Thats bad for her, but she should not have tried to open a hot cup in a car.
If McDonald's is advertising said coffee for sale, wherein you "drive through" and they hand you a cup of coffee while you are seated in the driver's seat, shouldn't they at least share in the responsibility?
That would be a laptop that not only didn't need to be turned off, it couldn't be turned off (the nuclear battery will continue emitting energy whether you use it or not).
It would probably be even simpler to connect your relay to the RTS pin on your serial port. You should be able to make the pin go high (activating the relay) by sending a \x11 character to the tty for that port.
If you are placed in a cell and your car is impounded, you have been arrested, whether that's what they call it or not, and they must have probable cause to do so. You can be detained at the scene for an articulable suspicion (not just a "feeling" or a "hunch") in what is termed an "investigatory stop", but only as long as it takes to determine whether or not there is probable cause to arrest you (e.g., bringing a drug-sniffing dog) and it can't be unreasonably long (e.g., the drug-sniffing dog isn't available until tomorrow.)
This may be a bit off-topic,
but i was wondering if anyone knows if there is
a Unix self-destruct program?
Programs work too slowly. A platform-independent solution: a panic button that activates a relay connected to an igniter, which ignites the blocks of thermite attached to your hard disks.
you can be arrested on "suspicion" and your car gets impounded, but not searched.You can't be arrested for "suspicion." Arrests also require probable cause. He might have meant that you can be arrested for speeding or some other traffic violation that you actually did commit, which is true depending on the state, and IMO stupid.
"[...] and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The dog is used as a tool for searching before any probable cause is determined, and there is no warrant issued describing the things to be seized.
The Constitution requires that warrants must be based upon probable cause and describe the particulars. However, nowhere does the Fourth Amendment actually require a warrant for all searches and seizures, only that all searches and seizures must not be "unreasonable."
The SCOTUS has held that because of the special nature of cars, probable cause automatically makes a search "reasonable" (so long as the search is directly related to crime which there is probable cause to believe has been committed).
While I've got no evidence to back me up, I'm willing to bet that the majority of cases of refusal of permission end up with the cop in some way "causing" himself to perceive reasonable suspicion, and searching anyway.
Probably more often than you might think. Defense attorneys really are quite good at challenging fourth amendment violations, because the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means that one mistake can get the whole case dismissed. Cops know this, and usually give wide berth to someone who isn't nervous and knows their rights. Suspicion alone, even if it is reasonable (and that is challengable in court), is only enough for the cop to pat you down for weapons, or shine a flashlight in your car to make sure there's nothing you can hurt him with in easy reach. They still need probable cause to believe that a specific crime has been committed in order to go through your stuff, open containers, go in the trunk. The thing is, most people really don't have anything to hide and don't care, so they usually give permission.
The true evil-doers in American business, in my opinion, are the shareholders. Yes, twerps like you and me who've got a few shares here and there. Because if some company misses earnings targets, suddenly those little twerps initiate a lawsuit.
On the other hand, nobody put a gun to Google's head and forced them to go public. They could have been totally independent and answered to nobody but themselves, but they opted instead to sell that level of self-determination for fair-market value. I see no problem with holding them responsible for that decision.
I don't know if you were trying to be funny or insightful (or both), but this really raises questions for me too. What, really, is the objective value in trying to convince women to do things they are freely choosing not to do? Given the absolute decline in school performance for boys and the increasing disparity between the sexes in academic performance, is this really the right thing to be concerned about? Or even the right message to be sending? If the message that boys receive is "scientists and engineers = female", are the already underperforming boys going to be more or less motivated to study math and science?
he entire purpose of foreign aid and charitable works as applied to the third world from America is clearly aimed at destroying traditional minimal-money cultures in favor of a new culture with a rising standard of living that we can sell products to.
I wonder - do the free and voluntary choices of those who exist in those traditional minimal-money cultures have any relevance in your analysis? Are they, in your opinion, acting wrongly in choosing to accept Gates' life-saving charity? Ought they be required to choose death in order to preserve their culture? Or rather, denied the choice altogether, and death chosen for them?
Well, that was the point of the article. Comparing Gates' and Jobs' contributions to charity. Your comment appeared to take the attitude of, "poor people with malaria be damned, Jobs gets my vote because he makes me happy." In response to an article comparing charitable contributions that literally are the difference between life and death for poor sick people, your comment extolling Jobs over Gates because his gee-whiz products enhanced your creative pursuits comes across as narcissistic in the extreme. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but be aware of the context of this discussion.
Thee article you cite to doesn't really support your conclusion of OpenGL being a "god-send." Instead, the article seems to conclude that at this stage, for all intents and purposes, the two APIs are functionally equivalent.
