Not here (not UK, but a commonwealth country). It's perjury to say you weren't driving when you were. The identification of the driver is a separate matter. You "swear" you weren't driving. You then must give the police a lead, or they will still hold you responsible.
The 5th Amendment exists because people were "asked" to testify, then, when the first charge didn't convict, try them for perjury on their testimony.
That, and beat a confession out of them.
Those were the main reasons for the 5th Amendment. Not to protect your computer files. You are required to hand those over (arguably in the format the prosecutor wants), so long as they get a valid warrant first. But that's a different Amendment.
DMCA takedown provisions made it so that anybody -- almost ANYBODY -- can "claim" a copyright infringement without ANY evidence, and force other people to remove their "speech" from public view, until they give evidence that it's NOT infringing.
No evidence is needed to provide a counter-notice.
The only reason there's a hold-down time after the counter-notice is to give the (supposed) copyright holder time to file a court case before it's back up.
It's innocent until proven guilty. The person is presumed innocent. The content is blocked until any disputes are settled, as making it available would cause an irrecoverable loss if the copyright holder is right. It's actually pretty sensible, though wasn't intended to have millions of automated take downs issued by non-holders of copyright who claim a 90% miss rate is "good faith". Change the way that's applied against the take-down issuers, and the problems mostly go away.
Yeah, like the vegetables designed to generate their own insecticides, effectively turning the vegetables into poison. Even the "light" versions are generally so that more poisons can be used on them than "normal". Both are scientifically demonstrably to be "bad" for the consumer. The "good" GMO was mostly done with selective breeding. Maybe a few colors or shapes are "good" GMO, but mostly it's about getting the maximum chemicals in/on the food, and that's why GMO is globally hated. That and a fear of terminator genes.
The Law of Gravity is the fact that it exists. The Theory of Gravity isn't a fact, but is the best description we have for how to model it.
Climate change is a "fact" in that we know that there has *always* been climate change, so it would take something extraordinary to prevent climate change. That something extraordinary hasn't happened. Which direction, how fast, and causes are separate questions.
Nope. The more we abolish hydrocarbons, the better I will be. We should have solar on every building, and in every road. At which time we'd have about 4x the amount of power we use. And being locally generated, will have lower cost and better availability. We just have some minor issues about storage, that'll be easy to solve in the time frame of installing the distributed power solution.
but "the internet" is emphatically not close to error free.
Yes, it is. They had a few problems because it was designed as a private network, then expanded to a network of private networks. I was on the Internet before DHCP was "invented". The Internet was very static, and any logs did a good job of identifying a specific person. There was the perception of anonymity, but there was no actual anonymity, and that was known at the time.
Fast forward to today. Security is such an issue because there was no security built into the network. That isn't an "error", that's by design. It was just considered easier to use bad security than design it for private access from mostly dynamic clients.
That and the people building it on 9600 LAN speeds never considered 10 Gbps WAN links, so many of the speed and QoS options are not optimized for today's networks.
There are a lot of things I'd have done differently, if we were building it new today, but what "errors" do you see in the Internet, besides the lack of a crystal ball by those building it?
Anyone getting to the airport with a phone that's dead should be able to toss it in their checked bag, where it won't be any less useful than in their pocket. Then it's just fine.
Rig it to detonate when the battery is removed. Then slip it in as someone else's and don't claim it at the end. Blow the security station, and not even have to suicide yourself.
Ah, I had an HP 7100. One of the larger laptops I owned. 300cc of C4 is less than 10% of the volume of the laptop. Pull the heat sinks and fans (it'll run long enough to POST, but I wouldn't think that would be good for it), and you could put in 5 times that.
Pro-active is stopping the plots before they are trying to board. And the policy does nothing to catch bombers. It's more likely to catch scammers with skimmers, which is well outside the TSA's charter. I've seen 10 credit card skimmers hidden in one device (and it still turned on, anyway).
Not very, but doubling the memory of a human wouldn't add anything to intelligence. It adds to the intelligence of a computer because the computer isn't "smart", just faking it.
Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
For height of the Empire State Building, it looks for the Wiki entry on Empire State building, and numbers near [height, hgt., ht.].
I'd love to see what it does when every source is different (like for the building vs antenna). Does it actually evaluate context to pick the most appropriate answer, or just average them or pick the most common?
