unfortunately you can't read his insane ratings with Firefox, which is a shame because they're quite amusing. He also makes it difficult to read his site with Safari, but is kind enough to forward to the same rant about why Firefox is blocked. Seems the site even blocks a number of anonymous proxies. Basically the guy is saying he does not want tech savvy users to access his site. Sounds like a nut job to me and I haven't even read his site.
don't need their stinking website! I guess they don't need Safari users either since their sight forwards Safari to whyfirefoxisblocked.com. Personally I don't care why Firefox is blocked but it would be nice to know why Safari is blocked. I mean I know the answer is that the developer doesn't know how to correctly check for a web browser or a particular function, but seriously forwarding Safari users to a site about why Firefox is blocked is about as idiotic as one can get.
if being drunk was just an aggravating factor in other crimes, then drunk driving itself would not be against the law DUI or DWI are two possible offenses (some states have one or the other, while some have both). There are plenty of other charges that can be raised if you are found to be unable to correctly handle a motor vehicle. If an officer determines that you are unable to operate a motor vehicle they can use a Breathalyzer to determine if that reason is Alcohol related. If you are found to be unable to correctly operate a motor vehicle but pass a breathalyzer test this does not guarantee you that you will not be charge with other less infractions.
What if the source code revealed that there is a way to make the machine read higher than actual? Like a cheat code. It shouldn't matter unless you can prove that the officer administering the test was aware of the code, and it you can prove that then you don't actually need the source code.
Strawmen aside I think there are some things that seem to be missing here.
But every potential flaw has to be considered separately The idea that there may be flaws in the reporting of BAC by a Breathalyzer is is nothing new, and verifiable without access to source code or dissection of the device in question. The only reason that anyone would want to actual source or internal schematics would be to either determine how to beat the system, or to find an unrelated flaw to cast doubt on the device regardless of actual accuracy. Rather than look at the source code they should run measurement test on the particular device that was used in this case.
You don't have to do anything else wrong in order to be convicted of drunk driving You contradict yourself later when you say that before asking for a breathalyzer test to be take that there must be probable cause. The question here is around the accuracy of a BAC measuring device and a persons right to access source code of a device used as evidence against them, not about what should or should not be probable cause or if an automobile has to be in motion to warrant sobriety checks. Those are indeed an important thing but are non sequiturs to the topic at hand.
First I'll point out that I don't drink and drive, I think it's stupid and after the one time I did it I realized what a complete mistake it was, and that was with no one being hurt and everything actually working out just fine. Now to address your points.
Well built simple systems, like those built to run on well know 30+ year old technology (breathalyzers are based on the zilog z80 processor, such as the intoxilyzer, or other well understood and mastered micro controllers), tend to not require continued firmware updates. For example, the Sega Mega Drive never required a single firmware update and that was a complex system containing 4 microprocessors. Lack of updates should never be misconstrued as meaning there is a system bug that has yet to be fixed.
In all court cases there must be a limit to the questions that even a defendant can be allowed to ask, or else you end up with the possibility of the legal filibuster. Eventually a question gets asked enough times that it is not worth asking again. This is due process, just not undue process. In reality you have the right to question it, both the court and the jury have the right to not believe that the question is relevant. You can even question the law enforcement officers judgment, but don't expect a jury to take the word of an ignorant drunk over a respect officer of the court, at least outside of compton or bed-stuy.
The only people I have ever know to take issue with DUI check points were people who had a tendency to drive while intoxicated. If you can find me a reference that is not run by either a disgruntled convict, an author peddling his books, or an ambulance chasing lawyer and I'd be happy to take their information under advisement. You have to understand your sources.
Oh, and I don't support governmental immunity. Government officials should have to face the same laws as the rest of this, and the fact that some get away with breaking the law is despicable and I would be happy to join you in a fight against such bias.
but an 8 hour work day would be more impairment than 4 beers. The problem here is that most people don't get up fully refreshed and have 4 beers. Usually they work 8 or more hours then go to the bar until 2am (most DUI arrest are made at or around closing time) and then have their 4 beers. Add all that up and you a seriously impaired person. More importantly it's funny to see people who think that the effects of 4 normal commercial beers (around 5% ABV) on a 152 lbs person "would not be much." Find somewhere that you can do an accurate reaction time test after 4 beers (in less than 4 hour period mind you since you need to have all the alcohol in your system at once). If you can detect the effects of alcohol you reactions and perceptions are severely impaired. Even if you can't actually feel the effects you may be to impaired to respond correctly and quickly to external stimuli.
