Simple solution to the insurance cost problem, pick an insurer who considers tobacco use in determining premiums. Anyway, health insurance is optional (although, soon, if you don't elect to carry it, you will likely pay a "tax" for that decision) so you can completely isolate yourself from the impact of other people's smoking in this dimension.
Although Obamacare (yes, it's okay to use this term instead of "PPACA" now as in this week's debate, President Obama embraced this term and indicated he rather liked it) will prevent this, I've wished health insurers would market a plan where premiums are closely tied to fitness/health such as body fat (hopefully using a metric less crude than BMI however), VO2max, tobacco use (which I think Obamacare does still allow considering in rating) and the like confirmed on a regular basis (perhaps annually or, for tests for illegal drug use, at random intervals). If, as we are led to believe, people who care for themselves have lower medical costs, this would have provided a great additional incentive for people to make healthy lifestyle choices -- right now there's little concrete and short term motivation for most people to do so.
This is not a ban on smoking in the workplace, it's effectively a ban on employees smoking on their own time and in places, such as their own homes, outside of work.
This ban has nothing to do with second hand smoke. It's intended to reduce insurance and disability costs for the employer.
I expect the next ban will be on hiring people whose BMI or blood pressure or lipid profile are not in the healthy range due to their own personal habits (such as eating too much or not exercising three hours a week). Following that, I would expect a ban on hiring people who drink an 'unhealthy' amount of alcohol. Following that, perhaps passing an annual fitness test will be required for all city jobs even though there's no need for 'fitness' in the particular job the person is working.
Is it really true that the government in the UK, or US, loses money from smoking? Don't serious expensive medical problems from smoking alone tend to come later in life -- generally towards the end of, or past, traditional working years?
So, the government gets most of the tax money from these people anyway (plus some gravy from taxes on tobacco).
On the expense side, perhaps the government saves money. Smoking shortens lifespan so the government spends less on non medical elder benefits (such as, in the US, Social Security). Smokers, by dying younger than others, are, for example, less likely to end up with dementia needing expensive full time care often paid for by the government after the person's financial resources are exhausted. Everyone, both smokers and non-smokers, die of something and most seek medical treatment for that final "something" before (often long before) dying. Are smoking related "somethings" more expensive to treat than "non-smoking" somethings?
It's true that the U.S. Constitution specifies that:
The Congress shall have Power [...] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; [...]
Note, of course, that there is no requirement that Congress establish Post Offices and Post Roads or continue to support/maintain them - they are merely allowed to do so. (Just as they have no requirement to "declare war" which is another power granted to Congress.)
However, I'm not aware that the founders, in general, thought that "minimal fees" should be charged for postal services (presumably, meaning that a subsidy would be required if actual costs were above "minimal").
Indeed, postal rates in 1792 for a letter consisting of a single sheet of paper ranged from 6 cents (if being sent less than 30 miles) to 25 cents (if being sent over 450 miles) and a letter consisting of two sheets of paper (still under one ounce in today's scheme) cost twice as much. Therefore, a two sheet letter cost twice as much in non inflation adjusted currency, as it does today. I'm pretty sure that 50 cents was not considered minimal in 1792 - esp. given that inflation makes 50 cents in 1792 dollars equivalent to over 12 dollars in 2011 dollars.
FedEx likely wouldn't still be offering fixed benefit pension accrual to anyone - neither new hire or legacy employee - if they were in the dire situation the USPS is in. These plans are an artifact of thirty years ago and have been replaced by a combination of Social Security and 401(k) et al (plus, of course, a dose of expecting people to take SOME responsibility for their own future instead of making sure they buy an iPhone 5 the first day it's out because their 1 year old 4S is now completely obsolete).
And, the USPS is in a dying business and hasn't adapted - the future business of delivering stuff to residences and businesses is NOT bills and checks, it's packages. True, some of this inability to adapt is because of unionized quasi-governmental bureaucracy mentality, but some of the problem is that attempts to adapt run into congressional barriers.
Congress IS the government. I.e., the GOVERNMENT is, in your estimation, the source of USPS's problems. Seems like an argument for why the government shouldn't run the USPS or similar services.
