and many users will pay for multiple of these at $10/month.
Damn straight! I have Prime (GT, and shipping so I don't have to interface with people at the store) and Netflix (everything else). No need to pay $60/mo for the three or four channels I would actually watch, and be limited to the broadcasters schedule. When I had a TV package I actually lost the remote I used it so little... Which sucked when I cancelled the TV service. Cost me $20 for the remote I couldn't find.
In the long run, turning a blind eye to people who are bending the rules a bit often works out better for everyone than cracking down on the slightest infringement.
Or in Netflix's case they just monetized it with the multiple active screens at a time tiers. I wish they'd go all in and allow you to assign different logins on one account.
I love it, because my kids have access even when at their mother's house. By putting the login info on the kids' phones they can cast to the TVs at my ex's house, but my ex doesn't get access when our kids are with me.:)
At what point is amputation a viable treatment? (seriously) I presume the doctors have already broached the possibility and the need to do so before he doesn't' even have a stump to work with left.
Based on Boeing’s BSS-702HP satellite platform, each weighs in at around 6,100 Kilograms and hosts 89 Ka-Band transponders, supporting high user download speeds of 50Mbps and uplink of 5Mbps.
and
“A TB, or terabyte, is about 1.05 million MB. All the data in the American Library of Congress amounts to 15 TB.”
So: download aggregate (50MB+89 transponders)/15TB == 0.000296666667 LoC/sec download and 1/10th that in upload.
as I *abruptly* learned a year ago when I left Intel and started at a relatively tiny 40 person shop. We have an IT guy (actually rather spectacular dude really) but there's no way he can get much past firefighter and core infrastructure maintenance mode... and there's no money for more people for something that simply doesn't make money.
Yes we all know that IT doesn't make money, it prevents you from losing it all... but my intro to the "real world" after two decades in multinational corp. environment has been eye opening. I think of our 20 or so clients, only 2 have serious pro level IT, another 5 have functional IT. The rest? bwahahahahahaaaaaa
Intel does their hourly employees at 6 min intervals, but always rounds down... thus: you come in at 8:03 am (8.05 am) to make up for it you stay till 12:03 before leaving to lunch (12.05pm) you would *expect* that interval to be an exact 4 hours, but somehow it always came out to 3.9 hours. We had a asshat manager who, if he didn't like you, would use this: If you came in late he would make sure you recorded it on your timecard as to the exact time you came in. He would then wait for you to leave to lunch and note the time.
Naturally you would "fudge" the time to 12:06 (from 12:03) so that the rounding would report the *correct* 4 hour interval.
He would then write you up for lying on your timecard...
Sooooo glad I don't work for that jackwagon anymore.
search his home PC, thinking they would never discover anything, since he already wiped his hard drive. They did because he forgot to delete his shadow volume copies,
yup. I had several mediocre managers in my two decades at Intel. I had two that stood out as ludicrously bad. First one: Took my formal review from the year prior and copy pasted it, replete with spelling errors and an area for improvement that read:
netoworkBoy successfully completed all areas of improvement from last year, this year he should focus on FOO, BAR, and Python development.
Interesting, I successfully did all this and now need to do it again? Tell me again that you paid *any* attention to my work?
The other manager was even worse. In his slide deck about the project that he would give contractors there was a picture of a monkey in a shirt and tie sitting at a computer with the caption: Remember we can replace you with a trained monkey.
[nitpick]AI cars have to kill *far* less than human drivers to be viewed as "safe"[/nitpick] I think that we will see a rapid evolution from decision tree to true AI for legal stuff. As long as I know the decision tree your program uses I can game around it. If it decides that if (infringement-lawsuit) < N is not worth suing over then I just make sure the lawsuit portion evaluates to a big enough number that the algo ignores me. I'm sure there will be a way to game the heuristics (much like the psychedelic glasses frames that break facial recognition) to provide invalid numbers. The win for AI will be when it can smartly add some randomness to when to sue.
All the above is the pessimistic and cynical view. I would hope that AI legal work quickly learns humans are sue-happy stupid beasts and that frivolous and predatory suits hurt humans as a whole much greater than they help by enriching the few, and thus put the kibosh on them.
Fair enough, but specifically for this case the actions of the cop poisoned the well so to speak. He threw *all* his testimony into doubt and he is the primary source for the DA.
Sure in cases where you have traffic cams and independent witnesses to back up the charges you don't need the cop's testimony. It'd be nice, but your case (as DA) should prevail without it.
I have shopped there 5 times in the last 5 years. Once was for flip flops, and the person that I was with (and who was driving) drove there and I wanted to be polite. Once was for a particular brand of coloring pens (and they were the *only* ones in my area to carry them). Once was for a gift card (recipient specifically requested Walmart gift card for birthday present) the other 2 times was because they were literally my only choice in the geo I was in, within transportation/time limits.
I hate that company, I despise their business tactics, and yes I'll pay 30% more to shop nearly anywhere else.
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. .." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
*this*
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
Remember we have a presumption of innocence. The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
But none the less it is there. And that it is there is all that is needed to state that the defendant in the case in question is protected and should not be compelled to say anything deleterious to his defense.
Jacqueline Tashchner, a cryptologist, testified that she deciphered part of defendant's diary and the notes on some of the papers which Kruel found crumpled near a tool box. The diary was written in a cipher alphabet. The passages she deciphered referred to jobs and resumes. One of the papers contained a tree diagram of the kind commonly used in studies of probability.
People v. Gurga, 150 Ill. App.3d 158, 161 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
In this case there is no mention of the defendant being asked to decrypt his diary. While a single case (and one with an external resolution) I would argue that given an external expert was brought in and the lack of defendant decrypting the diary that the defendant was afforded 5th amendment protections against divulging the key for decryption.
those rights were given to us by the founders of our government as a covenant of interaction between our government and its citizens. It is a contract of sorts: The government agrees to not compel you to testify against yourself, in exchange you agree to be a citizen.
Additionally there is the case where you mentioned that you're obligated to unlock a safe. This is only true if there's a key. If it's a combination (a series of numbers, kinda like a PIN) you are not required to divulge it.
The people that 'run the show' aren't doing the work themselves, only tell others how they want it done.
Methinks you undervalue the role of a good leader/manager in developing logistics, forecasting demand, managing conflicting priorities, etc. Do they deserve some 500x the pay of the average worker? Of course not. Do they deserve to be in the top percentiles for their company's workforce? yes.
or instead of the whole roof (and as compared to individual tiles right now) mega tiles that cover common flat dimensions. Then all that's needed is to hoist them into place, and do the seam work.
Slashdot Mirror
and many users will pay for multiple of these at $10/month.
Damn straight!
I have Prime (GT, and shipping so I don't have to interface with people at the store) and Netflix (everything else). No need to pay $60/mo for the three or four channels I would actually watch, and be limited to the broadcasters schedule. When I had a TV package I actually lost the remote I used it so little... Which sucked when I cancelled the TV service. Cost me $20 for the remote I couldn't find.
In the long run, turning a blind eye to people who are bending the rules a bit often works out better for everyone than cracking down on the slightest infringement.
Or in Netflix's case they just monetized it with the multiple active screens at a time tiers. I wish they'd go all in and allow you to assign different logins on one account.
I love it, because my kids have access even when at their mother's house. By putting the login info on the kids' phones they can cast to the TVs at my ex's house, but my ex doesn't get access when our kids are with me. :)
At what point is amputation a viable treatment?
(seriously)
I presume the doctors have already broached the possibility and the need to do so before he doesn't' even have a stump to work with left.
LoC/sec is a good BW measurement.
Based on Boeing’s BSS-702HP satellite platform, each weighs in at around 6,100 Kilograms and hosts 89 Ka-Band transponders, supporting high user download speeds of 50Mbps and uplink of 5Mbps.
and
“A TB, or terabyte, is about 1.05 million MB. All the data in the American Library of Congress amounts to 15 TB.”
So:
download aggregate (50MB+89 transponders)/15TB == 0.000296666667 LoC/sec download and 1/10th that in upload.
as I *abruptly* learned a year ago when I left Intel and started at a relatively tiny 40 person shop.
We have an IT guy (actually rather spectacular dude really) but there's no way he can get much past firefighter and core infrastructure maintenance mode... and there's no money for more people for something that simply doesn't make money.
Yes we all know that IT doesn't make money, it prevents you from losing it all... but my intro to the "real world" after two decades in multinational corp. environment has been eye opening.
I think of our 20 or so clients, only 2 have serious pro level IT, another 5 have functional IT. The rest? bwahahahahahaaaaaa
no, they haven't. Just happened to me two days ago on my work lappy.
Lol, We got an Itanium1 machine as a demo unit for peanuts. I think we paid $1 for it as a line item on a marge order of other stuff.
It sucked balls so bad we ended up using it as a team MP3 server...
Even that had issues.
Intel does their hourly employees at 6 min intervals, but always rounds down... thus:
you come in at 8:03 am (8.05 am)
to make up for it you stay till 12:03 before leaving to lunch (12.05pm)
you would *expect* that interval to be an exact 4 hours, but somehow it always came out to 3.9 hours.
We had a asshat manager who, if he didn't like you, would use this:
If you came in late he would make sure you recorded it on your timecard as to the exact time you came in.
He would then wait for you to leave to lunch and note the time.
Naturally you would "fudge" the time to 12:06 (from 12:03) so that the rounding would report the *correct* 4 hour interval.
He would then write you up for lying on your timecard...
Sooooo glad I don't work for that jackwagon anymore.
search his home PC, thinking they would never discover anything, since he already wiped his hard drive. They did because he forgot to delete his shadow volume copies,
This one was not too bright....
yup.
I had several mediocre managers in my two decades at Intel. I had two that stood out as ludicrously bad.
First one:
Took my formal review from the year prior and copy pasted it, replete with spelling errors and an area for improvement that read:
netoworkBoy successfully completed all areas of improvement from last year, this year he should focus on FOO, BAR, and Python development.