No, you're guilty when a jury determines that you were impaired. That's true. I should have said that "you are going to be charged", rather than "you are guilty." Either way the point that the breathalyzer does not determine anything other than the specific charge still stands.
last firmware update done in 1999 You seem to be complaining because their have been no significant bugs found in the firmware of a particular breathalyzer since 1999. Good hardware does not need firmware updates every 6 months, or ever for that matter.
I had questioned the reliability of the results but the state just blew it off and said they were satisfied the results were forensically accurate. You are not the first person to question the results of a Breathalyzer test and won't be the last. If the courts went through the process of proving the accuracy of breathalyzer tests every time someone was arrested for a DUI we would have a back up in the courts so long that many people would die before their case came around. At some point you take previous case law as enough proof, and move on with the case.
As far as the DOL is concerned, you are GUILTY based on some arbitrary number the machine spits out You are guilty the moment a trained professional (police officer) has determined that you are to impaired to be operating a motor vehicle. The breathalyzer test is just to determine if that guilt is due to alcohol consumption, and if so how to what extent (many states have separate charges of DUI and QWI).
DUI law today has NOTHING to do with curbing drunk driving, it has everything to with nothing but raking in revenue. Keep telling your self that and you might not be so upset when your drinking causes you to wipe out an entire family. Look up the statistics, Drunk driving is clearly a major factor in a large portion of fatal automobile accidents. Utah has the Lowest alcohol related deaths which is still greater than 20% of all auto accident fatalities. Alcohol related accidents have a high cost to citizens including, medical costs, property damage and lost productivity. The fines from DUIs do not come close to covering the total loss.
If he was stopped in a random traffic stop/check point Traffic stops are never random, ever. I'd even bet that beyond 1 or 2 rare cases in history have the even been semi-random (cops don't flip coins to determine who they pull over). It is possible that this was at a designated check point, in which case it is also rare that everyone at a check point receives a breathalyzer test, and even rarer are the test administered randomly. The is an interview process that always takes place before a breathalyzer test. These interviews are to judge a persons current cognitive state. Once the officer determines that your state is impaired do they follow up with a breathalyzer, which is do to know what to charge you with, not if to charge you.
From reading the article you can see that getting the source code is not about proving it accurate or not, but that cases have been thrown out previously because the company refused to release the source code. In this case the defendant is probably very unhappy that the source code was released. This is a pretty clear case of a defense backfiring. Hopefully he will find any bugs in the software so they can be corrected, but that probably won't stop him from being convicted.
I support the rights of the business to protect their films from being camcorded: they should be able to sieze the recording instrument and recordings and call the cops on anyone recording their films, by all means, within limits, not search your bag if you go into the theatre without committing a single 'crime.' It doesn't matter that it was a business. It doesn't mater that it was a search specifically for recording equipment. What maters is a person right to control what activities take place on their privately owned property. I'm fairly certain that everyone who is arguing in favor the patron in this case would argue in favor of the property owner if it was a private residence and the search was for weapons. The point is a private owner should have the right to restrict others from brining certain items onto their property for any reason they see fit.
How is it that people can stand up for the rights of one party to maintain control of their private property and not another. In the case in question we have to entities that want to control how their private property is accessed, viewed and used. In this case their is support for the patron to maintain full control of their private property and to be able to dictate the control of the business establishments property. If you support the business then they both have equal control of their own private property as the patron can leave without being searched and business can chose to not allow entry without a search. By trying to enforce business to run a certain way you end up forcing them to become even more private, to the point of requiring a membership to gain entry.
And also why can't anyone understand the idea that if you don't like the rules an a business that you might not be alone and opening a competing business without those rules may just be profitable.
Can someone explain to me the appeal of Rock Band? Rock Band is going to appeal to children that aren't old enough to get a real rock band together yet, and to ex-rockers that never got their lucky break when they were in their teens. So there will be some good vocalists out there interested in ripping out the lyrics for their favorite songs, but need to get up for work of school the next day. And it will also be an interesting way to relax for those that are making music professionally.
But more importantly it's 3 rhythm games and a karaoke game all at once, and both of those styles of entertainment have been shown to be very successful through history.