USPS is burdened by Government dictating stuff that's popular but inefficient, such as keeping post offices open that have insufficient volume to justify their existence and keeping rates on first class postage artificially low. But, that's what happens when "someone else is paying for it" and democracy means politicians need to garner favor with their constituents in spite of the impact on others.
Perhaps for warranty reasons? Manufacturers may not have been comfortable telling people to "whack your phone to silence it". Some percentage of people would hit it too hard and break it (or, at least claim that's how the screen broke - "I was just following directions from the manual on how to silence the phone and the glass cracked - so it's normal usage and the product is obviously defective, send me a new one.").
True, the fleet is going to have some real challenges meeting 2025 mileage regulations which, IIRC, are somewhat more economical than 125.7 gallons per mile.
Look at similar discussions here on/. and you'll find hundreds of answers to the same question all with different viewpoints. Even the most basic questions can result in flame wars due to the depth of knowledge represented here. The more in-depth knowledge one has on a topic, the less likely you are to get a consensus and the less likely you are to be able to look at a case objectively.
Some of these "answers" are of course objectively wrong. Perhaps even more are the clear result of bias (sometimes the poster would even acknowledge that upon careful examination). However, most of the people making the answers and those reading them know much more about the topic than 90% of the public so can have some hope at sorting out which answers are wrong, which ones are biased, and which ones are reasonably correct and don't show too much bias. Unfortunately, the other 90% of the public would have little ability to do this because they lack the expertise.
For example, imagine how a 40 year veteran of software development in varied fields would view "prior art" vs. what someone who knows virtually nothing about what software really is and doesn't even use a general purpose computer or smartphone and doesn't even understand them.
It's like politics. Very knowledgeable, smart, and economically informed people have very different views on if the US economic system needs fixing and, if so, how to fix it. Their opinions are at least based partially on facts. All of these people know, for example, that about 50% of the federal personal income tax returns filed result in NO payment of federal income tax (i.e. >=100 percent refund of taxes withheld) and incorporate this fact into their views. Someone who doesn't even understand this fact is much less likely to have a viable proposal to a solution to how, if needed, to fix the US economic system.
These factors tend to lead me to support "expert" panels for at least certain patent cases (probably including Samsung/Apple case)
Small claims is probably better for the individual assuming the jurisdiction rules in their state/the state the contract was made in make it possible to file where the individual is currently living. Odds are that Joyent won't even show up so the individual wins by default. Might be best to delay pushing for actual enforcement (i.e. payment) of the court order though until any opportunity for Joyent to appeal has expired (the possibility of this as well as the timeframe would vary across states) as there's no need to focus their attention to the fact they just lost.
Class action will make the lawyers rich and maybe get the individual a 10% discount off one year's service at "rack rate".
The departing leaders also take the best people with them over the following few weeks/months (esp. in California where signing something saying you won't work for a competitor for two years is laughed out of court in a summary judgement).
Smart folks at FB realize that hype didn't work and every step FB takes to monetize their users will alienate them. Their only ace in the hole is that there isn't yet a good FB replacement for the 2010's -- but that's why we have Stanford!
The exodus this early should be very alarming to FB.
The fact a law may be difficult to enforce does not, of course, mean it's not a valid law.
As to how this would specifically be enforceable in the case GP proposed...
The fine might be assessed against the owner of the car (much like a parking ticket) or equipment violation (although with much higher fines and "administrative fees") for those cases where the driver could not be proven to know the device existed. An additional crime could be put in place for manufacturing, selling, or installing such devices on either a commercial or non-commercial basis or knowingly driving a vehicle on public roads with such a device installed (even if not enabled) and make the penalties for these crimes substantial.
A scanner in a police car could, I think, be easily programmed to be suspicious of quite a few such false IR blooms and alert the officer of the heading of a suspicious bloom around her so she could investigate (such as by looking at the captured image, giving consideration to sunlight, shade etc, ambient temperature) and form cause to pull the car over and launch additional investigation. By making the punishment for this infraction high enough, it would be a good deterrent. Since, to be effective, the IR flood must be on all the time, someone doing this would be a sitting duck and the detection would not have to be that reliable.