I've actually read a number of treatises written by the founders of eugenics in the mid-1800s through its heyday in the early 1900s, including all of the literature on cultural "degeneration" etc. that led to targeting of Jews, Roma, poor people, stupid people, etc. on the basis of incredibly shaky science. Have you?
Yes. The science was valid, but the social agenda was unrelated to the science of genetics. "If we kill more undesirables, there will be fewer undesirables. Science says so!"
"Eugenics" is "Genocide" + "science". Genocide is the problem, not science. Genocide happened long before, and long after the "eugenics" movement.
When you ignore the emotion around the word, Eugenics is the belief that societal breeding pressure can affect the gene pool. That the societal pressures have always been poor is unrelated to the science behind the general theory.
While the proponents of eugenics often claim that, in fact their criteria for selection were generally based on bogus "science" (even phrenology) and generally tend to be motivated more by politics or class distinctions than science.
Yes, the people executing eugenics were often following invalid desires (breeding out violence without having identified traits for violence). But that doesn't invalidate the scientific basis of it.
It's been associated with the social movements more so than the science of it, but the science is still valid.
No, because it was not scientifically valid in the first place.
So, you are asserting that you believe that if I killed all brown-eyed people tomorrow, that in a generation you think there will be a significant number of brown eyed people?
You don't believe in DNA and heredity because "eugenics" is bad?
Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?
So, you are asserting that you believe that if I killed all brown-eyed people tomorrow, that in a generation you think there will be a significant number of brown eyed people?
You don't believe in DNA and heredity because "eugenics" is bad?
Slashdot Mirror
Not here (not UK, but a commonwealth country). It's perjury to say you weren't driving when you were. The identification of the driver is a separate matter. You "swear" you weren't driving. You then must give the police a lead, or they will still hold you responsible.
The 5th Amendment exists because people were "asked" to testify, then, when the first charge didn't convict, try them for perjury on their testimony.
That, and beat a confession out of them.
Those were the main reasons for the 5th Amendment. Not to protect your computer files. You are required to hand those over (arguably in the format the prosecutor wants), so long as they get a valid warrant first. But that's a different Amendment.
So you are arguing that subpoenas are illegal?
How much of my own personal money will such a lawsuit cost?
A counter-claim is $0. Why not just counter claim, and be done with it?
DMCA takedown provisions made it so that anybody -- almost ANYBODY -- can "claim" a copyright infringement without ANY evidence, and force other people to remove their "speech" from public view, until they give evidence that it's NOT infringing.
No evidence is needed to provide a counter-notice.
The only reason there's a hold-down time after the counter-notice is to give the (supposed) copyright holder time to file a court case before it's back up.
It's innocent until proven guilty. The person is presumed innocent. The content is blocked until any disputes are settled, as making it available would cause an irrecoverable loss if the copyright holder is right. It's actually pretty sensible, though wasn't intended to have millions of automated take downs issued by non-holders of copyright who claim a 90% miss rate is "good faith". Change the way that's applied against the take-down issuers, and the problems mostly go away.
There's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit, and lawyers can get in trouble for filing them as well as the organizations paying the lawyers.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. At least not without piles and piles of official warnings.
Yeah, like the vegetables designed to generate their own insecticides, effectively turning the vegetables into poison. Even the "light" versions are generally so that more poisons can be used on them than "normal". Both are scientifically demonstrably to be "bad" for the consumer. The "good" GMO was mostly done with selective breeding. Maybe a few colors or shapes are "good" GMO, but mostly it's about getting the maximum chemicals in/on the food, and that's why GMO is globally hated. That and a fear of terminator genes.
Read http://science.slashdot.org/co... and tell me if you think he's said anything to indicate he's anti-abortion.
He sounds like someone who is anti-abortion, but deliberately saying things to be able to deny it, while strongly suggesting it.
Yes, it cant be that the science disagrees with your philosophy.
Then present the scientific basis for your position, rather than solely attacking others while not stating your position.
The Law of Gravity is the fact that it exists. The Theory of Gravity isn't a fact, but is the best description we have for how to model it.
Climate change is a "fact" in that we know that there has *always* been climate change, so it would take something extraordinary to prevent climate change. That something extraordinary hasn't happened. Which direction, how fast, and causes are separate questions.
And you and I are among them.