If private power (eg corporations) have rights to invade your privacy that public powers (eg the state) don't, something is wrong. I don't understand your concept of privacy and rights. You seem to think that certain individuals, such as the theater patron, have rights to control themselves and their property, but that other individuals, such as business owners do not. The business owner must consent to allowing the patron into their property, so I don't understand how this is different than the patron allowing consent into their property. The rules should be applied equally to both parties. You continue to say that it is a personal freedom issue while disregarding the personal freedoms of the business owner. It's like say that having your doors unlocked gives strangers the right to enter your home, and this just is not the case. The patron in this case had no personal freedom taken away. They chose to allow access and viewing of their personal property in exchange for access and viewing of another persons property, which just seems like a pretty fair trade, regardless of the fact that it should be completely legal.
News flash: property rights don't entitle you to break the law with your own property. You are correct, and asking someone to consent to a search or else leave the property is not against the law, at least in the US, but I would bet this is also true in Canada.
Second of all, your house and a business are two different matters, and two totally different kinds of property. I don't know where you get this idea from. Privately owned and controlled property falls into one single category. License to do business or zoning have no effect over what rights you have on the property apart from the right to conduct business on the property. Business zoning does not mean the property has to be open or available to the public, as can be seen by looking at any warehouse. The fact that you do not believe that businesses are private property does not change the fact that they are.
So if a man has sex with a woman, and she says neither no nor yes, is it consent? Consent or denial of consent does not need to be verbal. That being said, allowing someone to invade your property without signifying a lack of consent is consent. Using you example of sexual contact, there are many cases where asking for an explicit yes or no would be detrimental to the mood, and it is the responsibility of the parties involved to signify their displeasure before or during the act, not to accept it and cry foul after the act. This would be like opening your front door and stepping aside while someone enters your home while taking no action to signify that you do not want them in you home and then raising charges that they entered your home illegally. This is, of course, assuming the parties are capable of signifying a lack of consent, so that drugged or unconscious victims are obviously unable to give consent, implied or otherwise.
It sounds to me like the [theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands] I have looked through multiple references on the incidents at the theater and now seem to even imply that a patron had property removed without receiving the option of having their property searched or to leave the establishment. What I did see is a number of people whining because they couldn't force a business to operate the way they want.
I personally find it astonishing that people's resentment of personal freedom goes so far as to resent people actually trying to increase it rather than accept further curtailments of it. But this is not about personal freedom, this is abut one private citizen attempting to tell another private citizen how to manage their privately owned property. In this case it is the movie patron that is trying to force the movie theater to operate business in a specific way. The Theater was only setting policy that states how one can use it's property, and that policy included a search, which was very easy to avoid simply by not entering the establishment. You come into my house I have the right to demand the exact same thing, or have you arrested for trespass. For some reason people forget that businesses are private establishments, much like a persons home.
regardless of what you construe as "consent" Consent by definition is what it is and there is no way to construe it otherwise. Just as No means No, Yes means Yes. Handing someone your personal possession after they have requested to search it is most certainly consent. Hand the theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands then that would not have been consent.
Buying a ticket to a show does not entitle someone to root through my bags And wanting to see a movie does not entitle someone to enter a private establishment. As I have said before this is no different than a policy that required "proper attire." Had the lady shown up to see a show not wearing a shirt, or shoes and was asked to leave we wouldn't even be seeing this news. In this case the "victim" consented to a search and then decided it was inappropriate, where as the right thing to do would have been to refuse the search and request a refund, and if no refund was given (which I am fairly certain it would have been) then they could have gone to small claims court for the cost of the ticket and possibly court costs, nothing more.
I would also suggest that you do not attempt to board a plane, or view a concert or any other such event since these require purchasing of tickets that do not guarantee entry and were you are most likely subject to a search far more invasive than looking through your purse. An if you refuse the search you will be rejected entry, as it should be, and most likely not receive any form of refund.
The question was, why shouldn't people be allowed to socialize as they want, unfettered? People are allowed to socialize as they want, excepting violation of laws, as long as they do it on and with their own property. The only way to achieve unfettered social freedom would be to abolish private property, but that does not appear to be your argument here. Ultimately the systems in place today would allow for the kind of social interaction that you are talking about but it would require that the actors involved also set up the environment, say through a collective.
but by what social thinking are movie chains allowed to dictate how we socialize? It may be better to ask "by what social thinking are civilians allowed to dictate how a private business operates?" No movie theater is telling anyone how to socialize, only how to act when visiting their establishment. It's no different that requiring black tie for a formal event, or a shirt and shoes in a restaurant, or no smoking wherever. These are not matters of safety, they are matters of business owners preferences, and sometimes the driving reason behind them starting their own business.
Saying that customers can vote with their feet misses the point, people don't want to go do something else. It's sad that I am arguing this since I am in no way a supporter of free market economics, but in this case the market could solve this issue, and to vote with your feet or money is that solution. Your argument basically says that the people get to tell privately owned businesses how to operate, which would be like your neighborhood telling you what you can and can not do within your own home. The reason a few people are against this solution is that most of us are not at all bothered by the rules. Those that don't carry large bags of stuff with us to movies do not have a problem with this (which is the obvious majority). Heck I think it should go further and they should do a pat down to make sure that no one even brought a cell phone with them (but then again I think cell phone or pager use in a movie theater by anyone other than an emergency service providers should be grounds for capital punishment).
Won't that be great? When every where we go we can expect to be searched by ever more invasive techniques? Won't the market eventually handle this issue. This was a private establishment, which, in the US at least, does have the right to require a search before entering. If you don't like the requirements of the establishment then go somewhere else. If this was a government mandate or government office then I might see the reason for argument against such activity, but it's not. The fact that there is more flack about this than there is about government mandated drinking ages should show you how foolish this whole case is.
Having work a short time in music promotions I know a number of venues that require searches upon entry and personally never felt there was a problem with it. If you don't like to policies of a place, like a private club that doesn't all women or something like that, don't sue the place, just don't go there, or open your own venue that meets your interests. Besides, only an idiot takes an audio recorder to a concert and only an even bigger idiot takes a video recorder to a movie.
Daniel Negraneu has done that trick to people in casinos numerous times. He's played for hours without looking at his hole cards at the 5$ no limit tables and won. Can you supply a reference or two that supports this statement? Negraneu is a god player and is well known for his ability to accurately judge were he stands based on his estimations of other players hands. Though I think he could do this against weak players (which you do tend to find at low blind NL tables), I doubt he would take that kind of unnecessary chance for long.
Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's... If you actually think this is true you are using some bad statistics. I don't think that you do think it is true as you said yourself you would fold in the described situation. Even if you are taking all other information out of the equation statisiticaly K's full of A's (with 3 Ks on board) will lose approximately 1 in 11 times (opponent has 4 chances to have a king out of the 45 unseen cards). This means statistically you should lay down kings full of aces 1 out of every 11 times you play, but you would need to know which one of those times it is. I'm just saying that making statements like "Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's" is pretty much useless.
There are plenty of times a pro player makes a call believing they have the worst hand, in order to bluff the hand later. You are correct, but again this is because of statistical knowledge. A good player has determined in their own head what they believe the statistical chances are of their opponent having both a hand they can't call with and their opponent will believe that they themselves have a winning hand. Not only that the player making the call also has to determine if they odds are correct to try and set up a bluff like that in case their opponent has a draw and how good that draw is. If you are making any move in poker without first making a educated guess as to the odds, and determining that those Odds are in your favor, then you are leaving your odds up to chance and this is not how to be a successful player.
I'd venture to say that pot-limit omaha high is a *far* more psychological game I agreed 100% and would put most stud games even above omaha in the amount of psychology in the game, but I said "played regularly" which from my experience limits the games to Texas Hold'em, Omaha hi/lo and 7 Stud hi/lo, and usually only limit for the later two, since they are the most common spread games, at least in the united states. I have actually never seen a Pot Limit Omaha High game in any casino I have been in and that's not a small number (though I am holding an HA rotation next week so I am certainly familiar with the game).
I thought the limit only applied to the maximum be That would be spread limit as opposed to fixed limit which is what they were actually playing. Most flop/board/community poker games played around the world are fixed limit, though stud games tend toward spread limit.
everyone plays in certain patterns and even when someone tries to change their own game they do it in their own personal way Many good players use game theory and randomization to actually remove their own personality from a certain percentage of their plays. Beating a computer that is using pattern recognition is still very easy and will be for the foreseeable future. Imagine in for 1 out of every 5 decisions a player needs to make during a poker match that player flips a coin to determine their action. The computer may eventually be able to determine that the 5th action will always be random, but one it won't help and two you can even randomize how often you make a random move.