More likely, so few people would bother to subvert the scanners, there would be no serious attempt to program the scanners to detect it and, more costly, train LEOs in their use. More likely, the scanners would just evolve along with the deterrent measures (in this case, a simple IR filter might suffice?).
Actually, in California, that would be illegal (emphasis added):
V.C. 5201(2)(g) A casing, shield, frame, border, product, or other device that obstructs or impairs the reading or recognition of a license plate by an electronic device operated by state or local law enforcement, an electronic device operated in connection with a toll road, high-occupancy toll lane, toll bridge, or other toll facility, or a remote emission sensing device, as specified in Sections 44081 and 44081.6 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be installed on, or affixed to, a vehicle.
I've not looked up any other states' laws, but I'll bet California isn't the only one with a similar provision.
Your understanding of the Constitution is obviously at odds with virtually all precedent. Perhaps you're living in an alternate universe.
OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
Nope. You might be able to get a restraining order against them that includes not tracking you -- but generally only if there's some other factor involved (such as explicit or implicit threats). Private detectives working on, for example, workman comp cases track, follow, photograph people all the time.
The one exception is that you mention "regardless of whether or not I am in public". It is true that a random person can't legally come into your house to watch you eat dinner without your approval. Nor, generally, can the police without the approval of the court. The license plate scanners are only looking at publicly visible plates so the only part of your statement that is correct is irrelevant to the topic at hand and is a red herring. Nice try.
In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.
Yes, the government has more power than a private citizen, so you are correct in that regard. But, again, this works against you. For example, as a private citizen I can not detain you, charge you with a crime, try you, convict you, and imprison you for life - but various government actors can, and do, regularly. A police officer has just as much right to observe your behavior without your approval as a private citizen does.
It is true that if I break into your house, without coordination with law enforcement officials, and observe that you have bodies of a bunch of missing children piled in your bedroom, I can go tell the police and they can then use my information to get a search warrant and what they find is admissible. If, however, a police officer entered your house w/o cause and without a warrant, the fact that the bodies were found would likely be inadmissible (under the exclusionary rule - an invention of the SCOTUS to deter abuses by law enforcement). Note, however, that if police break into your house because of an immediate threat, such as smoke billowing from the roof and someone screaming inside, and observe the bodies while looking for the screaming person, the bodies and their location would likely be admissible.
Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?
Not worth responding to, but I will anyway. NO. Self incrimination is requiring you to speak/testify in a way that will tend to incriminate you. Even things that you said voluntarily and were recorded (such as voice mails you left long before arrest or even before you were a suspect) or a videotaped confession after you were properly informed of your rights can be used against you in a court of law. Nor is the Fifth Amendment a restriction on the actions of anyone else. The Fifth Amendment doesn't even, for example, prevent the government from taking a DNA sample from you with a court order (which are routinely granted) -- because giving up your DNA is not incriminating yourself - your DNA is physical evidence.
Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "The right of the people to be secure in their person
The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.
Actually, it it doesn't
There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring. State issued license plates are (in most cases) required on vehicles driven on public streets. They are, and must, remain visible to all. A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.
If one has learned to learn and is interested in what they are doing, they probably shouldn't want to waste time in a class on Windows 7 / Windows 2008 if they were already working with Win7/Win2008 predecessors. Yes, they might buy a book or access some other resource and skim them to figure out where to deep dive before encountering an issue in the area but that should be about all that's needed. Presumably by the time someone needs to "get trained" in something like Win7/Win2008, they have long since been playing with betas and have learned much of what a class would have wasted their time with.
Of course, if someone is in a stupid "how many certifications do you have?" environment, they may want to take a class aimed at passing the cert tests. But, maybe that time would be better spent finding an environment that was more obsessed with actual job performance than with the ability to pass certification tests?
In a fantasy world, one would like to believe that "getting an degree" also involves "learning how to learn". Admittedly, in many cases this probably isn't true.
However in my life, I've noticed that those who had formal four year degrees or better were, on the average, better at picking up new stuff w/o formal additional training. I suspect this correlation is more the result of people who like to learn and are able to tending to get more advanced degrees than the inverse (that getting degrees actually substantially improves the ability to learn and pick up new stuff). But, as a hiring manager, I need some filter and it is so rare to find someone who's been working less than 20 years who is a star and doesn't have a formal degree that I don't mind missing a diamond in the rough every five years because I glance at the "Education" section on a unsolicited resume and downgrade it quickly.