Read the Time magazine article as well - if you think the Gates' strategy is to "just cast money at the problem," you may be surprised.
Re:Hardware bubble harder to make
on
The New Boom
·
· Score: 1
Otherwise it is a zero-sum game just like the Ponzi
No, it is NOT. Your description is totally wrong, otherwise it could not have lasted beyond a generation or two. In fact, efficient economic activity creates new wealth, and this is one place where that newly created wealth accumulates (and is occasionally destroyed).
So Coal does not produce as much radioactive waste as Nuclear
The claim is not that coal produces more radioactive waste, it is that it disperses more radioactive materials into its environment. Considering that virtually 100% of the spent fuel from a reactor is retained in solid form and carefully contained, and that the majority of coal wastes are spewed into the air, I'd say the claim still holds.
Most likely they would roll out thier own, just like they did for thier video service.
Ah, but that would require them competing with the iPods and the PlaysForSure devices that have already been purchased. It would have to be one hell of a service, to convince everybody to buy Yet Another Portable Media Player.
It would be far better, in every way, for there to be a governing body (yes, it would probably need to run by the U.N., as much as I dislike the U.N.) and for there to be a specific set of guidelines governing the development and use of nuclear energy, and the complete removal from the planet of nuclear weapons.
It would also be far better, in every way, for magical unicorns to fly me to a happy candy land where everything is free and dogs never die. But so long as that's not credibly happening in the foreseeable future either, I'll plan accordingly.
How the hell could a patent clerk look at this and stamp it? It hasn't been stamped. It is just an application.
Did they even look at it? They are looking at it.
Do we have any recourse or any way to fire these morons? They haven't done anything.
Why in the name of all that is holy did this GET patented? It isn't patented.
Patents are out of control... I'm just wondering if anyone has any input on how the hell they get by with this bullshit.
This headline, summary, and post represent the very worst of slashdot. A blatantly wrong headline and summary are posted that just coincidentally happen to inflame the commenters, who immediately posture and condemn without knowing any more about the subject than the misleading headline. A correction, if it is ever made, is already off the front page, and all these geeks who sincerely believe themselves to be rational and intellectually superior go off believing a complete falsehood, because it validates their beliefs.
People have been using emoticons, and especially ASCII smilies etc., for a very, very long time.
Actually, the application (it's NOT a patent yet, just an application) does not deny this at all. The application is for some scheme to do this with an overloaded keypad or voice commands. From TFApplication:
[0003] The Internet culture has developed emoticons as a way to compensate for some of the limitations of written communication. The term "emoticon" is shorthand for "emotive icon." Emoticons are typically comprised of a sequence of characters and symbols that connote some emotional state. Emoticons commonly appear in email, chat, text messaging, and other forms of written, electronic communication to express moods or tone in ways that text alone cannot. For example, `:-)` is frequently used to indicate pleasure, `:-(` displeasure. Typically, users manually input a sequence of characters and symbols to construct an emoticon. In many applications, the sequence is automatically converted into a graphic.
Slashdot Mirror
If McDonald's is advertising said coffee for sale, wherein you "drive through" and they hand you a cup of coffee while you are seated in the driver's seat, shouldn't they at least share in the responsibility?
That would be a laptop that not only didn't need to be turned off, it couldn't be turned off (the nuclear battery will continue emitting energy whether you use it or not).
It would probably be even simpler to connect your relay to the RTS pin on your serial port. You should be able to make the pin go high (activating the relay) by sending a \x11 character to the tty for that port.
Actually, it is.
If you are placed in a cell and your car is impounded, you have been arrested, whether that's what they call it or not, and they must have probable cause to do so. You can be detained at the scene for an articulable suspicion (not just a "feeling" or a "hunch") in what is termed an "investigatory stop", but only as long as it takes to determine whether or not there is probable cause to arrest you (e.g., bringing a drug-sniffing dog) and it can't be unreasonably long (e.g., the drug-sniffing dog isn't available until tomorrow.)
Programs work too slowly. A platform-independent solution: a panic button that activates a relay connected to an igniter, which ignites the blocks of thermite attached to your hard disks.
you can be arrested on "suspicion" and your car gets impounded, but not searched.You can't be arrested for "suspicion." Arrests also require probable cause. He might have meant that you can be arrested for speeding or some other traffic violation that you actually did commit, which is true depending on the state, and IMO stupid.
The dog is used as a tool for searching before any probable cause is determined, and there is no warrant issued describing the things to be seized.
