. and we revere him. It's the big picture, and even regardless of anything else, Reagan will be considered the right man at the right time because he is what we needed to defeat the Soviets.
I don't revere Abe Lincoln for precisely the reasons you mentioned. The Civil War tore this country apart, and was almost surely unnecessary. I believe it helped perpetuate racism in the American South. By 1900, the last country in the Americas (Brazil) had repealed slavery. Perhaps if there had been a more organic opposition to slavery in the Confederacy, our country would be less racist today. Instead, blacks continued to suffer under carpetbagger regimes and foot-dragging Southerners who wished for the good ol' days before the war. It's all hypothetical, but it is a certainty that slavery would have been abolished eventually, even without Union intervention.
As for Reagan's legacy (defeating the Soviets), perhaps you are right. But I think it's much more likely that the US will have a financial crisis due to the massive debt accumulation that will far overshadow any gains from "defeating the Soviets" (if that's what the arms spending race really was).
Besides fighting the Cold War, why else do you think Reagan was great? I'm genuinely curious, because I can't think of anything.
do you honestly feel that the people we elect are the best for the job?
In the case of Reagan, I think so. In the case of W, the jury is still out (I wouldn't think he is the best for the job looking at resumes or abilities, but OTOH, he might turn out to be the perfect leader for the time we are in; ask me again in 20 years).
As far as the original topic goes, I do think there should be a reelection, to be fair. After all, the winner was originally Rossi, and no one can argue it wasn't ridiculously close. Here in Oregon the election gets plenty of coverage.
But how can you in good conscience say Reagan was the best person for the job, or even a good person for the job? What conservative values do you hold, if you feel that way? I can think of probably a dozen reasons I think Reagan was the worst president in the history of the US, but here are just a couple:
1) His unsuccessful "War on Drugs" is not only still wasting taxpayer money, but is responsible for the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Above China, above Russia, and even above Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
2) If you look at the national debt over time, you will see exactly when it began to skyrocket: 1980-1988. And the subsequent presidents didn't help the problem.
3) Reagan was a documented liar (unless you believe that string of "I don't remember"s), and in my opinion committed treason via the Iran-Contra arms deals. Not to mention the massive human rights abuses that occurred at a direct or indirect result of the CIA meddling in Honduras, Nicaragua, and probably a dozen countries we are not yet aware of.
4) Back to the "War on Drugs" fiasco, we effectively no longer have a 4th ammendment, because it was deemed more important to find drugs than to respect the Bill of Rights.
Pudge, I regularly read your submissions, and appreciate your diplomacy when discussing these matters, but that statement about Reagan really makes me question your sanity.
Of course, using E = hf is completely wrong here - that's the energy of a photon, and in a completely photonic chip, wouldn't matter in the tiniest bit - because the photons are emitted at one point, and absorbed at another, so there's no net energy loss.
Since that's the most intelligent remark I've seen for this story, I'm going to jack this thread. Plasmons still seem like magic to me, but I get to use the technology for something useful while electrical engineers figure out how to make plasmon computers. Biacore makes surface plasmon resonance (SPR) instruments that allow you to measure surface binding. It's very cool technology; light hits a glass-covered gold, and a plasmon interacts with stuff (for example, antibodies) on the other side of the gold surface. The angle of total internal reflection changes when there is a binding event, and that angle is a measureable signal. Really nifty. Unfortunately, the instruments aren't cheap.
It's nice to operate as root without having to type "sudo" every time I need to edit a system file. Not that I do it often, but sometimes the constant "sudo" gets laborious, especially with lengthy commands I've already typed.
On a related note, is it possible to let a particular application have root permissions? Sometimes I like to edit system files with a GUI editor, and this always causes problems (when I need to write out my changes).
in theory, the qdots ar more stable (less photobleaching) a recognized problem with std labels, and they have narrower emission spectra, so multiplexing is easier (eg std labels like fluorescein and rhodamine have wide emission spectra that overlap)(altho the lanthanide chelates have 10 nm fwhm)
You obviously have never heard of BODIPY fluorophores, although I admit the admission spectrum is not quite as narrow as you describe. Multiplexing is easier with quantum dots, but you excite all of them at the same time. They have VERY wide excitation spectra, though fairly narrow emission. You are right about photobleaching; quantum dots are semiconductors, so don't ever photobleach. But some of the newer fluorescent dyes are pretty resistant to photobleaching. And the phycobiliproteins are amazing. The Terbium and Europium chelates have very long lifetimes; that's why they're special, not because of narrow emission spectra. It's time-resolved fluorescence, often used with FRET.
potentially, you can tune the excitation and emission spectra to match your laser lines, so if someone develops a real cheap stable diode laser, you can tune the dot to that line
So, you can't. The manufacturing precision is not good enough, and even if it were, there are "magic numbers" of atoms in these quantum dots, so you have a finite number of emission colors. Not that many, actually. The color depends on size, and size depends on the number of atoms. But again, excitation is not the problem; the dots have wide excitation spectra.
