And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.
And your suggestion for persecuted minorities? Many have an issue with run ins when not trying to attract attention. http://gawker.com/black-man-ar... He should have stopped working, as it obviously got the attention of the police?
You missed a good complaint. The plea system is torture. Threatening someone with worse consequences if they don't do what you demand is torture. And that's what a plea is.
If a LEA uses illegal methods to collect information they can't hide that fact by parallel construction.
Why not? Lets make up a story. I'm a cop. I search every car I stop, even without cause. I find cocain in a guy's car one day. I put it back and waive him on. I call up Bob, also a cop. I give him the "suspect's" address and tell him to pull him over soon after he leaves home the next day. Bob pulls him over at the end of the block for "failure to come to a complete stop" when the suspect did come to a complete stop. Bob then asks to search the car. The suspect refuses. Bob then calls out the dog squad to sniff the car (no, you don't even need reasonable suspicion to hold someone roadside for a dog search). IF that doesn't work, Bob will assert reasonable suspicion from the suspects nervous manner, and search the car. The cocaine found would then be a legal search (based on today's court rulings), so long as nobody links my previous search with Bob's actions.
That's parallel construction. Using the fruit, but in a manner than hides illegal acts by the investigators.
If you do something, and don't get arrested for it, then it was legal. What they are doing must, therefore, be legal. After all, when the President does it, it isn't illegal.
Hearsay is admissible in court. There are some restrictions around it, but a cop is *never* bound by the rules of court. If they think someone is in imminent danger, they should act on it, even if that taints the court case later. In most cases, if they honestly believed a crime was in progress, there's little they could do that would jeapordize the court case.
The problem isn't street cops that heard someone say they heard someone say something else, then arrests them (which should be fine in court, but possibly hard to convict on), but when a cop illegally searches something, finds illegal drugs, then puts them back, knowing he broke the law. Later, he tips off another cop to pull the guy over for a broken tailight, and claim to have "smelled something" then perform the search and find the illegal substance.
IF the first search is known, and the connection to the second search is known, the second search is still illegal fruit. But if you hide the first search and its connection to the second, then it's "legal" (in that it's admissible, it's still illegal, but who's going to press the issue?).
We can do it tomorrow if we choose to. You are indicating that you choose not to. Got it. You are one of the large Luddite contingent on a tech site. We have the technology today to move to 100% solar. We consciously choose not to. "doing the right thing is hard" "new is bad, and tech is new"
We have plenty of technologies that would store without a problem. In the time it takes to install all the solar cells, we can easily build storage plants with kinetic, potential or chemical storage for nightime use. We have all three in use today. And yes, they scale fine.
A global energy grid would never work. Like France would tie in with Africa. Yeah, that's impossible.
So you agree that the power generated is sufficient.
That solves the hard problem. Why spend so much time worrying about implementation details, now that we've solved the problem? Hydro storages is in place today, we can just do more. Or, work on a global power grid, conveniently aligned along Risk paths.
The US started the war when the US blocked the democratic election because war was preferable than to have a democracy in Vietnam. The USA hates democracy, and puts many dictators in power, in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
Perhaps this lead to Eisenhower's speech to beware the military industrial complex on his farewell address.
Yes, and Washington warned us against political parties. How'd we do with that one? Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex because he helped found it and was feeling guilt to the evil he created.
Nope. I grew up in Texas and moved from there to Alaska. If I voted Democrat every time, my "vote" (from the electoral college perspective) has always been for a Republican, and nothing I say in the vote would affect that. As you vote for the state you last lived in, I can still vote as an Alaska voter, but no need, it's wasted anyway.
But the person I ticked on the ballot has always lost. Go Ross Perot! He wouldn't have been that good, but would have been better than Bush. And having a non-party winner would have shaken up politics.
So, what is that inflation-correction you mentioned a few messages back than all about ? And how can it *not* devaluate whe it gets diluted by the insertion of that funny money ?