The Constitution requires that warrants must be based upon probable cause and describe the particulars. However, nowhere does the Fourth Amendment actually require a warrant for all searches and seizures, only that all searches and seizures must not be "unreasonable."
The SCOTUS has held that because of the special nature of cars, probable cause automatically makes a search "reasonable" (so long as the search is directly related to crime which there is probable cause to believe has been committed).
What you describe is not "reasonable suspicion" but "probable cause." They need probable cause to search your car.
Probably more often than you might think. Defense attorneys really are quite good at challenging fourth amendment violations, because the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine means that one mistake can get the whole case dismissed. Cops know this, and usually give wide berth to someone who isn't nervous and knows their rights. Suspicion alone, even if it is reasonable (and that is challengable in court), is only enough for the cop to pat you down for weapons, or shine a flashlight in your car to make sure there's nothing you can hurt him with in easy reach. They still need probable cause to believe that a specific crime has been committed in order to go through your stuff, open containers, go in the trunk. The thing is, most people really don't have anything to hide and don't care, so they usually give permission.
It didn't, obviously. Parent is a clueless troll.
How exactly would that look different than the current BSOD?
On the other hand, nobody put a gun to Google's head and forced them to go public. They could have been totally independent and answered to nobody but themselves, but they opted instead to sell that level of self-determination for fair-market value. I see no problem with holding them responsible for that decision.
I don't know if you were trying to be funny or insightful (or both), but this really raises questions for me too. What, really, is the objective value in trying to convince women to do things they are freely choosing not to do? Given the absolute decline in school performance for boys and the increasing disparity between the sexes in academic performance, is this really the right thing to be concerned about? Or even the right message to be sending? If the message that boys receive is "scientists and engineers = female", are the already underperforming boys going to be more or less motivated to study math and science?
I wonder - do the free and voluntary choices of those who exist in those traditional minimal-money cultures have any relevance in your analysis? Are they, in your opinion, acting wrongly in choosing to accept Gates' life-saving charity? Ought they be required to choose death in order to preserve their culture? Or rather, denied the choice altogether, and death chosen for them?
Well, that was the point of the article. Comparing Gates' and Jobs' contributions to charity. Your comment appeared to take the attitude of, "poor people with malaria be damned, Jobs gets my vote because he makes me happy." In response to an article comparing charitable contributions that literally are the difference between life and death for poor sick people, your comment extolling Jobs over Gates because his gee-whiz products enhanced your creative pursuits comes across as narcissistic in the extreme. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but be aware of the context of this discussion.
Thee article you cite to doesn't really support your conclusion of OpenGL being a "god-send." Instead, the article seems to conclude that at this stage, for all intents and purposes, the two APIs are functionally equivalent.
Exactly. Never forget, it's all about YOU. You are precious and special, and your pleasure and fun are all that really matters.
Well, then, stick it to Microsoft. Kill yourself now.
Reference: CNN
Read the Time magazine article as well - if you think the Gates' strategy is to "just cast money at the problem," you may be surprised.
No, it is NOT. Your description is totally wrong, otherwise it could not have lasted beyond a generation or two. In fact, efficient economic activity creates new wealth, and this is one place where that newly created wealth accumulates (and is occasionally destroyed).
The claim is not that coal produces more radioactive waste, it is that it disperses more radioactive materials into its environment. Considering that virtually 100% of the spent fuel from a reactor is retained in solid form and carefully contained, and that the majority of coal wastes are spewed into the air, I'd say the claim still holds.
Ah, but that would require them competing with the iPods and the PlaysForSure devices that have already been purchased. It would have to be one hell of a service, to convince everybody to buy Yet Another Portable Media Player.
It would also be far better, in every way, for magical unicorns to fly me to a happy candy land where everything is free and dogs never die. But so long as that's not credibly happening in the foreseeable future either, I'll plan accordingly.
It hasn't been stamped. It is just an application.
Did they even look at it?
They are looking at it.
Do we have any recourse or any way to fire these morons?
They haven't done anything.
Why in the name of all that is holy did this GET patented?
It isn't patented.
Patents are out of control... I'm just wondering if anyone has any input on how the hell they get by with this bullshit.
This headline, summary, and post represent the very worst of slashdot. A blatantly wrong headline and summary are posted that just coincidentally happen to inflame the commenters, who immediately posture and condemn without knowing any more about the subject than the misleading headline. A correction, if it is ever made, is already off the front page, and all these geeks who sincerely believe themselves to be rational and intellectually superior go off believing a complete falsehood, because it validates their beliefs.
Actually, the application (it's NOT a patent yet, just an application) does not deny this at all. The application is for some scheme to do this with an overloaded keypad or voice commands. From TFApplication: