I'm not asking for perfect. If visibility was as good as Tesla says it was, why couldn't the car stay in its lane, and why did it steer into an obstruction?
More likely, he had a false impression that something really bad could never happen to him -- that bad luck is something that happens to other people. It's the same reason that people text while driving. They are confident in their own situation and their own ability to handle dangerous conditions, and sometimes they end up being wrong.
Ethereum's hash function is designed to use a lot of memory bandwidth, whereas the Bitcoin hash function is primarily just arithmetic. That means that an ASIC can pop down tons of dedicated hardware for the Bitcoin hash function and be much, much more power-efficient than a CPU or GPU. An Ethereum ASIC does not have the same relative efficiency gain -- but it does have some.
For any proof-of-work scheme, there will be some point where an ASIC will be more profitable than a CPU or GPU, but most (that use novel hash functions) don't reach that point because the one-time costs of designing the ASIC are so high. Antminer apparently thinks Ethereum has reached that point -- which may push it towards adopting proof-of-stake sooner.
Crocodiles are not descended from dinosaurs. They are related, as part of a group called archosaurs. Birds and crocodilians are (by the definition of Archosauria) the two surviving groups of archosaurs.
The reptiles most closely related to birds were the non-avian dinosaurs, but they are all dead. The most recent common ancestor of birds and crocodilians probably lived about 250 million years ago, so they are not that closely related.
Indeed. In the last few months, GPU process have actually dropped a fair bit. In January, it was common to see Radeon Vega 64 cards offered for almost 4x MSRP.
Did you read that page? It quotes an optional protocol of the ECHR: ""No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
If you misread the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, you might get the wrong idea: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." However, note the qualifier "each country". See, for example, this, but lots of other sources agree.
That's not what double jeopardy means. Double jeopardy is when the same sovereign prosecutes the same person twice over the same actions. For example, in the US, it's not a violation of the constitutional rule against double jeopardy if a state (or local) government prosecutes a person over the same actions as the federal government, because the federal government is a separate sovereign from the state (and the state's subdivisions).
No, this script kiddie's script would also (try to) attack servers after doing nmap-like things. A large part of what he was being charged for involved rootkits and taking sensitive data from the servers in question.
Today's lesson in Logic 101: There is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. Also between "making sense" and "being right". You're not good at either of those, which may explain your confusion.
The UK refrained from even investigating organized child-rape gangs because they were run by certain politically favored groups. Then the UK had to put a hold on every rape case in the country and review them all after four cases in a short span fell apart because the police or prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. Stop pretending that your chamber pot smells of roses.
No wonder the UK is going down the tubes, if it thinks that 25 years is a sufficient prison term for someone who kills dozens of people. You lot really need to grow up.
Apparently 324 bankers, investment consultants, and similar have been convicted of financial crimes as a result of the 2008-2009 crisis. I don't know how many went to prison.
Most of the people who lost lots of money did so because they thought multiple markets would keep going up -- and there is no real cure for that unless you prevent people from choosing where to put their own money. That is one "cure" that I think is worse than the disease.
Um, congratulations for finding propaganda? For example, the first three lists I found of the "most brutal" or "most violent" or "worst" prisons in the world all included Alcatraz, which has been closed for 55 years -- almost twice as long as it was open.
Lauri Love is not accused of simply taking down a web site. He was facing that much prison time because of much more serious crimes against a lot of different victims. Your attempt at false equivalence fails.
Your country still hasn't prosecuted this tool, but a comedian who made a dog video faces prison time for it. Is it now three police systems that ignored decades of systematic violence against young women out of fear of appearing racist, or have more cases come out in the last few weeks? Fix your own dysfunctional "justice" system before you complain about the US one.
Well, you certainly have a lot of unsupported and irrelevant talking points. At least you have made it clear that your priority is propaganda rather than shedding light on the topic.
Shocking news (to some): Indiscriminately committing the same crime dozens of time can increase your eligibility for long prison terms. I know it's hard for Brits to understand, but addition works.
And in other news to mindless trolls, almost no convict in the US gets anywhere close to the maximum possible term, in large part because terms for multiple crimes are often served concurrently rather than serially.
Whatever you are smoking, you should stop. You are arguing that two crimes make a right: that because US officials allegedly violated some crime (that you cannot quite describe, but you're sure it is a crime), another criminal should not be extradited.
Crimes are not defined by stealing something of value or profiting from illegal activities. For example, part of the UK's 1872 Licensing Act makes it illegal to be drunk in a pub -- no theft or profit needed. Similarly, part of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 makes it illegal in designated areas to not tell the government who "key-holders" are for premises with audible alarm systems -- no theft or profit needed.
If the UK court wanted to really make a point about the UK's jurisdiction and sovereignty, it could do something about all the people being assassinated by Russia inside the UK, but I guess that is too hard. It's much easier to make a statement by letting a script kiddie go free; apparently current-day Brits can't be bothered to do anything too hard. They even need to pass a Snooper's Charter to make it easier to surveil their entire populace.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not asking for perfect. If visibility was as good as Tesla says it was, why couldn't the car stay in its lane, and why did it steer into an obstruction?
More likely, he had a false impression that something really bad could never happen to him -- that bad luck is something that happens to other people. It's the same reason that people text while driving. They are confident in their own situation and their own ability to handle dangerous conditions, and sometimes they end up being wrong.