When you invest your money at a return greater than inflation, $100 of yours from 5 years ago will buy less today, but $100 of yours 5 years ago will buy at least as much today as it would have back then.
Yes, your *money* devaluates.
So if I invest $1000 and get an amazing 20% return, my $1200 will buy less than the $1000 I started with? No? Then my *money* didn't devaluate.
I'm sorry, but you are either stupid, (willignly) ignorant or just plain-out trolling me.
I'm talking about the ability of a pile of money to buy stuff next year. Not the value of some fixed arbitrary amount of money. Your misunderstanding of my position doesn't make me a troll.
Yup, I'm part of the problem. I moved out of the US 6 years ago. I saw this coming. What, were you too stupid to see the state of the US when our choices were down to Obama or Romney? I now pay lower taxes, make more money, and have completely free health care (paid for in its entirety by the lower taxes), in a country with lower crime and longer life expectancy.
Good luck with the mess you made. If it's any consolation, I've never managed to vote for a winning president. So anything done in the past 20+ years (when I could vote), I've always voted for a loser, so nothing was ever done by someone I voted for.
Then develop ultrasonic sonar to get density reflections from items in the way. Even if it's a plastic bag, there's a reasonable chance that a person was initially near it when it became loose, so someone may dash out after it. But a squirrel would be unlikely to have a person dash out after it. At least you recognize that humans are bad at it as well. The bar for a computer to reach to be better than the "average" person is pretty low. A bowling ball may cause damage if hit, but would be unlikely to cause secondary damage (not likely to cause a crash), so hitting it would be unlikely to be catastrophic.
You don't need to "slow" for a soccer ball. You need to be able to stop before it, if a person arrives. So vehicle positioning to ensure better visibility (driving towards the middle of the road) may help as much or more than slowing, at least initially, then, as the ball gets closer, slow while passing it. Perhaps a warning horn as they get close, in case someone were running after it. The distance from the ball matters. The longer away you are, the more likely that a runner will not emerge as you get there. Most people who run out after a ball do so almost immediately after it runs free. There are a lot of little "rules" like that which would need to be programmed in, or learned. If these are AI driven, they could share and one car's experiences could train the others, rather than the current system where a single driver encounters something, and it doesn't teach them anything, nor anyone else learning from that event. Perhaps non-human learning. Perhaps something like: measured vertical movement greater than 10% indicates a high likelihood of a person following it, or something like that (being a bouncing ball is more likely to be followed, and a rolling ball is not. The trick is self-learning. But AI isn't needed for that. Events could be sent back home and examined by a human before incorporation into the rules.
I'm not confident we'll ever build AI. We can't even model our own thought processes. So how can we program something to mimic us? The human brain always makes a decision, even when the answer isn't known. We haven't yet modeled a good way to make wrong decisions we know to be wrong because the "right" decision can't be determined, but people do that all the time (manifesting most commonly in in what's termed "choose the devil you know").
So why haven't you enrolled in medicaid? Sounds like you avoided the low-cost government programs, then complained about the government cost. Seems like it would have made more sense to have joined the low cost program.
The problem with people like me is that I don't know the rules of the game. Watching a game you don't understand would be frustrating. I had no idea there wasn't a random distribution of the daily double, nor did I know the rules for a tie in final jeopardy. Yes, you can say I'm not a big fan, but I've watched it some, and it was entertaining, but I think it would be less so, if I didn't understand the rules as he used them.
It costs more to implement QoS to harm your competitors than to have no QoS, so banning anti-competitive behavior reduces costs. There is no scenario where net neutrality increases costs to the company affected (barring compliance cost, which theoretically only exists if you don't comply).
Slashdot Mirror
And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.
And your suggestion for persecuted minorities? Many have an issue with run ins when not trying to attract attention. http://gawker.com/black-man-ar... He should have stopped working, as it obviously got the attention of the police?
You missed a good complaint. The plea system is torture. Threatening someone with worse consequences if they don't do what you demand is torture. And that's what a plea is.
If a LEA uses illegal methods to collect information they can't hide that fact by parallel construction.
Why not? Lets make up a story. I'm a cop. I search every car I stop, even without cause. I find cocain in a guy's car one day. I put it back and waive him on. I call up Bob, also a cop. I give him the "suspect's" address and tell him to pull him over soon after he leaves home the next day. Bob pulls him over at the end of the block for "failure to come to a complete stop" when the suspect did come to a complete stop. Bob then asks to search the car. The suspect refuses. Bob then calls out the dog squad to sniff the car (no, you don't even need reasonable suspicion to hold someone roadside for a dog search). IF that doesn't work, Bob will assert reasonable suspicion from the suspects nervous manner, and search the car. The cocaine found would then be a legal search (based on today's court rulings), so long as nobody links my previous search with Bob's actions.
That's parallel construction. Using the fruit, but in a manner than hides illegal acts by the investigators.
If you do something, and don't get arrested for it, then it was legal. What they are doing must, therefore, be legal. After all, when the President does it, it isn't illegal.
Hearsay is admissible in court. There are some restrictions around it, but a cop is *never* bound by the rules of court. If they think someone is in imminent danger, they should act on it, even if that taints the court case later. In most cases, if they honestly believed a crime was in progress, there's little they could do that would jeapordize the court case.
The problem isn't street cops that heard someone say they heard someone say something else, then arrests them (which should be fine in court, but possibly hard to convict on), but when a cop illegally searches something, finds illegal drugs, then puts them back, knowing he broke the law. Later, he tips off another cop to pull the guy over for a broken tailight, and claim to have "smelled something" then perform the search and find the illegal substance.
IF the first search is known, and the connection to the second search is known, the second search is still illegal fruit. But if you hide the first search and its connection to the second, then it's "legal" (in that it's admissible, it's still illegal, but who's going to press the issue?).
We can do it tomorrow if we choose to. You are indicating that you choose not to. Got it. You are one of the large Luddite contingent on a tech site. We have the technology today to move to 100% solar. We consciously choose not to. "doing the right thing is hard" "new is bad, and tech is new"
We have plenty of technologies that would store without a problem. In the time it takes to install all the solar cells, we can easily build storage plants with kinetic, potential or chemical storage for nightime use. We have all three in use today. And yes, they scale fine.
A global energy grid would never work. Like France would tie in with Africa. Yeah, that's impossible.
So you agree that the power generated is sufficient.
That solves the hard problem. Why spend so much time worrying about implementation details, now that we've solved the problem? Hydro storages is in place today, we can just do more. Or, work on a global power grid, conveniently aligned along Risk paths.
And you should be the judge of that?
Wouldn't that have the effect of making all loans illegal? No economy functions debt-free.
Wen we have the government breaking the law, we already have a breakdown of the system.
The people that wanted to post comments had 5 hours of nausea generated by beta. They'll be back, and with lots of complaints.
No actually, having a journalistic intermediary that does vetting and filtering is a better approach.
So that it can be targeted for destruction before we get a chance to see it?
When I type www.google.com and my browser sends me to HTTP://www.google.com, why would it be be a crutch to have it send me to HTTPS:// instead?
Yes, directing people to https when they click http on a page is a crutch, but for the designers, who obviously don't care, not for the user.
Perhaps this lead to Eisenhower's speech to beware the military industrial complex on his farewell address.
Yes, and Washington warned us against political parties. How'd we do with that one? Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex because he helped found it and was feeling guilt to the evil he created.
Nope. I grew up in Texas and moved from there to Alaska. If I voted Democrat every time, my "vote" (from the electoral college perspective) has always been for a Republican, and nothing I say in the vote would affect that. As you vote for the state you last lived in, I can still vote as an Alaska voter, but no need, it's wasted anyway.
But the person I ticked on the ballot has always lost. Go Ross Perot! He wouldn't have been that good, but would have been better than Bush. And having a non-party winner would have shaken up politics.