(Don't click [Submit] when you mean [Continue Editing]!)
Purchasing might make more sense than renting, but often it costs you more. That depends on many factors including how often you move (due to job changes or due to
...changes in family situation) - moving often costs you 5% or more of the value of the home in fees and "fixup" costs that are merely cosmetic and would normally not be needed at that time so are accelerated.
"Might" is the key word here. Overall, one can only expect housing to appreciate at the rate of salary inflation. If salaries consistently increase by p percent annually while housing increases by p+d for d>0, less and less people will be able to afford homes and the reduction in demand will drive prices down.
Purchasing might make more sense than renting, but often it costs you more. That depends on many factors including how often you move (due to job changes or due to
Obviously, some areas will do better and others will do worse -- Location, Location, Location. Maybe SF is one of those, maybe not.
I've only watched a few Bait Car episodes and, of course, this is a reality show w/lots of editing.
But, they seem to wait until the thief actually gets in the car and drives it away before springing the trap.
I think, but don't recall for sure, that in one case someone actually walked up to the car, opened the door, and poked around and the police did nothing - later, the car was stolen and they sprung the trap on that crook.
I don't think your turning off the lights would have triggered any action.
If you think Bait Car is illegal you've got a pretty bizarre and incorrect view of our legal system.
Bait Car simply sets up a situation where someone who wants to steal a car can do so with the bonus that they get cameras, remote kill switch et al with that car. Bait Car is pretty cut and dried -- it's not even close to impersonating a drug dealer which might entice someone to buy drugs that maybe wouldn't have otherwise. Law abiding folks will walk by a Bait Car and do nothing to take advantage of it. Those who decide to steal it know they are breaking the law (watch how they glance around furtively and sometimes case the car and surrounding environment before getting in and stealing it if you doubt this).
Suppose Bait Car didn't leave the door unlocked or a nice pair of sunglasses on the center console and someone took a crowbar, smashed the window, hot wired the car, and drove it off. Would you think that would still make the "sting" illegal? Obviously not, but how is this different than what they actually do? Private citizens leave their car doors unlocked all the time and leave things of value in the car all the time and only criminals exploit this. The Bait Cars are not unusual in any way that would particularly entice a criminal to steal them vs. a private citizen's car which had been left unlocked.
Wouldn't it more logical for the train to decelerate in an (admittedly long) "off/onramp" tube parallel to the main tube which was always maintained at a vacuum like the rest of the system? You probably wouldn't want the fact a train is accelerating or decelerating interfere with full speed traffic in the "main" tube anyway and this would solve that problem, albeit at some expense. In addition, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to take a train going 4000 mph in a vacuum and slam it through an airlock with 1 atmosphere of pressure on the other side even if you could figure out how to do it as that would probably be pretty hard on the meatbags aboard, to say nothing about inducing stress and fatigue in the train.
Then, after having decelerated to whatever low speed was desirable (a few MPH), the train could pull off to a short "parking cul-de-sac" tube where it would completely stop . A airlock door/gate would close just behind the end of the train. Then the pressure would be brought up (perhaps "gradually" to reduce compression/decompression fatigue on the train during each cycle?) to 1 atmosphere in the "parking cul-de-sac" and passengers could disembark. Not that it probably matters much in the grand scheme, but if the train fit very snugly into the portion of the "parking cul-de-sac" which was pressurized, taking it back to a vacuum would require the evacuation of very little air and hence could be done quickly with less energy.
Leaving the station would be the inverse but would use the remainder of the "off/onramp" tube as the onramp back to the main line.
With this approach, there would never be a need for an air lock to accommodate a moving object while maintaining a seal - it's somewhat more like a classic airlock. As well, with multiple airlock doors in the "parking cul-de-sac" tubes, most repairs and maintenance could be done on the doors in a "worker or robot friendly" 1 atmosphere of pressure. Only the door closest to the "off/onramp" tube would ever need to be serviced "in a vacuum" on both sides. With the addition of one more door, this final door would be rarely used - probably only when the "next" door closer to the end of the parking tube needed service and it was deemed cheaper/faster to service it in 1 atmosphere.
Because power consumed during peak usage times (such as mid afternoon on very hot days) costs the utility more to deliver than power consumed during low usage times (such as 3AM in the morning). Detailed usage information allows the utility to bill different rates at different times to (1) reimburse the costs associated with peak users and (2) encourage people to shift usage to reduce the cost to utilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple solution to the insurance cost problem, pick an insurer who considers tobacco use in determining premiums. Anyway, health insurance is optional (although, soon, if you don't elect to carry it, you will likely pay a "tax" for that decision) so you can completely isolate yourself from the impact of other people's smoking in this dimension.
Although Obamacare (yes, it's okay to use this term instead of "PPACA" now as in this week's debate, President Obama embraced this term and indicated he rather liked it) will prevent this, I've wished health insurers would market a plan where premiums are closely tied to fitness/health such as body fat (hopefully using a metric less crude than BMI however), VO2max, tobacco use (which I think Obamacare does still allow considering in rating) and the like confirmed on a regular basis (perhaps annually or, for tests for illegal drug use, at random intervals). If, as we are led to believe, people who care for themselves have lower medical costs, this would have provided a great additional incentive for people to make healthy lifestyle choices -- right now there's little concrete and short term motivation for most people to do so.
This is not a ban on smoking in the workplace, it's effectively a ban on employees smoking on their own time and in places, such as their own homes, outside of work.
This ban has nothing to do with second hand smoke. It's intended to reduce insurance and disability costs for the employer.
I expect the next ban will be on hiring people whose BMI or blood pressure or lipid profile are not in the healthy range due to their own personal habits (such as eating too much or not exercising three hours a week). Following that, I would expect a ban on hiring people who drink an 'unhealthy' amount of alcohol. Following that, perhaps passing an annual fitness test will be required for all city jobs even though there's no need for 'fitness' in the particular job the person is working.
Is it really true that the government in the UK, or US, loses money from smoking? Don't serious expensive medical problems from smoking alone tend to come later in life -- generally towards the end of, or past, traditional working years?
So, the government gets most of the tax money from these people anyway (plus some gravy from taxes on tobacco).
On the expense side, perhaps the government saves money. Smoking shortens lifespan so the government spends less on non medical elder benefits (such as, in the US, Social Security). Smokers, by dying younger than others, are, for example, less likely to end up with dementia needing expensive full time care often paid for by the government after the person's financial resources are exhausted. Everyone, both smokers and non-smokers, die of something and most seek medical treatment for that final "something" before (often long before) dying. Are smoking related "somethings" more expensive to treat than "non-smoking" somethings?
Note, of course, that there is no requirement that Congress establish Post Offices and Post Roads or continue to support/maintain them - they are merely allowed to do so. (Just as they have no requirement to "declare war" which is another power granted to Congress.)
However, I'm not aware that the founders, in general, thought that "minimal fees" should be charged for postal services (presumably, meaning that a subsidy would be required if actual costs were above "minimal").
Indeed, postal rates in 1792 for a letter consisting of a single sheet of paper ranged from 6 cents (if being sent less than 30 miles) to 25 cents (if being sent over 450 miles) and a letter consisting of two sheets of paper (still under one ounce in today's scheme) cost twice as much. Therefore, a two sheet letter cost twice as much in non inflation adjusted currency, as it does today. I'm pretty sure that 50 cents was not considered minimal in 1792 - esp. given that inflation makes 50 cents in 1792 dollars equivalent to over 12 dollars in 2011 dollars.
FedEx likely wouldn't still be offering fixed benefit pension accrual to anyone - neither new hire or legacy employee - if they were in the dire situation the USPS is in. These plans are an artifact of thirty years ago and have been replaced by a combination of Social Security and 401(k) et al (plus, of course, a dose of expecting people to take SOME responsibility for their own future instead of making sure they buy an iPhone 5 the first day it's out because their 1 year old 4S is now completely obsolete).
