Witnesses can be compelled to testify so that they cannot be intimidated into silence.
That may have been the theory, but it is a flawed one.
Any witness being intimidated into silence by threat of violence cannot be compelled to testify under threat of arrest. There is nothing the state ought to do that will outweigh what organized crime is willing to practice. The answer cannot be to compel a witness, but to convince them to testify.
Oh, come on moderators. -1 offtopic? I'm exactly on topic responding to parent. Is it because you find him funny (and totally unable to understand gpp), but the truth is too inconvenient for you?
I speak bad about Palestine (which has epic violence problems), and it doesn't matter that I throw Israel under the bus too? I spoke bad about the "victims" therefore I must be a bad person, and must be modded down? There is no excusing anyone who stands up for the violent, hateful, racist scumbags that shoot rockets from Palestine at Israel's civilians.
If they wanted real change, the rest of the world is ready to be sympathetic... but can't be while Palestine's moron population is trying to prove just how terrible it can be. The murderous lunatics are only slowing peace down. The real victims are the dead and suffering, on both sides of the wall. Yes, I guess I actually am calling for people to think of the children.
We will be bogged down in this quagmire for as long as people keep believing in the concept of the lesser of two evils and the evils can keep pointing the finger at the other saying "but they did it first."
Believing in the concept of the "lesser of two evils" isn't the root problem. The actual problem is Duverger's law. Plurality voting provides a strong motive for "lesser of two evils" strategic voting. This practically guarantees that we spend a majority of our time in a two party system. We always have two evils, not because people believe in them, but because our voting system tells us that we must.
I heard recently that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and those who do learn from history are doomed to watch the rest of us repeat it!
Unfortunately, politicians don't have better IQs than the general population.
A lot of them do, actually. The problem is two fold.
(1) Politicians are only elected after they seek power. They want control of other's lives. It is really easy to go from there to seeking wealth or nepotism. As a group they are inherently corruptible (with individual exceptions).
(2) Since government power applies to everybody under its rule, it potentially applies to every facet of every life (constitutional protections notwithstanding). In order for a politician to do their job well, they must therefore be an expert at everything. In other words, in order to appear bright all of the time, they must be super geniuses.
(If you can't tell, I lean toward limited government.)
They're also the best approximation we've got right now, unless you consider it ethical to test an activity for real when the theory you're testing is that the activity is dangerous.
It needs to be as close to real as possible, and I don't believe simulations are close enough. Closed course driving is, in some ways better, in others, worse. At least, I haven't seen a closed-course study yet that was done sufficiently well.
As a thought, I don't see why researchers couldn't test such things at that abandoned military suburb used by the Myth Busters. You know, the one where they let a blind guy drive? It wouldn't simulate freeway speeds, but with a few professional drivers along in "traffic", far better realism could be realized.
Given we have hard data showing that a disproportionate number of actual accidents involve mobile device usage...
Yeah, and 20 years ago there were fewer people struck by lighting while talking on a cell phone. Or being shot. Or having heart attacks. Yes, people talking on cell phones get in accidents. There is good statistical correlation here, but there are other explanations besides causation. For instance, the type of person who drives while talking on a cell phone is more likely to be young, and therefore also more likely to get in an accident. (Yes, this has probably been adjusted for, but it's an easy example to get the point across.)
With emphasis on "driving a simulator". Driving in a "real to life" simulator is harder than driving a car, unless it is an excessively expensive simulator. (Which doesn't fully compensate, but they try.) Further, it adds an element of bias. Some people drive better in simulators than others.
I, for one, have a very hard time with FPS games. It's much harder for me to feel placed in a given location. There is no depth perception; there is no peripheral vision; there is no internal feel of inertia during turns and maneuvers. It's like trying to drive using only one eye and blinders. It really messes with my spacial awareness. Some people don't have this problem, so they may assume that a driving simulator is a fair test.
So when someone starts up a conversation with a tester in a simulator, they're causing them to repurpose whatever mental power had been used to compensate for the simulation. That's not non-zero. For some of us, that's a significant, measurable factor.
Protip: EMS drivers generally run 24 to 48 hour shifts. Get some new facts, because this crap you have no isn't.
No, they don't. Why would you possibly think that? They do push them for longer shifts than they ought to... but the liability of running them that long would be phenomenal. Can you imagine how many would die on the way to the hospital because the EMS missed a drug reaction bracelet? Or drew from the wrong vial? Or forgot to double-check breathing halfway through the ride?
This isn't just serious civil liability, it's criminal negligence.
It really depends on the study you're looking at. Most of them measure responses on a difficult driving course while being asked cognitive questions. The participants are either judged for their answers, or given the impression that they are. Meanwhile they're swerving to lights or slamming on the brakes. They have no opportunity to answer the quiz questions except when they are in imminent driving hazards.
Real driving doesn't work that way. Not nearly. You are constantly on the lookout for unusual road / pedestrian behavior, but most of your brain is sitting there idle. If something does happen, you already know that the conversation has no preemptive value whatsoever. During the test, if you're not answering verbal questions in mid-panic, you're failing that part of the test. In real life, you deal with the driving issue, and then return to the conversation, "What did you say again, I was just swerving to miss a deer."
I was screaming at my television when the Myth Busters "confirmed" this (for instance). They needed a double blind study where the participants were lead to believe there was something else entirely being tested (such as fuel efficiency, with very few reaction events... in other words, make it like driving!!! Don't tell them you're measuring their driving skills, lead them to believe that you're not. Only then can you even begin to tackle the issue.
Most of these studies are designed around the biases that are extraordinarily prevalent in this thread. "I could pull it off, but most people are idiots. We need legislation to control the idiots."* It is a form of conceit. It produces a pre-formed conclusion in search of a study designed to confirm it. And if there's one thing that our universities can produce right now, it's studies that confirm preconceived beliefs. That makes it easier to get funding for future studies, after all.
*(This is an example of the logical fallacy of permitting the exception to prove the rule.)
I think you will find that Jesus did not speak medieval English.
Seriously? So, we just assume that every word in any Bible you and I can read is false, because it isn't in the original language? How about some other translations? (picking them at random)
New International Version (NIV)
46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
46 and he said, `And to you, the lawyers, wo! because ye burden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves with one of your fingers do not touch the burdens.
Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye burden men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
46 And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
Jesus is actually referring to the people of the Jewish religious law... [and the] many times more laws to keep them from getting close to actually breaking the real Jewish law
So it is similar to lawyers of today but not quite the same.
Except that Israel was a theocracy conquered by Rome. Within the bounds of Roman law, the Jews were permitted their own governance. The Sanhedrin did hear real trials based on Jewish religious law, brought before them by people who could be called lawyers. Even many of the secular laws were religiously colored in some way, much like Christianity sometimes does in our law today.
It's closer than you might think.
(Yes, "The Law" in most passages does refer to the Law of Moses, but interpretations of it were often the law of the land, as well.)
The "hacking" laws are written in terms of access, which is contextual. Manning had access to the systems to do the work for which he was employed by the DoD. He did not have access to copy off files and give them Wikileaks. So he did violate those laws.
Only if you redefine the word "access".
If I created an account for you on my system, and made you a super-user, you have access to all kinds of stuff... config files, creating users, installing software. This doesn't mean you have my approval, but I did give you access to them.
Redefining the word (in noun form) to mean something else is an exceptionally dangerous road to go down. If someone misreads an order (judicial or executive) and does something unintended, do we really want them becoming a sacrificial scapegoat? Do they not have "access" because they didn't have actual permission? Wouldn't we prefer to nail those who shouldn't have given them access or those who gave bad instructions? Do we just assume that because children aren't allowed in a bedroom that they don't have access to the gun under the pillow? Do we want that legal defense?
"Access" cannot be equated to verbal or paper permission. Access (noun) is the ability to access (verb) something, not the authority to do so.
He accessed something that he wasn't supposed to, but to which he had access. What he did with it was clearly illegal. He shouldn't have been given access, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
I suspect one of the real points to this article is to let interested buyers know that the domain name may be for sale soon (to pump up the price). I'm sure that is one asset that has greatly appreciated over the years.
Anything's more expensive than offering good service. Your point is?
Most carrier grade equipment already does some form of QoS. Yeah, they'll need to insert custom code somewhere and that will cost R&D, but chances are most large ISPs won't need new hardware.
You know, it took a while before Mr. Ford figured out just what the automobile industry needed to progress. I still hold that usage-based prioritization is the way to go, but it is sadly comforting to know that there are pioneers out there trying to make it work. (or were... Hopefully there still are.)
The reality is that while it doesn't cost any more to provide 10Mbps or 1Gbps over the first piece of fibre from your home it does cost significantly more to route that data to it's end destination.
100GB and 101GB are not significantly different in terms of what the ISP pays, but is significantly different in how they charge. That's abusive. I know that you're right in the point that you're making, but the way that argument is usually used is a very bad excuse to penalize legitimate usage.
Even assuming the upstream problem is intractable (I have my doubts), they ought to charge upstream cost + <2% for going over quota. I can't figure out how they can rationalize otherwise. These punitive fees are not excusable.
I really don't understand why ISPs don't offer high bandwidth, without quotas and caps.
What they can do is prioritize packets based on monthly usage. And that is only the simplest solution. (They could even offer QOS to the technologically inclined.) Want fast Internet during peak hours? Don't use too much bandwidth during peak hours! The concept is simple, but executives can't see beyond charging tiered usage.
(And none of this precludes selling bandwidth minimum guarantees to businesses hosting their own servers. Think outside the box, people.)
Maybe it isn't an Autopilot issue. Has anybody asked yet if these pilots used the same training simulator? It could be that they practiced making this approach wrong.
I once went zip-lining on vacation. Having an indemnity waiver makes sense. There is a particular amount of risk involved. This one, though, was over the top. Among other things, it stated that I would hold blameless the company and employees for injury resulting from gross negligence!
I crossed out the things that I didn't think would stand in court (but wasn't willing to find out), turned it in, and had a blast.
Slashdot Mirror
Witnesses can be compelled to testify so that they cannot be intimidated into silence.
That may have been the theory, but it is a flawed one.
Any witness being intimidated into silence by threat of violence cannot be compelled to testify under threat of arrest. There is nothing the state ought to do that will outweigh what organized crime is willing to practice. The answer cannot be to compel a witness, but to convince them to testify.
Oh, come on moderators. -1 offtopic? I'm exactly on topic responding to parent. Is it because you find him funny (and totally unable to understand gpp), but the truth is too inconvenient for you?
I speak bad about Palestine (which has epic violence problems), and it doesn't matter that I throw Israel under the bus too? I spoke bad about the "victims" therefore I must be a bad person, and must be modded down? There is no excusing anyone who stands up for the violent, hateful, racist scumbags that shoot rockets from Palestine at Israel's civilians.
If they wanted real change, the rest of the world is ready to be sympathetic... but can't be while Palestine's moron population is trying to prove just how terrible it can be. The murderous lunatics are only slowing peace down. The real victims are the dead and suffering, on both sides of the wall. Yes, I guess I actually am calling for people to think of the children.
Believing in the concept of the "lesser of two evils" isn't the root problem. The actual problem is Duverger's law. Plurality voting provides a strong motive for "lesser of two evils" strategic voting. This practically guarantees that we spend a majority of our time in a two party system. We always have two evils, not because people believe in them, but because our voting system tells us that we must.
In principle, but that often fails in practice.
I heard recently that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and those who do learn from history are doomed to watch the rest of us repeat it!
Unfortunately, politicians don't have better IQs than the general population.
A lot of them do, actually. The problem is two fold.
(1) Politicians are only elected after they seek power. They want control of other's lives. It is really easy to go from there to seeking wealth or nepotism. As a group they are inherently corruptible (with individual exceptions).
(2) Since government power applies to everybody under its rule, it potentially applies to every facet of every life (constitutional protections notwithstanding). In order for a politician to do their job well, they must therefore be an expert at everything. In other words, in order to appear bright all of the time, they must be super geniuses.