Nope. The more we abolish hydrocarbons, the better I will be. We should have solar on every building, and in every road. At which time we'd have about 4x the amount of power we use. And being locally generated, will have lower cost and better availability. We just have some minor issues about storage, that'll be easy to solve in the time frame of installing the distributed power solution.
but "the internet" is emphatically not close to error free.
Yes, it is. They had a few problems because it was designed as a private network, then expanded to a network of private networks. I was on the Internet before DHCP was "invented". The Internet was very static, and any logs did a good job of identifying a specific person. There was the perception of anonymity, but there was no actual anonymity, and that was known at the time.
Fast forward to today. Security is such an issue because there was no security built into the network. That isn't an "error", that's by design. It was just considered easier to use bad security than design it for private access from mostly dynamic clients.
That and the people building it on 9600 LAN speeds never considered 10 Gbps WAN links, so many of the speed and QoS options are not optimized for today's networks.
There are a lot of things I'd have done differently, if we were building it new today, but what "errors" do you see in the Internet, besides the lack of a crystal ball by those building it?
Anyone getting to the airport with a phone that's dead should be able to toss it in their checked bag, where it won't be any less useful than in their pocket. Then it's just fine.
If it's so dead and useless, why can't you toss it in your checked bags?
A battery *IS* a bomb. It has the amount of stored releasable energy as a hand grenade. It just generally releases it slower.
Rig it to detonate when the battery is removed. Then slip it in as someone else's and don't claim it at the end. Blow the security station, and not even have to suicide yourself.
Ah, I had an HP 7100. One of the larger laptops I owned. 300cc of C4 is less than 10% of the volume of the laptop. Pull the heat sinks and fans (it'll run long enough to POST, but I wouldn't think that would be good for it), and you could put in 5 times that.
Pro-active is stopping the plots before they are trying to board. And the policy does nothing to catch bombers. It's more likely to catch scammers with skimmers, which is well outside the TSA's charter. I've seen 10 credit card skimmers hidden in one device (and it still turned on, anyway).
How intelligent would you be without your memory?
Not very, but doubling the memory of a human wouldn't add anything to intelligence. It adds to the intelligence of a computer because the computer isn't "smart", just faking it.
Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
For height of the Empire State Building, it looks for the Wiki entry on Empire State building, and numbers near [height, hgt., ht.].
I'd love to see what it does when every source is different (like for the building vs antenna). Does it actually evaluate context to pick the most appropriate answer, or just average them or pick the most common?
"He said so" should hold ZERO weight in court.
So all eye witnesses should be excluded from court?
I've actually read a number of treatises written by the founders of eugenics in the mid-1800s through its heyday in the early 1900s, including all of the literature on cultural "degeneration" etc. that led to targeting of Jews, Roma, poor people, stupid people, etc. on the basis of incredibly shaky science. Have you?
Yes. The science was valid, but the social agenda was unrelated to the science of genetics. "If we kill more undesirables, there will be fewer undesirables. Science says so!"
"Eugenics" is "Genocide" + "science". Genocide is the problem, not science. Genocide happened long before, and long after the "eugenics" movement.
When you ignore the emotion around the word, Eugenics is the belief that societal breeding pressure can affect the gene pool. That the societal pressures have always been poor is unrelated to the science behind the general theory.
You seem to think that "eugenics" is just a synonym for "selective breeding" or something.
Because it is. The word means planning genetic changes to the human condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
While the proponents of eugenics often claim that, in fact their criteria for selection were generally based on bogus "science" (even phrenology) and generally tend to be motivated more by politics or class distinctions than science.
Yes, the people executing eugenics were often following invalid desires (breeding out violence without having identified traits for violence). But that doesn't invalidate the scientific basis of it.
It's been associated with the social movements more so than the science of it, but the science is still valid.
No, because it was not scientifically valid in the first place.
So, you are asserting that you believe that if I killed all brown-eyed people tomorrow, that in a generation you think there will be a significant number of brown eyed people?
You don't believe in DNA and heredity because "eugenics" is bad?
The American dream is more alive in India than the USA. There is more class movement in a society with formal castes than in the USA.
Do you have a case study that you can reference which substantiates this claim?
So, you are asserting that you believe that if I killed all brown-eyed people tomorrow, that in a generation you think there will be a significant number of brown eyed people?
You don't believe in DNA and heredity because "eugenics" is bad?