So, what is that inflation-correction you mentioned a few messages back than all about ? And how can it *not* devaluate whe it gets diluted by the insertion of that funny money ?
When you invest your money at a return greater than inflation, $100 of yours from 5 years ago will buy less today, but $100 of yours 5 years ago will buy at least as much today as it would have back then.
Yes, your *money* devaluates.
So if I invest $1000 and get an amazing 20% return, my $1200 will buy less than the $1000 I started with? No? Then my *money* didn't devaluate.
I'm sorry, but you are either stupid, (willignly) ignorant or just plain-out trolling me.
I'm talking about the ability of a pile of money to buy stuff next year. Not the value of some fixed arbitrary amount of money. Your misunderstanding of my position doesn't make me a troll.
Doing it may be a no brainer, but that doesn't guarantee profit marking it up for other people.
Yup, I'm part of the problem. I moved out of the US 6 years ago. I saw this coming. What, were you too stupid to see the state of the US when our choices were down to Obama or Romney? I now pay lower taxes, make more money, and have completely free health care (paid for in its entirety by the lower taxes), in a country with lower crime and longer life expectancy.
Good luck with the mess you made. If it's any consolation, I've never managed to vote for a winning president. So anything done in the past 20+ years (when I could vote), I've always voted for a loser, so nothing was ever done by someone I voted for.
Then develop ultrasonic sonar to get density reflections from items in the way. Even if it's a plastic bag, there's a reasonable chance that a person was initially near it when it became loose, so someone may dash out after it. But a squirrel would be unlikely to have a person dash out after it. At least you recognize that humans are bad at it as well. The bar for a computer to reach to be better than the "average" person is pretty low. A bowling ball may cause damage if hit, but would be unlikely to cause secondary damage (not likely to cause a crash), so hitting it would be unlikely to be catastrophic.
You don't need to "slow" for a soccer ball. You need to be able to stop before it, if a person arrives. So vehicle positioning to ensure better visibility (driving towards the middle of the road) may help as much or more than slowing, at least initially, then, as the ball gets closer, slow while passing it. Perhaps a warning horn as they get close, in case someone were running after it. The distance from the ball matters. The longer away you are, the more likely that a runner will not emerge as you get there. Most people who run out after a ball do so almost immediately after it runs free. There are a lot of little "rules" like that which would need to be programmed in, or learned. If these are AI driven, they could share and one car's experiences could train the others, rather than the current system where a single driver encounters something, and it doesn't teach them anything, nor anyone else learning from that event. Perhaps non-human learning. Perhaps something like: measured vertical movement greater than 10% indicates a high likelihood of a person following it, or something like that (being a bouncing ball is more likely to be followed, and a rolling ball is not. The trick is self-learning. But AI isn't needed for that. Events could be sent back home and examined by a human before incorporation into the rules.
I'm not confident we'll ever build AI. We can't even model our own thought processes. So how can we program something to mimic us? The human brain always makes a decision, even when the answer isn't known. We haven't yet modeled a good way to make wrong decisions we know to be wrong because the "right" decision can't be determined, but people do that all the time (manifesting most commonly in in what's termed "choose the devil you know").
Looks like those that pay for their own insurance got the worst deal. That's one of the many reasons I prefer to be an employee.
So why haven't you enrolled in medicaid? Sounds like you avoided the low-cost government programs, then complained about the government cost. Seems like it would have made more sense to have joined the low cost program.
He didn't say "real pseudonym" so your clarification isn't.
The problem with people like me is that I don't know the rules of the game. Watching a game you don't understand would be frustrating. I had no idea there wasn't a random distribution of the daily double, nor did I know the rules for a tie in final jeopardy. Yes, you can say I'm not a big fan, but I've watched it some, and it was entertaining, but I think it would be less so, if I didn't understand the rules as he used them.
It costs more to implement QoS to harm your competitors than to have no QoS, so banning anti-competitive behavior reduces costs. There is no scenario where net neutrality increases costs to the company affected (barring compliance cost, which theoretically only exists if you don't comply).