All in all, I think quantum dots are way overhyped. They are sticky, hard to passivate, and they blink.
Smaller ones, down to a single electron, can be made, and at that size they would definitely be subject to the laws of quantum of physics-- but at the more typical sizes, they're too big to worry about wave functions, and behave more like the everyday materials with which we're familiar-- except for those properties such as hue and reflectivity that are tailored during fabrication.
Well, I will admit that quantum dots don't have dual wave-particle like electrons, but it is utterly wrong to say that they're too big to worry about wave functions. That's the only reason they work--a quantum containment effect within the particle. They use zinc selenide and cadmium selenide because those semiconductors have different band gaps, and the outer coating prevents electrons from leaking. The fact that the color of emitted light is depends on the size of the particle is another indication of quantum effects.
I'd like to refer you to one of the more influential books I've read (though it was about ten years ago):
The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, former CIA employees who basically blew the whistle on the organization's shadier practices (and much of the book has been censored, though the authors left blank space where the censored material had been, which is informative in and of itself).
The people in the CIA who do care about rules tend to leave the organization, it seems.
3. WTF was he doing keeping the servers *in* the US. As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s and who really thinks that that American Revoultion was one of the best things to ever happen to mankind is sickens me to say this. But the US is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. If you think about it for about.3 seconds you come to the conclusion that you should seek hosting in another country, by prefrence one that has no extradition treaty.
Exactly. I am quite happy being hosted by a company in Canada, and although they do extradite people to the US, at least they don't just roll over for the FBI immediately. At least the PATRIOT act does not apply in Canada. There is a somewhat higher barrier for the subpoena-happy law enforcement folks who want server logs.
But I'm just a little paranoid from reading too much history. If I were hosting an anarchist site, you bet I'd have it set up in the Cayman Islands or somewhere far away from the FBI's clutches. Then I'd only have to worry about the CIA.
I had to check your link to make sure it wasn't the newsreader
Unison, which is also pretty nifty. Though I think someone needs to change their name to avoid the confusion . . . Who came first?
Slashdot Mirror
He has also said in his web journal Just don't call it a blog.
Well, I don't think I said I was in "customer service," because I was in tech support. And I think the page you pointed me to is outdated; the call center in Eugene, Oregon was closed down over a year ago. There's something in Springfield, but I don't think it's tech support. It was a bit presumptive of me to think that tech support must have gone to India, but most of the time that is the case when a US call center is closed.
Um, no, you are most certainly NOT required to carry ID or a driver's license. You are required to carry a driver's license when you are driving, but that's it. If I'm a passenger in a car, or walking down the street, there is no requirement for me to have identification.
Also, Declan's article was misleading on this point:
Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.
Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID. The case was about a man's refusal to identify himself, not refusal to show ID. You are required to identify yourself, but that can be as simple as saying "my name is [insert name here]." If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest.
But to answer your question, why do I care? The first reason is that having to present this ID to board an airplane is a hindrance to both interstate commerce and freedom of assembly (note the environmental activists who were prevented from flying due to the secret watch list). But John Gilmore does a much better job explaining this point.
I briefly worked for a Symantec call center in the anti-virus division, and very often the call would consist of me telling people: "Go to lavasoft and download AdAware" because we refused to try and fix a computer loaded with spyware. Now, the call center people (relocated to India since two years ago) can tell the customers to buy Norton Anti-Spyware instead.
So what you're saying is, someone is molested, it messes them up and they later molest someone else, and we throw them all in jail for life because this will break the cycle?
No, what I'm saying is that child molestation, like other forms of abuse, spreads like a disease. If someone molests a single child, that child may end up becoming an abuser his/herself. But a single child molester can hurt dozens of children, and the probability is that one or two of those dozen will go on to molest others. So like the diseased creatures they are, child molesters should be permanently quarantined from children. Because the punishment is so (necessarily) severe, juries need really solid evidence, not just testimony from a single child. Some of the abusers will fall through the cracks that way, but the US legal system still requires (on paper) proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you haven't recognized the template yet, hopefully you will from now on. This troll posts on every apple discussion. So next time you see I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? just move along.