Interesting, I successfully did all this and now need to do it again? Tell me again that you paid *any* attention to my work?
The other manager was even worse. In his slide deck about the project that he would give contractors there was a picture of a monkey in a shirt and tie sitting at a computer with the caption:
Remember we can replace you with a trained monkey.
He was a total dick to work for too.
I've found that often he's undef
it may, but his counter was to my assumption in faith that a DA was human...
Sadly he has more likelihood of being correct than me.
[nitpick]AI cars have to kill *far* less than human drivers to be viewed as "safe"[/nitpick]
I think that we will see a rapid evolution from decision tree to true AI for legal stuff.
As long as I know the decision tree your program uses I can game around it. If it decides that if (infringement-lawsuit) < N is not worth suing over then I just make sure the lawsuit portion evaluates to a big enough number that the algo ignores me. I'm sure there will be a way to game the heuristics (much like the psychedelic glasses frames that break facial recognition) to provide invalid numbers.
The win for AI will be when it can smartly add some randomness to when to sue.
All the above is the pessimistic and cynical view.
I would hope that AI legal work quickly learns humans are sue-happy stupid beasts and that frivolous and predatory suits hurt humans as a whole much greater than they help by enriching the few, and thus put the kibosh on them.
Yup.
Really the only shocker for me is just how upstanding the DA was about it.
Fair enough, but specifically for this case the actions of the cop poisoned the well so to speak.
He threw *all* his testimony into doubt and he is the primary source for the DA.
Sure in cases where you have traffic cams and independent witnesses to back up the charges you don't need the cop's testimony. It'd be nice, but your case (as DA) should prevail without it.
I have shopped there 5 times in the last 5 years.
Once was for flip flops, and the person that I was with (and who was driving) drove there and I wanted to be polite.
Once was for a particular brand of coloring pens (and they were the *only* ones in my area to carry them).
Once was for a gift card (recipient specifically requested Walmart gift card for birthday present)
the other 2 times was because they were literally my only choice in the geo I was in, within transportation/time limits.
I hate that company, I despise their business tactics, and yes I'll pay 30% more to shop nearly anywhere else.
Oil/Food/Resources are to Data as gold is to USD fiat paper money
I *think* that is dependent on the length (and storage format I suppose) of the essay...
none the less, I fine it an entertaining comparison. /hat tip
There is now an investigation and we'll see. Most likely no. The problem is that since it was "re-enacted" without disclosing the fact gives the appearance that it could have been planted. If the officer had turned on his body cam right after and merely declared "I found this gun here a minute ago. . ." most people would have given the officer the benefit of a doubt.
*this*
I guarantee you if I was a juror and something is presented as evidence and *later* is claimed to be a reenactment then I will assume "hand in the cookie jar" and will then (given the general climate of distrust of blue in the country right now) likely presume that to equate to an attempt to fabricate evidence. Once I get that in my head then *all* the testimony from that cop and his co-workers in support of his testimony becomes hearsay at best and lies at worst... eg. I become a defense attorney's favorite juror.
Remember we have a presumption of innocence. The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Is it likely that the guy is actually guilty in this case? Honestly no idea, but lets stipulate "Yes". I still rather he go free, because what if I'm in a similar situation, but because I've been on a date with a cop's ex-wife I'm not liked much by my local PD. This would be an easy thing to do to put me away.
But none the less it is there.
And that it is there is all that is needed to state that the defendant in the case in question is protected and should not be compelled to say anything deleterious to his defense.
Thank you :)
I've had to get good at researching legal precedent...
I've pissed off one multinational and one (ex) wife, both as litigious as SCO.
Jacqueline Tashchner, a cryptologist, testified that she deciphered part of defendant's diary and the notes on some of the papers which Kruel found crumpled near a tool box. The diary was written in a cipher alphabet. The passages she deciphered referred to jobs and resumes. One of the papers contained a tree diagram of the kind commonly used in studies of probability.
People v. Gurga, 150 Ill. App.3d 158, 161 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)
In this case there is no mention of the defendant being asked to decrypt his diary. While a single case (and one with an external resolution) I would argue that given an external expert was brought in and the lack of defendant decrypting the diary that the defendant was afforded 5th amendment protections against divulging the key for decryption.
those rights were given to us by the founders of our government as a covenant of interaction between our government and its citizens.
It is a contract of sorts: The government agrees to not compel you to testify against yourself, in exchange you agree to be a citizen.
Additionally there is the case where you mentioned that you're obligated to unlock a safe. This is only true if there's a key. If it's a combination (a series of numbers, kinda like a PIN) you are not required to divulge it.
The people that 'run the show' aren't doing the work themselves, only tell others how they want it done.
Methinks you undervalue the role of a good leader/manager in developing logistics, forecasting demand, managing conflicting priorities, etc.
Do they deserve some 500x the pay of the average worker? Of course not. Do they deserve to be in the top percentiles for their company's workforce? yes.
or instead of the whole roof (and as compared to individual tiles right now) mega tiles that cover common flat dimensions. Then all that's needed is to hoist them into place, and do the seam work.