(If you can't tell, I lean toward limited government.)
You presume that the presence of an army is prerequisite for being targeted by Palestinian rockets. What a silly notion.
(Both sides of that particular "conflict" are way out of line... but especially so for the Palestinians.)
It needs to be as close to real as possible, and I don't believe simulations are close enough. Closed course driving is, in some ways better, in others, worse. At least, I haven't seen a closed-course study yet that was done sufficiently well.
As a thought, I don't see why researchers couldn't test such things at that abandoned military suburb used by the Myth Busters. You know, the one where they let a blind guy drive? It wouldn't simulate freeway speeds, but with a few professional drivers along in "traffic", far better realism could be realized.
Yeah, and 20 years ago there were fewer people struck by lighting while talking on a cell phone. Or being shot. Or having heart attacks. Yes, people talking on cell phones get in accidents. There is good statistical correlation here, but there are other explanations besides causation. For instance, the type of person who drives while talking on a cell phone is more likely to be young, and therefore also more likely to get in an accident. (Yes, this has probably been adjusted for, but it's an easy example to get the point across.)
With emphasis on "driving a simulator". Driving in a "real to life" simulator is harder than driving a car, unless it is an excessively expensive simulator. (Which doesn't fully compensate, but they try.) Further, it adds an element of bias. Some people drive better in simulators than others.
I, for one, have a very hard time with FPS games. It's much harder for me to feel placed in a given location. There is no depth perception; there is no peripheral vision; there is no internal feel of inertia during turns and maneuvers. It's like trying to drive using only one eye and blinders. It really messes with my spacial awareness. Some people don't have this problem, so they may assume that a driving simulator is a fair test.
So when someone starts up a conversation with a tester in a simulator, they're causing them to repurpose whatever mental power had been used to compensate for the simulation. That's not non-zero. For some of us, that's a significant, measurable factor.
Protip: EMS drivers generally run 24 to 48 hour shifts. Get some new facts, because this crap you have no isn't.
No, they don't. Why would you possibly think that? They do push them for longer shifts than they ought to... but the liability of running them that long would be phenomenal. Can you imagine how many would die on the way to the hospital because the EMS missed a drug reaction bracelet? Or drew from the wrong vial? Or forgot to double-check breathing halfway through the ride?
This isn't just serious civil liability, it's criminal negligence.
Are you trolling, or are you just drunk?
It really depends on the study you're looking at. Most of them measure responses on a difficult driving course while being asked cognitive questions. The participants are either judged for their answers, or given the impression that they are. Meanwhile they're swerving to lights or slamming on the brakes. They have no opportunity to answer the quiz questions except when they are in imminent driving hazards.
Real driving doesn't work that way. Not nearly. You are constantly on the lookout for unusual road / pedestrian behavior, but most of your brain is sitting there idle. If something does happen, you already know that the conversation has no preemptive value whatsoever. During the test, if you're not answering verbal questions in mid-panic, you're failing that part of the test. In real life, you deal with the driving issue, and then return to the conversation, "What did you say again, I was just swerving to miss a deer."
I was screaming at my television when the Myth Busters "confirmed" this (for instance). They needed a double blind study where the participants were lead to believe there was something else entirely being tested (such as fuel efficiency, with very few reaction events... in other words, make it like driving!!! Don't tell them you're measuring their driving skills, lead them to believe that you're not. Only then can you even begin to tackle the issue.
Most of these studies are designed around the biases that are extraordinarily prevalent in this thread. "I could pull it off, but most people are idiots. We need legislation to control the idiots."* It is a form of conceit. It produces a pre-formed conclusion in search of a study designed to confirm it. And if there's one thing that our universities can produce right now, it's studies that confirm preconceived beliefs. That makes it easier to get funding for future studies, after all.
*(This is an example of the logical fallacy of permitting the exception to prove the rule.)
If there's a no-texting law, there's almost always a no-talking-on-the-cell-phone law. Many of these even prohibit hands-free usage. YMMV.