[poker is] not a strategy game, but a psychological exercise. Poker is indeed a strategy game. Knowing statistics and probability are critical to successful poker play. Psychology is important was well but is useless with out strategic knowledge. The majority of poker played in the world is limit poker which has far less psychological play and a lot more statistical accuracy. Even in a No Limit Hold'em game, probably the most psychological game regularly played, you would be better off having strong strategic and analytical skills an poor psychological skills than the other way around. But, like any game which contains aspect of chance, both strategy and psychology are imperative to being a successful player.
If you're playing cards in Hold'em, against decent players, you WILL lose. I would be happy to take on any player, no mater what there record is, as long as that player never looks at his hole cards. Cards are important in card games, even if betting is the determining factor in who ultimately takes a particular pot. Imagine the game being played with no cards what so ever and you will see why knowing how to work with the cards you have is important to the game. Any time a professional player makes a "call" it is because of statistical knowledge and not psychological, even if it is to set up a play later on.
Slashdot Mirror
First I'll point out that I don't drink and drive, I think it's stupid and after the one time I did it I realized what a complete mistake it was, and that was with no one being hurt and everything actually working out just fine. Now to address your points.
Well built simple systems, like those built to run on well know 30+ year old technology (breathalyzers are based on the zilog z80 processor, such as the intoxilyzer, or other well understood and mastered micro controllers), tend to not require continued firmware updates. For example, the Sega Mega Drive never required a single firmware update and that was a complex system containing 4 microprocessors. Lack of updates should never be misconstrued as meaning there is a system bug that has yet to be fixed.
In all court cases there must be a limit to the questions that even a defendant can be allowed to ask, or else you end up with the possibility of the legal filibuster. Eventually a question gets asked enough times that it is not worth asking again. This is due process, just not undue process. In reality you have the right to question it, both the court and the jury have the right to not believe that the question is relevant. You can even question the law enforcement officers judgment, but don't expect a jury to take the word of an ignorant drunk over a respect officer of the court, at least outside of compton or bed-stuy.
The only people I have ever know to take issue with DUI check points were people who had a tendency to drive while intoxicated. If you can find me a reference that is not run by either a disgruntled convict, an author peddling his books, or an ambulance chasing lawyer and I'd be happy to take their information under advisement. You have to understand your sources.
Oh, and I don't support governmental immunity. Government officials should have to face the same laws as the rest of this, and the fact that some get away with breaking the law is despicable and I would be happy to join you in a fight against such bias.
From reading the article you can see that getting the source code is not about proving it accurate or not, but that cases have been thrown out previously because the company refused to release the source code. In this case the defendant is probably very unhappy that the source code was released. This is a pretty clear case of a defense backfiring. Hopefully he will find any bugs in the software so they can be corrected, but that probably won't stop him from being convicted.
How is it that people can stand up for the rights of one party to maintain control of their private property and not another. In the case in question we have to entities that want to control how their private property is accessed, viewed and used. In this case their is support for the patron to maintain full control of their private property and to be able to dictate the control of the business establishments property. If you support the business then they both have equal control of their own private property as the patron can leave without being searched and business can chose to not allow entry without a search. By trying to enforce business to run a certain way you end up forcing them to become even more private, to the point of requiring a membership to gain entry.
And also why can't anyone understand the idea that if you don't like the rules an a business that you might not be alone and opening a competing business without those rules may just be profitable.
But more importantly it's 3 rhythm games and a karaoke game all at once, and both of those styles of entertainment have been shown to be very successful through history.
I would also suggest that you do not attempt to board a plane, or view a concert or any other such event since these require purchasing of tickets that do not guarantee entry and were you are most likely subject to a search far more invasive than looking through your purse. An if you refuse the search you will be rejected entry, as it should be, and most likely not receive any form of refund.
Having work a short time in music promotions I know a number of venues that require searches upon entry and personally never felt there was a problem with it. If you don't like to policies of a place, like a private club that doesn't all women or something like that, don't sue the place, just don't go there, or open your own venue that meets your interests. Besides, only an idiot takes an audio recorder to a concert and only an even bigger idiot takes a video recorder to a movie.