Except that the law explicitly does not work how you seem to think it does.
If you do something in public, you have no right to privacy with regards to that act.
You only have the right to privacy where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasonable expectation bit is the relevant one here, since "reasonable" changes over time.
You will also note that the "intellectual property" you seem to be conflating here doesn't even exist as a licensable type of property. Are your personal details copyrightable? Nope. Patentable? Nope. A trademark? Perhaps, but it's not exactly private. Trade secrets? Plausibly, but trade secrets don't get any protection from law.
I own an Acer Aspire One 751H (not the model mentioned in the recall) -- it is my favorite laptop of all time -- And I've had around a dozen.
Yes, it's very nice. Comparable to my old 12 inch PowerBook. Too bad it uses that crappy video chipset. Poulsbo sucks on every platform. It doesn't last anywhere near that long in Linux.
The "availability test" isn't about the price. Very few people are going to buy a FLIR or a LIDAR. People have a reasonable expectation that there aren't random people (in the general public) going around monitoring speeds or looking through people's clothes. FLIR and LIDAR are basically specialty items with a small market. (In any case, you can monitor a car's speed with just a stop watch)
Among the requirements for the Fourth Amendment to apply, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If FLIR ever becomes as ubiquitous as video cameras are now, you will need to put up some kind of thermal shielding in order to protect your privacy from the public. If you don't do that, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy, at all. Ergo, the fourth amendment would no longer apply.
Should the availability of the tech matter or should the courts actually use some sort of sound judgement about how intrusive authorities can be?
Yes. If you can't expect the general public not to do something, like looking into your home with cheap thermal imagers (hypothetically), then you can't expect the government not to. That is, if the public can do something, so can the government.
The availability of the technology is not relevant to whether or not the government is stepping on your rights
Yes it is. If there aren't any cheap thermal imagers, the general public doesn't have access to cheap thermal imagers. Therefore, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from thermal imagers. Once thermal imagers become cheap for mass public consumption, you have two options: you either do nothing, and give up your reasonable expectation of privacy, or put up some sort of thermal barrier so that the public cannot view the contents of your home.
I think you're idea of same is a bit different than most. Sorry the standard has been raised several orders of magnitude. That is the reason for the double incomes and working more. People want more, and they're getting a lot more.
Read a book. Wages have decreased in real terms in the last 30 years. People are getting less for their time.
It drives me batty when the Mythbusters spend weeks working on a build that obviously won't work, because they don't have a physicist on staff.
Grant is an engineer...
They don't fail because they don't have a physicist on staff. An engineer is more qualified to design and build stuff than a physicist anyway.
They fail their builds because they are on a tight schedule to get the show done, and don't want to waste footage. This is part of what makes the show vaguely scientific.
This is good advice. If you want a kid to get rid of sloppy thinking, teach him how to write proofs. Either use a fun math text book (like "How to Solve It"), or a functional programming language for this purpose. Functional programming strongly brings out the relationship between computation and proof -- every language is a constructive logic, and every program is a constructive proof (and vice-versa, basically).
OO languages often obscure that relationship, since they often use the "wrong" evaluation model for a given type of proof. This leads to ridiculous things like "the factory pattern", when all you really need is to map over a collection. (That is, the factory implements a functor. You can do the same thing with 'map') Things that ought to be extremely easy become conceptually difficult. (Basically, the factory pattern abuses the class system monad to create a functor on classes. Try explaining this to a kid... you can do it, but you're going to have to give a crash course in FP or basic mathematics. Anything less is wishy washy BS)
Functional monadism bridges the gap. Indeed, implementing a monad indirectly implements an "eval" function for the monadic type, in terms of bind and return. Every monad automatically comes with a join operation, and a map function too.
In my experience, developers tend to prefer these ambiguous patterns over clear functional constructs. Until they see me get my work done in a quarter of the time, with fewer bugs, and greater clarity.
You don't need to use a statically typed language to use monads effectively. Or even a functional language. But a functional language helps distill the idea. This is called "conceptual monadism", and is become an extremely common pattern in OO programming.
The real answer to your question is to not teach programming. Get them started on some abstract mathematics. It will serve them far better than learning to become the newest web flunkie on the planet.
If you must teach some kind of programming, go with a typed functional language, like Haskell or ML. Focus on these concepts, as they bring out the relation between proof and computation (every computation is a "constructive" proof):
I don't know about that stuff specifically marketed as probiotic.
Unpasteurized yogurt and sour cream "ought" to contain lactobacillus, in the sense that if you find an unpasteurized container of milk or cream that doesn't contain lactobacillus, you are un/lucky. You can make yogurt, sour cream, or cheese (add salt and rennet to the conceptual recipe) by mixing a cup of yogurt or cream with a gallon of freshly boiled milk or cream and leaving it on the counter overnight (or a few days). I have done that before, it's pretty fun and tasty.
My friend was once freaked out when I told her sour cream was "alive" and that it actively resists spoilage. Indeed, it tends to get "more sour" as it ages. She calmed down when I compared it to yeast in beer (which also actively resists spoilage in unpasteurized beers).
And if you have statistically good marketing data, you can sue for lost sales. You want to break your data down as specifically as possible, perhaps by interpolating a demand curve for the interval based on the previous sales data for corresponding intervals in various days. (We get an average of 50,000 hits between noon and one PM on Mondays, and sell an average of 10 units at 50$, 15 units at 45$, etc)
I would make one suggestion: raw dirt can be pretty sandy and gritty. So putting a spoonful in a glass of water, stirring, and drinking everything but the sludge might be easier to hold down.
This is a very good idea. I support it 100%. Why eat a specific strain of bacteria (like Lactobacillus) when you can eat a billion non-harmful and potentially useful bacterial strains and let your immune system sort them out? Most people are not equipped to tell which strain their intestines lack. Eating lactobacillus for the heck of it will likely do more harm than good, as far as "balancing" your intestinal flora goes.
It's "really" a joke about different branches of the US Military. In the "classic" version of the joke, a Navy Seaman or Air Force private is urinating with a Marine. The Marines are seen as tough, practical fighters, and the USAF/Navy is seen as a dainty group that doesn't like to get dirty.
"In the marines, they teach us not to piss on our hands."
I hate to play pedant, but that's a poor analogy. Cattle have been bred to mature quickly; meanwhile the never-fully domesticated Elephants of Africa and India rival humans for their long maturation and gestation periods.
That's a poor objection to the idea that humans haven't taken care to maintain elephants as a food supply. In fact, you affirm the idea by "objecting". Cattle have been bred. Elephants have not. Much like corn, wheat, pigs, and so on, humans have guided cattle evolution. Humans have not guided elephant evolution (though humans are having an effect on it)
Doing your homework and suing is the only good idea so far. You can also sue for damages on "lost sales", assuming you have good marketing data -- an average of X many hits a day at this hour, a weighted average of sales, etc.
You're trying to play games with a technicality, and getting it wrong. You are a drunk driver if you drive while drunk. Full stop. "Drunk driving" isn't a legal charge. It is a state of mind and action.
You have been convicted of a DUI after having been convicted of a DUI.
Slashdot Mirror
You post on 4chan and like a gimpy teddy bear.
Right? Right? Am I right?
Except that the law explicitly does not work how you seem to think it does.
If you do something in public, you have no right to privacy with regards to that act.
You only have the right to privacy where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasonable expectation bit is the relevant one here, since "reasonable" changes over time.
You will also note that the "intellectual property" you seem to be conflating here doesn't even exist as a licensable type of property. Are your personal details copyrightable? Nope. Patentable? Nope. A trademark? Perhaps, but it's not exactly private. Trade secrets? Plausibly, but trade secrets don't get any protection from law.
I own an Acer Aspire One 751H (not the model mentioned in the recall) -- it is my favorite laptop of all time -- And I've had around a dozen.
Yes, it's very nice. Comparable to my old 12 inch PowerBook. Too bad it uses that crappy video chipset. Poulsbo sucks on every platform. It doesn't last anywhere near that long in Linux.
The "availability test" isn't about the price. Very few people are going to buy a FLIR or a LIDAR. People have a reasonable expectation that there aren't random people (in the general public) going around monitoring speeds or looking through people's clothes. FLIR and LIDAR are basically specialty items with a small market. (In any case, you can monitor a car's speed with just a stop watch)
Among the requirements for the Fourth Amendment to apply, you must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If FLIR ever becomes as ubiquitous as video cameras are now, you will need to put up some kind of thermal shielding in order to protect your privacy from the public. If you don't do that, you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy, at all. Ergo, the fourth amendment would no longer apply.
Should the availability of the tech matter or should the courts actually use some sort of sound judgement about how intrusive authorities can be?
Yes. If you can't expect the general public not to do something, like looking into your home with cheap thermal imagers (hypothetically), then you can't expect the government not to. That is, if the public can do something, so can the government.
The availability of the technology is not relevant to whether or not the government is stepping on your rights
Yes it is. If there aren't any cheap thermal imagers, the general public doesn't have access to cheap thermal imagers. Therefore, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from thermal imagers. Once thermal imagers become cheap for mass public consumption, you have two options: you either do nothing, and give up your reasonable expectation of privacy, or put up some sort of thermal barrier so that the public cannot view the contents of your home.
I think you're idea of same is a bit different than most. Sorry the standard has been raised several orders of magnitude. That is the reason for the double incomes and working more. People want more, and they're getting a lot more.
Read a book. Wages have decreased in real terms in the last 30 years. People are getting less for their time.
It drives me batty when the Mythbusters spend weeks working on a build that obviously won't work, because they don't have a physicist on staff.
Grant is an engineer...
They don't fail because they don't have a physicist on staff. An engineer is more qualified to design and build stuff than a physicist anyway.
They fail their builds because they are on a tight schedule to get the show done, and don't want to waste footage. This is part of what makes the show vaguely scientific.
This is good advice. If you want a kid to get rid of sloppy thinking, teach him how to write proofs. Either use a fun math text book (like "How to Solve It"), or a functional programming language for this purpose. Functional programming strongly brings out the relationship between computation and proof -- every language is a constructive logic, and every program is a constructive proof (and vice-versa, basically).
OO languages often obscure that relationship, since they often use the "wrong" evaluation model for a given type of proof. This leads to ridiculous things like "the factory pattern", when all you really need is to map over a collection. (That is, the factory implements a functor. You can do the same thing with 'map') Things that ought to be extremely easy become conceptually difficult. (Basically, the factory pattern abuses the class system monad to create a functor on classes. Try explaining this to a kid... you can do it, but you're going to have to give a crash course in FP or basic mathematics. Anything less is wishy washy BS)
Functional monadism bridges the gap. Indeed, implementing a monad indirectly implements an "eval" function for the monadic type, in terms of bind and return. Every monad automatically comes with a join operation, and a map function too.
In my experience, developers tend to prefer these ambiguous patterns over clear functional constructs. Until they see me get my work done in a quarter of the time, with fewer bugs, and greater clarity.
You don't need to use a statically typed language to use monads effectively. Or even a functional language. But a functional language helps distill the idea. This is called "conceptual monadism", and is become an extremely common pattern in OO programming.
The real answer to your question is to not teach programming. Get them started on some abstract mathematics. It will serve them far better than learning to become the newest web flunkie on the planet.
If you must teach some kind of programming, go with a typed functional language, like Haskell or ML. Focus on these concepts, as they bring out the relation between proof and computation (every computation is a "constructive" proof):
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/pubs/springschool95.pdf
Ugh, that sounds awful. Logo is a Lisp, you know. Why implement it poorly, using non-functional constructs?
Teach kids functional programming. Don't saddle them with your own limitations of imagination.
Almost. But not quite.
I don't know about that stuff specifically marketed as probiotic.
Unpasteurized yogurt and sour cream "ought" to contain lactobacillus, in the sense that if you find an unpasteurized container of milk or cream that doesn't contain lactobacillus, you are un/lucky. You can make yogurt, sour cream, or cheese (add salt and rennet to the conceptual recipe) by mixing a cup of yogurt or cream with a gallon of freshly boiled milk or cream and leaving it on the counter overnight (or a few days). I have done that before, it's pretty fun and tasty.
My friend was once freaked out when I told her sour cream was "alive" and that it actively resists spoilage. Indeed, it tends to get "more sour" as it ages. She calmed down when I compared it to yeast in beer (which also actively resists spoilage in unpasteurized beers).
Or at least one that isn't a menace to civilized society.
You are clearly not a member of any civilized society. Go jump off a cliff.
And if you have statistically good marketing data, you can sue for lost sales. You want to break your data down as specifically as possible, perhaps by interpolating a demand curve for the interval based on the previous sales data for corresponding intervals in various days. (We get an average of 50,000 hits between noon and one PM on Mondays, and sell an average of 10 units at 50$, 15 units at 45$, etc)
I would make one suggestion: raw dirt can be pretty sandy and gritty. So putting a spoonful in a glass of water, stirring, and drinking everything but the sludge might be easier to hold down.
Or go eat some dirt.
This is a very good idea. I support it 100%. Why eat a specific strain of bacteria (like Lactobacillus) when you can eat a billion non-harmful and potentially useful bacterial strains and let your immune system sort them out? Most people are not equipped to tell which strain their intestines lack. Eating lactobacillus for the heck of it will likely do more harm than good, as far as "balancing" your intestinal flora goes.
It's "really" a joke about different branches of the US Military. In the "classic" version of the joke, a Navy Seaman or Air Force private is urinating with a Marine. The Marines are seen as tough, practical fighters, and the USAF/Navy is seen as a dainty group that doesn't like to get dirty.
"In the marines, they teach us not to piss on our hands."
Actually, an expected value is an average.... an expected value is the first moment of a probability distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
Same to you buddy. He specifically said expected lifespan. Google "expected value" and you might redeem yourself in the eyes of Logos.
I hate to play pedant, but that's a poor analogy. Cattle have been bred to mature quickly; meanwhile the never-fully domesticated Elephants of Africa and India rival humans for their long maturation and gestation periods.
That's a poor objection to the idea that humans haven't taken care to maintain elephants as a food supply. In fact, you affirm the idea by "objecting". Cattle have been bred. Elephants have not. Much like corn, wheat, pigs, and so on, humans have guided cattle evolution. Humans have not guided elephant evolution (though humans are having an effect on it)
Doing your homework and suing is the only good idea so far. You can also sue for damages on "lost sales", assuming you have good marketing data -- an average of X many hits a day at this hour, a weighted average of sales, etc.
You're trying to play games with a technicality, and getting it wrong. You are a drunk driver if you drive while drunk. Full stop. "Drunk driving" isn't a legal charge. It is a state of mind and action.
You have been convicted of a DUI after having been convicted of a DUI.
Good meat though.
I'd call it an interpreter, but I don't disagree...
No, that's wrong. Saint Nicholas of Myra was a Christian saint famous for, among other things, leaving gifts in people's shoes/stockings.