Yeah, but something akin to Javascript, where interpreter behavior or execution environment can vary wildly.
Seriously? So, we just assume that every word in any Bible you and I can read is false, because it isn't in the original language? How about some other translations? (picking them at random)
Except that Israel was a theocracy conquered by Rome. Within the bounds of Roman law, the Jews were permitted their own governance. The Sanhedrin did hear real trials based on Jewish religious law, brought before them by people who could be called lawyers. Even many of the secular laws were religiously colored in some way, much like Christianity sometimes does in our law today.
It's closer than you might think.
(Yes, "The Law" in most passages does refer to the Law of Moses, but interpretations of it were often the law of the land, as well.)
The "hacking" laws are written in terms of access, which is contextual. Manning had access to the systems to do the work for which he was employed by the DoD. He did not have access to copy off files and give them Wikileaks. So he did violate those laws.
Only if you redefine the word "access".
If I created an account for you on my system, and made you a super-user, you have access to all kinds of stuff... config files, creating users, installing software. This doesn't mean you have my approval, but I did give you access to them.
Redefining the word (in noun form) to mean something else is an exceptionally dangerous road to go down. If someone misreads an order (judicial or executive) and does something unintended, do we really want them becoming a sacrificial scapegoat? Do they not have "access" because they didn't have actual permission? Wouldn't we prefer to nail those who shouldn't have given them access or those who gave bad instructions? Do we just assume that because children aren't allowed in a bedroom that they don't have access to the gun under the pillow? Do we want that legal defense?
"Access" cannot be equated to verbal or paper permission. Access (noun) is the ability to access (verb) something, not the authority to do so.
He accessed something that he wasn't supposed to, but to which he had access. What he did with it was clearly illegal. He shouldn't have been given access, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
I suspect one of the real points to this article is to let interested buyers know that the domain name may be for sale soon (to pump up the price). I'm sure that is one asset that has greatly appreciated over the years.
Addendum: if a large ISP needs to replace equipment to gain packet prioritization, chances are they already need to replace their ancient equipment!
Anything's more expensive than offering good service. Your point is?
Most carrier grade equipment already does some form of QoS. Yeah, they'll need to insert custom code somewhere and that will cost R&D, but chances are most large ISPs won't need new hardware.
Thanks for the heads up.
You know, it took a while before Mr. Ford figured out just what the automobile industry needed to progress. I still hold that usage-based prioritization is the way to go, but it is sadly comforting to know that there are pioneers out there trying to make it work. (or were... Hopefully there still are.)
100GB and 101GB are not significantly different in terms of what the ISP pays, but is significantly different in how they charge. That's abusive. I know that you're right in the point that you're making, but the way that argument is usually used is a very bad excuse to penalize legitimate usage.
Even assuming the upstream problem is intractable (I have my doubts), they ought to charge upstream cost + <2% for going over quota. I can't figure out how they can rationalize otherwise. These punitive fees are not excusable.
Please, don't feed the trolls!
I really don't understand why ISPs don't offer high bandwidth, without quotas and caps.
What they can do is prioritize packets based on monthly usage. And that is only the simplest solution. (They could even offer QOS to the technologically inclined.) Want fast Internet during peak hours? Don't use too much bandwidth during peak hours! The concept is simple, but executives can't see beyond charging tiered usage.
(And none of this precludes selling bandwidth minimum guarantees to businesses hosting their own servers. Think outside the box, people.)
When quality and reliability are directly related to available quantity? Yes... yes they do.
I'm not going to say much here, as I can't be sure you're not an AC troll.
Maybe it isn't an Autopilot issue. Has anybody asked yet if these pilots used the same training simulator? It could be that they practiced making this approach wrong.
I once went zip-lining on vacation. Having an indemnity waiver makes sense. There is a particular amount of risk involved. This one, though, was over the top. Among other things, it stated that I would hold blameless the company and employees for injury resulting from gross negligence!
I crossed out the things that I didn't think would stand in court (but wasn't willing to find out), turned it in, and had a blast.