For example, I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to publicly perform that DVD (project it to a public audience) without a special license that doesn't come from the DVD store.
That is because public performance is considered distribution and distribution is regulated by copyright law. There is no additional 'license' restricting use of a DVD beyond the law as defined by USC title 17.
Another way to look at it is that if you were to read an entire book out loud, or play a CD to a stadium of people, that too would be considered distribution and against the law. Yet books and CDs clearly do not come with any sort of license.
But how would they (the GPL folks) handle it if the hardware was leased just for election day. I.e., the precincts pay Diebold $LARGE sum to deliver, set up, run, tear down, and take back the machines each election. Then Diebold isn't distributing anything. They're just providing a service.
How would the MAFIAA handle it if someone were to do the same with DVDs or BLU-RAYs and large portable theaters? I'm pretty sure that not only would the MAFIAA see such use as distribution, so would the courts.
But the hardware on each end doesn't see bits and bytes, but packets that could, even if in practice they don't, vary in size.
No, they do not see "packets" there is no source address field, there is no destination address field, there is no length field, there is no CRC field. There are no fields at all.
You really, really don't know what you are talking about.
But the bus doesn't transmit bits or bytes always.
You really don't know what you are talking about. A bus ALWAYS transfers bits. ALWAYS.
GT/s is only half of a useful metric - it's analogous to talking about CPU frequency without mentioning what specific CPU. The other half of the metric is the width of the bus. Put them together and you can get the actual bandwidth of the bus - in bits and bytes - of the bus. For example, 6GT/s on a 64-bit bus is 48Gigabytes per second.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all. I'm thinking of the movie Brazil and the old TV show Dinasaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".
Dinosaurs is a great analogy - corporate America should really take a lesson from the way that show wrapped things up in the last episode.
I think we're using different definitions of holding back. My definition would be halting their advance or denying them entry into an area, something they certainly aren't doing. I don't know what your definition includes.
My definition is something more along the lines of failing to win the war rather than just individual battles.
The surge didn't fail. Iraq is significantly more peaceful now than before the surge. Opinions are out on the exact cause of the shift, but the surge didn't make things worse than they were before.
That is an unfounded conclusion. If current progress is due to the locals ceasing cooperatation with "al qaeda in iraq" then the surge could still have done damage that was made up for the change in local politics. In other words "two steps forward, one step back" where the surge could easily have been the "one step back." Personally, I believe the surge to have been mostly net zero and find it odd that you would equate "not failing" with not making things worse.
The Ohio National Guard had no trouble gunning down students. Of course, the students didn't look and and speak just like them--they were "hippies." You know, them.
An actual civil war is a lot more than a single battle. The four dead in ohio, those dead in waco, ruby ridge, etc all caused a lot of collateral damage - not deaths per se, but major loss of morale. A government can withstand that kind of loss for events that happen once or twice a decade. But in a civil war, those would be daily events.
The argument is not that citizens wouldn't die in large numbers, it is that the larger the number who do die, the more the will of the entire military to kill again will be eroded.
Anonymity may be keeping them alive, but it is indeed their use of weapons that has been holding back the entire military. For example, see the abject failure of "the surge" -- the only significant results have come from -- as you said -- the effective loss of their anonymity because they started to annoy other locals who stopped cooperating and started giving them up.
I believe we have only to look to the American Civil War, the scorched earth tactics of Sherman's March in particular, to see that such things would likely not occur.
No, there were significant differences between the populations of the north and the south. The kind of differences that have been reduced to almost nothing by modern times including things like television, the automobile and the much higher rates of population mobility.
The U.S. military in Iraq is trying pretty hard not to kill people. If they weren't doing that, the few dedicated persons with nothing but small arms would be nothing but small pieces of corpses.
It is absurd to believe that would not apply even moreso to an internal conflict. It is a heck of a lot easier for otherwise reasonable men to kill people who do not look like them, do not speak their same language and do not share the same culture. Such a policy as you propose turned on american citizens by american troops would result in massive demoralization, mutiny and desertion.
If he had said that most people who commit this crime are male (which seems like it MUST be true given the general ratio of male:female truck drivers) would you say his remarks were sexist as well?
YES. Because being male has NOTHING to do with being an illegal trucker. So making a big deal about the fact that most illegal truckers are male would be sexist.
You've heard it before - correlation is not causation. Racism and all the other kinds of false stereotyping are fundamentally an inability to distinguish between correlation and causation, usually rooted in willful innumeracy.