And, the USPS is in a dying business and hasn't adapted - the future business of delivering stuff to residences and businesses is NOT bills and checks, it's packages. True, some of this inability to adapt is because of unionized quasi-governmental bureaucracy mentality, but some of the problem is that attempts to adapt run into congressional barriers.
Shareholders of companies that run prisons would love that -- more people serving life terms w/o possibility of parole - Profit!
Congress IS the government. I.e., the GOVERNMENT is, in your estimation, the source of USPS's problems. Seems like an argument for why the government shouldn't run the USPS or similar services.
USPS is burdened by Government dictating stuff that's popular but inefficient, such as keeping post offices open that have insufficient volume to justify their existence and keeping rates on first class postage artificially low. But, that's what happens when "someone else is paying for it" and democracy means politicians need to garner favor with their constituents in spite of the impact on others.
Perhaps for warranty reasons? Manufacturers may not have been comfortable telling people to "whack your phone to silence it". Some percentage of people would hit it too hard and break it (or, at least claim that's how the screen broke - "I was just following directions from the manual on how to silence the phone and the glass cracked - so it's normal usage and the product is obviously defective, send me a new one.").
True, the fleet is going to have some real challenges meeting 2025 mileage regulations which, IIRC, are somewhat more economical than 125.7 gallons per mile.
Some of these "answers" are of course objectively wrong. Perhaps even more are the clear result of bias (sometimes the poster would even acknowledge that upon careful examination). However, most of the people making the answers and those reading them know much more about the topic than 90% of the public so can have some hope at sorting out which answers are wrong, which ones are biased, and which ones are reasonably correct and don't show too much bias. Unfortunately, the other 90% of the public would have little ability to do this because they lack the expertise.
For example, imagine how a 40 year veteran of software development in varied fields would view "prior art" vs. what someone who knows virtually nothing about what software really is and doesn't even use a general purpose computer or smartphone and doesn't even understand them.
It's like politics. Very knowledgeable, smart, and economically informed people have very different views on if the US economic system needs fixing and, if so, how to fix it. Their opinions are at least based partially on facts. All of these people know, for example, that about 50% of the federal personal income tax returns filed result in NO payment of federal income tax (i.e. >=100 percent refund of taxes withheld) and incorporate this fact into their views. Someone who doesn't even understand this fact is much less likely to have a viable proposal to a solution to how, if needed, to fix the US economic system.
These factors tend to lead me to support "expert" panels for at least certain patent cases (probably including Samsung/Apple case)
But such businesses likely exist -- those business whose real business problem is selling processors and whose processors run UnixBench very well.
Small claims is probably better for the individual assuming the jurisdiction rules in their state/the state the contract was made in make it possible to file where the individual is currently living. Odds are that Joyent won't even show up so the individual wins by default. Might be best to delay pushing for actual enforcement (i.e. payment) of the court order though until any opportunity for Joyent to appeal has expired (the possibility of this as well as the timeframe would vary across states) as there's no need to focus their attention to the fact they just lost.
Class action will make the lawyers rich and maybe get the individual a 10% discount off one year's service at "rack rate".
I think larry bagina meant the cost of filing (and perhaps service et al) would be $10 to $100 - not that that was the max claim amount.
The departing leaders also take the best people with them over the following few weeks/months (esp. in California where signing something saying you won't work for a competitor for two years is laughed out of court in a summary judgement).
Smart folks at FB realize that hype didn't work and every step FB takes to monetize their users will alienate them. Their only ace in the hole is that there isn't yet a good FB replacement for the 2010's -- but that's why we have Stanford!
The exodus this early should be very alarming to FB.
The fact a law may be difficult to enforce does not, of course, mean it's not a valid law.
As to how this would specifically be enforceable in the case GP proposed...
The fine might be assessed against the owner of the car (much like a parking ticket) or equipment violation (although with much higher fines and "administrative fees") for those cases where the driver could not be proven to know the device existed. An additional crime could be put in place for manufacturing, selling, or installing such devices on either a commercial or non-commercial basis or knowingly driving a vehicle on public roads with such a device installed (even if not enabled) and make the penalties for these crimes substantial.
A scanner in a police car could, I think, be easily programmed to be suspicious of quite a few such false IR blooms and alert the officer of the heading of a suspicious bloom around her so she could investigate (such as by looking at the captured image, giving consideration to sunlight, shade etc, ambient temperature) and form cause to pull the car over and launch additional investigation. By making the punishment for this infraction high enough, it would be a good deterrent. Since, to be effective, the IR flood must be on all the time, someone doing this would be a sitting duck and the detection would not have to be that reliable.
More likely, so few people would bother to subvert the scanners, there would be no serious attempt to program the scanners to detect it and, more costly, train LEOs in their use. More likely, the scanners would just evolve along with the deterrent measures (in this case, a simple IR filter might suffice?).
I've not looked up any other states' laws, but I'll bet California isn't the only one with a similar provision.
Nope. You might be able to get a restraining order against them that includes not tracking you -- but generally only if there's some other factor involved (such as explicit or implicit threats). Private detectives working on, for example, workman comp cases track, follow, photograph people all the time.
The one exception is that you mention "regardless of whether or not I am in public". It is true that a random person can't legally come into your house to watch you eat dinner without your approval. Nor, generally, can the police without the approval of the court. The license plate scanners are only looking at publicly visible plates so the only part of your statement that is correct is irrelevant to the topic at hand and is a red herring. Nice try.
Yes, the government has more power than a private citizen, so you are correct in that regard. But, again, this works against you. For example, as a private citizen I can not detain you, charge you with a crime, try you, convict you, and imprison you for life - but various government actors can, and do, regularly. A police officer has just as much right to observe your behavior without your approval as a private citizen does.
It is true that if I break into your house, without coordination with law enforcement officials, and observe that you have bodies of a bunch of missing children piled in your bedroom, I can go tell the police and they can then use my information to get a search warrant and what they find is admissible. If, however, a police officer entered your house w/o cause and without a warrant, the fact that the bodies were found would likely be inadmissible (under the exclusionary rule - an invention of the SCOTUS to deter abuses by law enforcement). Note, however, that if police break into your house because of an immediate threat, such as smoke billowing from the roof and someone screaming inside, and observe the bodies while looking for the screaming person, the bodies and their location would likely be admissible.
Not worth responding to, but I will anyway. NO. Self incrimination is requiring you to speak/testify in a way that will tend to incriminate you. Even things that you said voluntarily and were recorded (such as voice mails you left long before arrest or even before you were a suspect) or a videotaped confession after you were properly informed of your rights can be used against you in a court of law. Nor is the Fifth Amendment a restriction on the actions of anyone else. The Fifth Amendment doesn't even, for example, prevent the government from taking a DNA sample from you with a court order (which are routinely granted) -- because giving up your DNA is not incriminating yourself - your DNA is physical evidence.
There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring. State issued license plates are (in most cases) required on vehicles driven on public streets. They are, and must, remain visible to all. A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.
If one has learned to learn and is interested in what they are doing, they probably shouldn't want to waste time in a class on Windows 7 / Windows 2008 if they were already working with Win7/Win2008 predecessors. Yes, they might buy a book or access some other resource and skim them to figure out where to deep dive before encountering an issue in the area but that should be about all that's needed. Presumably by the time someone needs to "get trained" in something like Win7/Win2008, they have long since been playing with betas and have learned much of what a class would have wasted their time with.
Of course, if someone is in a stupid "how many certifications do you have?" environment, they may want to take a class aimed at passing the cert tests. But, maybe that time would be better spent finding an environment that was more obsessed with actual job performance than with the ability to pass certification tests?
In a fantasy world, one would like to believe that "getting an degree" also involves "learning how to learn". Admittedly, in many cases this probably isn't true.
However in my life, I've noticed that those who had formal four year degrees or better were, on the average, better at picking up new stuff w/o formal additional training. I suspect this correlation is more the result of people who like to learn and are able to tending to get more advanced degrees than the inverse (that getting degrees actually substantially improves the ability to learn and pick up new stuff). But, as a hiring manager, I need some filter and it is so rare to find someone who's been working less than 20 years who is a star and doesn't have a formal degree that I don't mind missing a diamond in the rough every five years because I glance at the "Education" section on a unsolicited resume and downgrade it quickly.