I would rather they rot in jail for life, for molesting young children, but if they are to be released, I don't think this GPS requirement is unreasonable. Tagging innocent people would be unconscionable, but parolees (for example) have very severe restrictions imposed on where they travel, with whom they associate, etc.
And in some installations I built, the "servers" were actually regural 1GHz desktops
Add it handled regural tasks just fine.
If the servers or network break in regural fat-client environments, you will also have problems.
What happens if the server goes down in a regural fat-client environment?
I thought "regural" was some leet hacker term that I wasn't aware of, because you used the word so frequently. It wasn't until a google search for the word turned up results on "regural expressions" that I realized what you meant to say.
I would never have purchased a Mac in the first place if I had to be stuck with a crappy one-button mouse. I got a free one with my new PowerMac, but I gave it away. It may be prettier than my Logitech, but I'm more concerned with function than style. I also have an old Hitachi monitor, which is nowhere near as stylish as the Apple monitors.
Otherwise, you make some really great points. Besides the hardware compatibility, I've found most UNIX software is cake to build with OS X, although you often have to set the -no-cpp-precomp flag manually (I hope I got that right).
I recently got a dish network PVR, and I wanted to know my options for moving content to my computer. Ideally, I would want to extract the video from the hard drive, but that is a really pain, if even possible on the particular model I got. Anyway, I decided if I ever do want to save any shows, it would make more sense to get a box that can do the capturing and encoding. If I were a sucker for high definition, this would not be an option, but the signal quality I get is not great enough that I would expend much effort worrying about recompression. I found a Macworld review of several devices that fit the bill. The Datavideo DAC-100 and Canopus ADVC-100 looked great. No TV tuner, but that doesn't always matter. I haven't bought either one, but it's nice to know they exist.
Yes, sudo pico definitely works. What's most frustrating is when I've made major modifications to a file with pico, then can't write out my changes. Well, at least I can't write them to the file I want. I'm sure there must be some way to change permissions of a GUI application (this is also relevant if you want to do some silly hack like change the bootup image in Photoshop, which I did back in the day when I logged in as root; I don't know of any decent CLI image editors ;)).
Hell, Tiger is coming out in less than three weeks, so everything may have changed.
Oh, and I might add that I never had problems reading the system files (probably because I am in the admin group), but when I tried to write my changes I got permission errors.
As for Reagan's legacy (defeating the Soviets), perhaps you are right. But I think it's much more likely that the US will have a financial crisis due to the massive debt accumulation that will far overshadow any gains from "defeating the Soviets" (if that's what the arms spending race really was).
Besides fighting the Cold War, why else do you think Reagan was great? I'm genuinely curious, because I can't think of anything.
But how can you in good conscience say Reagan was the best person for the job, or even a good person for the job? What conservative values do you hold, if you feel that way? I can think of probably a dozen reasons I think Reagan was the worst president in the history of the US, but here are just a couple:
1) His unsuccessful "War on Drugs" is not only still wasting taxpayer money, but is responsible for the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Above China, above Russia, and even above Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
2) If you look at the national debt over time, you will see exactly when it began to skyrocket: 1980-1988. And the subsequent presidents didn't help the problem.
3) Reagan was a documented liar (unless you believe that string of "I don't remember"s), and in my opinion committed treason via the Iran-Contra arms deals. Not to mention the massive human rights abuses that occurred at a direct or indirect result of the CIA meddling in Honduras, Nicaragua, and probably a dozen countries we are not yet aware of.
4) Back to the "War on Drugs" fiasco, we effectively no longer have a 4th ammendment, because it was deemed more important to find drugs than to respect the Bill of Rights.
Pudge, I regularly read your submissions, and appreciate your diplomacy when discussing these matters, but that statement about Reagan really makes me question your sanity.
On a related note, is it possible to let a particular application have root permissions? Sometimes I like to edit system files with a GUI editor, and this always causes problems (when I need to write out my changes).
All in all, I think quantum dots are way overhyped. They are sticky, hard to passivate, and they blink.
The people in the CIA who do care about rules tend to leave the organization, it seems.
But I'm just a little paranoid from reading too much history. If I were hosting an anarchist site, you bet I'd have it set up in the Cayman Islands or somewhere far away from the FBI's clutches. Then I'd only have to worry about the CIA.
I had to check your link to make sure it wasn't the newsreader Unison, which is also pretty nifty. Though I think someone needs to change their name to avoid the confusion . . . Who came first?