Light passenger cars might be computer driven (more likely assisted, like auto-braking for safety) in special cases after 25 years,
Auto-braking under special cases has been done on production vehicles for the last couple of years.
There's extra training needed to pilot a big rig correctly; that means it would be doubly hard for a computer to handle unforeseen scenarios.
No, it only means that driving a big rig is different from driving a car. A computer doesn't care that they are different, it only knows what it has been programmed to.
I find it interesting that schools will use this... when many schools wont allow research to be done on wikipedia itself
Are you saying that you think schools which will not allow students to cite wikipedia as a primary reference are the very same schools which will allow students to cite the SOS distribution of wikipedia as a primary reference? On what basis do you make that claim?
Where, pray tell, did you come up with the 99.99 percent number.
A quick and dirty rough estimate. Roughly 1.8 million legal truckers in the USA, add a very generous swag of 50% more for illegal truckers to bring the number to 2.7m out of a population of 305m which makes 99.2% of the general population not truckers. Figure in that the trucker population is aging while the hispanic population tends to the younger side suggests that the number is upwards of 99.2% but 99.99% or 99.2% not really all that big of a difference -- 0.79% in fact.
Because, out here, it's more like 50 percent of the local inTRAstate drivers are hispanic. And Channel 5 news in LA (KTLA) reported that over 50 percent of the drivers stopped, hispanic, where operating illegally. (Long Beach Port Authority).
Are you saying that 50% of intrastate TRUCKERS are hispanic? Because the number of truckers, not just drivers, is the only number that matters when we are talking about truckers.
But lets say you really do mean truckers. Using the 2.7m estimate for total truckers in the country, legal and illegal, that would be 1.35m truckers are hispanic. Out of a total hispanic population of roughly 46m. Thus you are looking at ~3% of all hispanics in the USA are truckers by your observation.
So, tell me, in your opinion does the fact that at least 97% of hispanics are neither legal nor illegal truckers suggest any sort of correlation between being hispanic and being an illegal trucker?
I'm not politically correct, and don't care if you want me to be. I will talk the way I feel, and if it offends you, then so be it.
Public racism does not offend me. Rather, I encourage it because it is a way for people to self-identify that they are so strongly biased that it inhibits them from doing simple math and thus any other math-based claims they make should be given more than normal scrutiny.
I don't think I'd get 20 years in jail for doing that.
No, but you might get railroaded for another crime which you did not commit.
And if I get beaten up, it won't be with the government's approval.
Depends on how you look at it, getting sent to federal PYITA prison is approval that might as well be official except for the deliberate ignorance of the people running the system. Even if you aren't sent to prison, there is still plenty of opportunity for tacit approval of a beat-down.
Without thinking too deeply about it, it seems like even internet voting could make use of paper ballots. The thing to remember is that the best way we've come up with to design an in-person voting machine is to use the computer to make it easy and clear which candidate the user is voting for. But print a paper ballot with those (and just those) selections so that the user can visually verify that the ballot matches their choices with no ambiguity.
So to do the same with internet voting would require a printer, a camera and at a minimum a clock for each 'internet voting machine.' The user fills out the electronic ballot and then remote end prints the paper ballot in full view of the camera with a clock also in frame with the ballot so that the user can verify the paper ballot reflects their choices. If all is good, the user clicks 'submit' and watches the paper ballot go into the ballot box, if he clicks 'cancel' it goes into the trash and the user goes back to filling out the ballot.
Now the reason for the clock being on camera too is to raise the bar for replay and impersonation attacks. It certainly isn't fool-proof, but no system of anonymous voting has ever been fool-proof. The goal is simply to make voting fraud en-masse prohibitively expensive. We will always have onsie-twosie fraud, but in the big picture that kind of fraud doesn't usually matter.
His point is that being hispanic does not cause or otherwise predilect a person to illegally operate a truck.
It should be obvious when you consider that 99.99% of hispanics in the USA don't even drive shipping trucks to begin with. But, even if you ignore that, consider how many hispanics are legal operators of trucks. I don't know the number, but I'd be willing to bet that the ratio is at least 10:1 legal to criminal, probably significantly more.
So even if 100% of all illegal truck operators are hispanic, that's no more relevant than saying that 100% of all illegal truck operators are male, or are over the age of 20, or wear pants.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to publicly perform that DVD (project it to a public audience) without a special license that doesn't come from the DVD store.
That is because public performance is considered distribution and distribution is regulated by copyright law. There is no additional 'license' restricting use of a DVD beyond the law as defined by USC title 17.
Another way to look at it is that if you were to read an entire book out loud, or play a CD to a stadium of people, that too would be considered distribution and against the law. Yet books and CDs clearly do not come with any sort of license.
Then he spent some quality time with the Air Marshall and DHS ...
The American War on the Unexpected at your service.
That's because public performance is considered distribution to the public.
But how would they (the GPL folks) handle it if the hardware was leased just for election day. I.e., the precincts pay Diebold $LARGE sum to deliver, set up, run, tear down, and take back the machines each election. Then Diebold isn't distributing anything. They're just providing a service.
How would the MAFIAA handle it if someone were to do the same with DVDs or BLU-RAYs and large portable theaters? I'm pretty sure that not only would the MAFIAA see such use as distribution, so would the courts.
But the hardware on each end doesn't see bits and bytes, but packets that could, even if in practice they don't, vary in size.
No, they do not see "packets" there is no source address field, there is no destination address field, there is no length field, there is no CRC field. There are no fields at all.
You really, really don't know what you are talking about.
But the bus doesn't transmit bits or bytes always.
You really don't know what you are talking about. A bus ALWAYS transfers bits. ALWAYS.
GT/s is only half of a useful metric - it's analogous to talking about CPU frequency without mentioning what specific CPU. The other half of the metric is the width of the bus. Put them together and you can get the actual bandwidth of the bus - in bits and bytes - of the bus. For example, 6GT/s on a 64-bit bus is 48Gigabytes per second.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all. I'm thinking of the movie Brazil and the old TV show Dinasaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".
Dinosaurs is a great analogy - corporate America should really take a lesson from the way that show wrapped things up in the last episode.
U.S. Law requires, when a citizen makes a request, that organizations must assign a NEW number separate from their Social security number.
False. At least it is false for all except a few specific cases.
The hoax is the anthropogenic part of global warming. If man were causing global warming, how do you explain the other 59 warming and cooling cycles??
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?
I thought those ads were some sort of SNL skit.
Try this:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062214
I think we're using different definitions of holding back. My definition would be halting their advance or denying them entry into an area, something they certainly aren't doing. I don't know what your definition includes.
My definition is something more along the lines of failing to win the war rather than just individual battles.
The surge didn't fail. Iraq is significantly more peaceful now than before the surge. Opinions are out on the exact cause of the shift, but the surge didn't make things worse than they were before.
That is an unfounded conclusion. If current progress is due to the locals ceasing cooperatation with "al qaeda in iraq" then the surge could still have done damage that was made up for the change in local politics. In other words "two steps forward, one step back" where the surge could easily have been the "one step back." Personally, I believe the surge to have been mostly net zero and find it odd that you would equate "not failing" with not making things worse.
You are required by law in every state to carry your drivers' license, automobile registration and proof of insurance papers,
No. In many, if not all, states, you are NOT required to CARRY your driver's license. Only that you BE licensed.
The Ohio National Guard had no trouble gunning down students. Of course, the students didn't look and and speak just like them--they were "hippies." You know, them.
An actual civil war is a lot more than a single battle. The four dead in ohio, those dead in waco, ruby ridge, etc all caused a lot of collateral damage - not deaths per se, but major loss of morale. A government can withstand that kind of loss for events that happen once or twice a decade. But in a civil war, those would be daily events.
The argument is not that citizens wouldn't die in large numbers, it is that the larger the number who do die, the more the will of the entire military to kill again will be eroded.
Anonymity may be keeping them alive, but it is indeed their use of weapons that has been holding back the entire military. For example, see the abject failure of "the surge" -- the only significant results have come from -- as you said -- the effective loss of their anonymity because they started to annoy other locals who stopped cooperating and started giving them up.
I believe we have only to look to the American Civil War, the scorched earth tactics of Sherman's March in particular, to see that such things would likely not occur.
No, there were significant differences between the populations of the north and the south. The kind of differences that have been reduced to almost nothing by modern times including things like television, the automobile and the much higher rates of population mobility.
The U.S. military in Iraq is trying pretty hard not to kill people. If they weren't doing that, the few dedicated persons with nothing but small arms would be nothing but small pieces of corpses.
It is absurd to believe that would not apply even moreso to an internal conflict. It is a heck of a lot easier for otherwise reasonable men to kill people who do not look like them, do not speak their same language and do not share the same culture. Such a policy as you propose turned on american citizens by american troops would result in massive demoralization, mutiny and desertion.
the traditional OOP kids
I feel old.
If he had said that most people who commit this crime are male (which seems like it MUST be true given the general ratio of male:female truck drivers) would you say his remarks were sexist as well?
YES. Because being male has NOTHING to do with being an illegal trucker. So making a big deal about the fact that most illegal truckers are male would be sexist.
You've heard it before - correlation is not causation. Racism and all the other kinds of false stereotyping are fundamentally an inability to distinguish between correlation and causation, usually rooted in willful innumeracy.
Light passenger cars might be computer driven (more likely assisted, like auto-braking for safety) in special cases after 25 years,
Auto-braking under special cases has been done on production vehicles for the last couple of years.
There's extra training needed to pilot a big rig correctly; that means it would be doubly hard for a computer to handle unforeseen scenarios.
No, it only means that driving a big rig is different from driving a car. A computer doesn't care that they are different, it only knows what it has been programmed to.
I find it interesting that schools will use this ... when many schools wont allow research to be done on wikipedia itself
Are you saying that you think schools which will not allow students to cite wikipedia as a primary reference are the very same schools which will allow students to cite the SOS distribution of wikipedia as a primary reference? On what basis do you make that claim?
Where, pray tell, did you come up with the 99.99 percent number.
A quick and dirty rough estimate. Roughly 1.8 million legal truckers in the USA, add a very generous swag of 50% more for illegal truckers to bring the number to 2.7m out of a population of 305m which makes 99.2% of the general population not truckers. Figure in that the trucker population is aging while the hispanic population tends to the younger side suggests that the number is upwards of 99.2% but 99.99% or 99.2% not really all that big of a difference -- 0.79% in fact.
Because, out here, it's more like 50 percent of the local inTRAstate drivers are hispanic.
And Channel 5 news in LA (KTLA) reported that over 50 percent of the drivers stopped, hispanic, where operating illegally. (Long Beach Port Authority).
Are you saying that 50% of intrastate TRUCKERS are hispanic? Because the number of truckers, not just drivers, is the only number that matters when we are talking about truckers.
But lets say you really do mean truckers. Using the 2.7m estimate for total truckers in the country, legal and illegal, that would be 1.35m truckers are hispanic. Out of a total hispanic population of roughly 46m. Thus you are looking at ~3% of all hispanics in the USA are truckers by your observation.
So, tell me, in your opinion does the fact that at least 97% of hispanics are neither legal nor illegal truckers suggest any sort of correlation between being hispanic and being an illegal trucker?
I'm not politically correct, and don't care if you want me to be. I will talk the way I feel, and if it offends you, then so be it.
Public racism does not offend me. Rather, I encourage it because it is a way for people to self-identify that they are so strongly biased that it inhibits them from doing simple math and thus any other math-based claims they make should be given more than normal scrutiny.
I don't think I'd get 20 years in jail for doing that.
No, but you might get railroaded for another crime which you did not commit.
And if I get beaten up, it won't be with the government's approval.
Depends on how you look at it, getting sent to federal PYITA prison is approval that might as well be official except for the deliberate ignorance of the people running the system. Even if you aren't sent to prison, there is still plenty of opportunity for tacit approval of a beat-down.
Without thinking too deeply about it, it seems like even internet voting could make use of paper ballots. The thing to remember is that the best way we've come up with to design an in-person voting machine is to use the computer to make it easy and clear which candidate the user is voting for. But print a paper ballot with those (and just those) selections so that the user can visually verify that the ballot matches their choices with no ambiguity.
So to do the same with internet voting would require a printer, a camera and at a minimum a clock for each 'internet voting machine.' The user fills out the electronic ballot and then remote end prints the paper ballot in full view of the camera with a clock also in frame with the ballot so that the user can verify the paper ballot reflects their choices. If all is good, the user clicks 'submit' and watches the paper ballot go into the ballot box, if he clicks 'cancel' it goes into the trash and the user goes back to filling out the ballot.
Now the reason for the clock being on camera too is to raise the bar for replay and impersonation attacks. It certainly isn't fool-proof, but no system of anonymous voting has ever been fool-proof. The goal is simply to make voting fraud en-masse prohibitively expensive. We will always have onsie-twosie fraud, but in the big picture that kind of fraud doesn't usually matter.
His point is that being hispanic does not cause or otherwise predilect a person to illegally operate a truck.
It should be obvious when you consider that 99.99% of hispanics in the USA don't even drive shipping trucks to begin with. But, even if you ignore that, consider how many hispanics are legal operators of trucks. I don't know the number, but I'd be willing to bet that the ratio is at least 10:1 legal to criminal, probably significantly more.
So even if 100% of all illegal truck operators are hispanic, that's no more relevant than saying that 100% of all illegal truck operators are male, or are over the age of 20, or wear pants.