...changes in family situation) - moving often costs you 5% or more of the value of the home in fees and "fixup" costs that are merely cosmetic and would normally not be needed at that time so are accelerated.
"Might" is the key word here. Overall, one can only expect housing to appreciate at the rate of salary inflation. If salaries consistently increase by p percent annually while housing increases by p+d for d>0, less and less people will be able to afford homes and the reduction in demand will drive prices down.
Purchasing might make more sense than renting, but often it costs you more. That depends on many factors including how often you move (due to job changes or due to
Obviously, some areas will do better and others will do worse -- Location, Location, Location. Maybe SF is one of those, maybe not.
I've only watched a few Bait Car episodes and, of course, this is a reality show w/lots of editing.
But, they seem to wait until the thief actually gets in the car and drives it away before springing the trap.
I think, but don't recall for sure, that in one case someone actually walked up to the car, opened the door, and poked around and the police did nothing - later, the car was stolen and they sprung the trap on that crook.
I don't think your turning off the lights would have triggered any action.
If you think Bait Car is illegal you've got a pretty bizarre and incorrect view of our legal system.
Bait Car simply sets up a situation where someone who wants to steal a car can do so with the bonus that they get cameras, remote kill switch et al with that car. Bait Car is pretty cut and dried -- it's not even close to impersonating a drug dealer which might entice someone to buy drugs that maybe wouldn't have otherwise. Law abiding folks will walk by a Bait Car and do nothing to take advantage of it. Those who decide to steal it know they are breaking the law (watch how they glance around furtively and sometimes case the car and surrounding environment before getting in and stealing it if you doubt this).
Suppose Bait Car didn't leave the door unlocked or a nice pair of sunglasses on the center console and someone took a crowbar, smashed the window, hot wired the car, and drove it off. Would you think that would still make the "sting" illegal? Obviously not, but how is this different than what they actually do? Private citizens leave their car doors unlocked all the time and leave things of value in the car all the time and only criminals exploit this. The Bait Cars are not unusual in any way that would particularly entice a criminal to steal them vs. a private citizen's car which had been left unlocked.
Wouldn't it more logical for the train to decelerate in an (admittedly long) "off/onramp" tube parallel to the main tube which was always maintained at a vacuum like the rest of the system? You probably wouldn't want the fact a train is accelerating or decelerating interfere with full speed traffic in the "main" tube anyway and this would solve that problem, albeit at some expense. In addition, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to take a train going 4000 mph in a vacuum and slam it through an airlock with 1 atmosphere of pressure on the other side even if you could figure out how to do it as that would probably be pretty hard on the meatbags aboard, to say nothing about inducing stress and fatigue in the train.
Then, after having decelerated to whatever low speed was desirable (a few MPH), the train could pull off to a short "parking cul-de-sac" tube where it would completely stop . A airlock door/gate would close just behind the end of the train. Then the pressure would be brought up (perhaps "gradually" to reduce compression/decompression fatigue on the train during each cycle?) to 1 atmosphere in the "parking cul-de-sac" and passengers could disembark. Not that it probably matters much in the grand scheme, but if the train fit very snugly into the portion of the "parking cul-de-sac" which was pressurized, taking it back to a vacuum would require the evacuation of very little air and hence could be done quickly with less energy.
Leaving the station would be the inverse but would use the remainder of the "off/onramp" tube as the onramp back to the main line.
With this approach, there would never be a need for an air lock to accommodate a moving object while maintaining a seal - it's somewhat more like a classic airlock. As well, with multiple airlock doors in the "parking cul-de-sac" tubes, most repairs and maintenance could be done on the doors in a "worker or robot friendly" 1 atmosphere of pressure. Only the door closest to the "off/onramp" tube would ever need to be serviced "in a vacuum" on both sides. With the addition of one more door, this final door would be rarely used - probably only when the "next" door closer to the end of the parking tube needed service and it was deemed cheaper/faster to service it in 1 atmosphere.
Because power consumed during peak usage times (such as mid afternoon on very hot days) costs the utility more to deliver than power consumed during low usage times (such as 3AM in the morning). Detailed usage information allows the utility to bill different rates at different times to (1) reimburse the costs associated with peak users and (2) encourage people to shift usage to reduce the cost to utilities.