Tesla blames dead driver. Dead driver's family blames Tesla. Who is really at fault here?
I think the four-year-old girl is right: Why not both?
Ethereum's hash function is designed to use a lot of memory bandwidth, whereas the Bitcoin hash function is primarily just arithmetic. That means that an ASIC can pop down tons of dedicated hardware for the Bitcoin hash function and be much, much more power-efficient than a CPU or GPU. An Ethereum ASIC does not have the same relative efficiency gain -- but it does have some.
For any proof-of-work scheme, there will be some point where an ASIC will be more profitable than a CPU or GPU, but most (that use novel hash functions) don't reach that point because the one-time costs of designing the ASIC are so high. Antminer apparently thinks Ethereum has reached that point -- which may push it towards adopting proof-of-stake sooner.
Crocodiles are not descended from dinosaurs. They are related, as part of a group called archosaurs. Birds and crocodilians are (by the definition of Archosauria) the two surviving groups of archosaurs.
The reptiles most closely related to birds were the non-avian dinosaurs, but they are all dead. The most recent common ancestor of birds and crocodilians probably lived about 250 million years ago, so they are not that closely related.
Indeed. In the last few months, GPU process have actually dropped a fair bit. In January, it was common to see Radeon Vega 64 cards offered for almost 4x MSRP.
Did you read that page? It quotes an optional protocol of the ECHR: ""No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
If you misread the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, you might get the wrong idea: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." However, note the qualifier "each country". See, for example, this, but lots of other sources agree.
That's not what double jeopardy means. Double jeopardy is when the same sovereign prosecutes the same person twice over the same actions. For example, in the US, it's not a violation of the constitutional rule against double jeopardy if a state (or local) government prosecutes a person over the same actions as the federal government, because the federal government is a separate sovereign from the state (and the state's subdivisions).
That's not a feature for the Raspberry, it's a feature for the Raspcoin.
Which I sure hope isn't the name of some cryptocurrency.
Six months in jail for that comedian's video is the exact analogue to the 99 years complaint regarding Lauri Love. Why the double standard?
No, this script kiddie's script would also (try to) attack servers after doing nmap-like things. A large part of what he was being charged for involved rootkits and taking sensitive data from the servers in question.
Today's lesson in Logic 101: There is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. Also between "making sense" and "being right". You're not good at either of those, which may explain your confusion.
The UK refrained from even investigating organized child-rape gangs because they were run by certain politically favored groups. Then the UK had to put a hold on every rape case in the country and review them all after four cases in a short span fell apart because the police or prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. Stop pretending that your chamber pot smells of roses.
Oh, grow up. There are relevant differences between the two countries outside the criminal justice system.
No wonder the UK is going down the tubes, if it thinks that 25 years is a sufficient prison term for someone who kills dozens of people. You lot really need to grow up.
Apparently 324 bankers, investment consultants, and similar have been convicted of financial crimes as a result of the 2008-2009 crisis. I don't know how many went to prison.
Most of the people who lost lots of money did so because they thought multiple markets would keep going up -- and there is no real cure for that unless you prevent people from choosing where to put their own money. That is one "cure" that I think is worse than the disease.
Um, congratulations for finding propaganda? For example, the first three lists I found of the "most brutal" or "most violent" or "worst" prisons in the world all included Alcatraz, which has been closed for 55 years -- almost twice as long as it was open.
Lauri Love is not accused of simply taking down a web site. He was facing that much prison time because of much more serious crimes against a lot of different victims. Your attempt at false equivalence fails.
Your country still hasn't prosecuted this tool, but a comedian who made a dog video faces prison time for it. Is it now three police systems that ignored decades of systematic violence against young women out of fear of appearing racist, or have more cases come out in the last few weeks? Fix your own dysfunctional "justice" system before you complain about the US one.
Well, you certainly have a lot of unsupported and irrelevant talking points. At least you have made it clear that your priority is propaganda rather than shedding light on the topic.
Shocking news (to some): Indiscriminately committing the same crime dozens of time can increase your eligibility for long prison terms. I know it's hard for Brits to understand, but addition works.
And in other news to mindless trolls, almost no convict in the US gets anywhere close to the maximum possible term, in large part because terms for multiple crimes are often served concurrently rather than serially.
Whatever you are smoking, you should stop. You are arguing that two crimes make a right: that because US officials allegedly violated some crime (that you cannot quite describe, but you're sure it is a crime), another criminal should not be extradited.
One would think that if any of that was legally relevant, one of the courts involved might mention it. Did they?
And the obligatory xkcd addressing your conspiracy theory: https://xkcd.com/932/
Crimes are not defined by stealing something of value or profiting from illegal activities. For example, part of the UK's 1872 Licensing Act makes it illegal to be drunk in a pub -- no theft or profit needed. Similarly, part of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 makes it illegal in designated areas to not tell the government who "key-holders" are for premises with audible alarm systems -- no theft or profit needed.
If the UK court wanted to really make a point about the UK's jurisdiction and sovereignty, it could do something about all the people being assassinated by Russia inside the UK, but I guess that is too hard. It's much easier to make a statement by letting a script kiddie go free; apparently current-day Brits can't be bothered to do anything too hard. They even need to pass a Snooper's Charter to make it easier to surveil their entire populace.