The question lacks context. If the idea was to use ( ) as a variable (say, "x"), then the question would have to say, "Provide the appropriate value to go in the parenthesis to solve the problem".
>Same here. I just want them to be arrested and prosecuted based on observable behavior, such as the way that they drive. >A dangerous driver who disregards safety is not exactly difficult to detect. On the plus side, doing things this way might >accomplish more towards addressing the dangerous drivers who are quite sober but just aggressive and/or stupid.
The rub is, I think driving drunk and swerving over the lines a couple of times should be punished much more heavily than driving sober and swerving over the line a few times. Why? Because I suspect a person who is driving drunk is a far far greater threat to the public than someone who is unimpaired. To me, it is like randomly firing a firearm in the air in a crowded area.
>Then I'd rather you lobby for the repealing of the Fifth Amendment. That's a damn sight better than simply ignoring it.
That is a rather extreme position. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? I like the 5th amendment, and think it should be respected in nearly all cases. But not this one. Just like the 1st amendment doesn't apply in all cases, like yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
>A concept that is totally unrelated in subject but completely related in principle is the notion of a "free speech zone". >You see, that's a clever way to get around the First Amendment. That was also perpetrated by someone who did not want to honestly >lobby for the repealing of the First Amendment and instead wanted to play clever word games to effectively ignore it.
I agree with you on the concept of "free speech zones". But as the example I pointed out before illustrates, there are valid limitations on the 1st amendment. I don't think "free speech zones" are one of them, but there are, in fact, limitations on the 1st amendment. Likewise I think there are valid limitations on the 5th amendment. If blowing in a straw was somehow an imposition, or somehow infringed upon rights or discriminated against people, I could see why it would be a valid 5th amendment issue. But it doesn't.
Let me ask you this: If a device were invented that could determine a person's blood alcohol level without touching them, would you be against/that/ sort of device being used without consent? Suppose we had a device that could, remotely, detect the amount of alcohol in a person's perspiration, and thus infer their intoxication level? I don't see how it would be much different than a radar gun used to detect speeding.
>If it means throwing out 200+ years of jurisprudence and American traditions of freedom, if it means weakening the highest >law of the land, then so be it as long as we catch a few drunks, right?
I do not believe that requiring a breathalyzer on demand as a requirement for driving significantly weakens anything.
>The difference is that in any other criminal matter, you are not punished for refusing to incriminate yourself. When the >cop asks you to blow into a tube, he is asking you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the way our system is supposed >to work. It's the cop's job to gather evidence that you have committed a crime. The fact that we really don't like this >particular crime is not a good reason to change this. That's the sort of reactive emotional thinking that is a complete >departure from the wisdom of "innocent until proven guilty".
Yes, you are correct in that you are being asked to prove that you are innocent, by being asked to cooperate with evidence gathering against yourself. But the reason why it's OK to change this for this situation is not because of the particular crime, but because the requested cooperation is TRIVIAL and does not have any negative effect on the suspect unless, of course, they actually are guilty.
But it is also important to note here that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BREATHALYZER TEST. My brother-in-law did this, and then got a lawyer to get him substantially reduced charges because of the lack of eviden
>The notion that "driving is a privilege, not a right" has been twisted and abused so that if you are accused by the state of a DUI offense,
>you either have to incriminate yourself or suffer a punishment for not incriminating yourself. On a MVR (motor vehicle record) the charge
>for refusing a breathalyzer is quite similar to the charge for having taken and failed a breathalyzer. DUI, certain asset forfeiture laws,
>and maybe sexual harassment are the only crimes where the accused must demonstrate innocence. None of this is compatible with a reasonable
>interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, yet it goes on, because it's "for our own good" or something.
Personally, I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers. When a police officer suspects impaired driving, and they pull you over and suspect you are drunk, I have no problem with asking for a breathalyzer. And if you refuse, I have no problem with assuming that the driver, was in fact drunk. Blowing on a breathalyzer is not a big deal. It is not some infringement on your rights to blow a little air into a straw. No reasonable person would refuse such a trivial request unless they had something to hide.
>Criminals generally do not believe that they will get caught. If they believe that they will certainly get caught they tend not to do the crime.
I'm not so sure about that. Every choice in life is made by weighing the benefits vs. the risks. While the risk of getting caught surely enters a criminals mind, so surely must the risk of the punishment if they are caught.
For example, if drunk drivers were shot on the spot after failing a breathalyzer test, I imagine this would have an impact on drunk driving rates, even though it has no impact on your chances of being caught.
You are correct that it will cost money to implement a coded time share system, but that is the only solution that is guaranteed to work.
If you offer "free WiFi", then people will assume that it is a free service that they may partake of as they wish. Some few will stop and think and realize that there really is no free lunch, but most people won't care.
If you tie internet access time to food sales, say 15 minutes per dollar spent, then you cover your costs and discourage mooching.
If you are super concerned about atmosphere, then you can offer your best customers free WiFi. Or, allow the purchase of a monthly limitless-access subscription.
That is called a Trade Secret. Just like the formula for Coke is not patented, rather it is a closely-kept trade secret. Trade secrets may be kept for as long as the secret can be kept. This has nothing to do with patents.
>I agree with your point but I don't see any way the government could do it. >Their are so many loopholes, requirements, deductions, exceptions, and what not in the US >tax system that no tax service will get it completely correct.
This is PRECISELY why the government ought to be on the hook for providing the electronic means for filing taxes.
If the government-created tax system is so complicated that even THEY cannot create an electronic system for filing then THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE TAX SYSTEM.
If the government had to lay its cards on the table it would be obvious to all what a joke the tax system is.
It goes without saying that no government service is free as in beer.
Nonetheless, I should not have to pay a separate filing fee to file my taxes electronically directly with the government in a manner identical to what Turbo Tax does.
The savings in paperwork reduction alone ought to more than pay for such a service.
>Whenever you say "the government" should do something, you need to replace "the government" with >"the government should take something from me/my family/my neighbors" . > >The government is not some entity separate from yourself, it acts using YOUR assets and its rules affect YOU.
I have long thought that it is a scam that you have to pay a third party to do electronic preparation and filing like the usual services (TurboTax, etc.) provide.
The government made the convoluted tax system - they should make the web-based application to navigate it.
>These things are essentially mobile/handheld computers.
The only reason I have such a device (blackberry) is because it is provided for free by my employer. The ability to do email and surf the web is neat in a pinch, but I find the interface of doing real computer work over a handheld device to be tedious. I personally would rather wait until I get back in front of a real computer, and I don't use the Blackberry for computer work unless I have to.
Prior to that I had canceled our personal cell phones even for their phone capabilities. The convenience was just not worth $80 a month to us for two phones on top of all the other monthly communications fees we had. I think cell fees are somewhat lower now but I bet they would still run $60 a month for two phones.
We have now canceled cable TV, so our monthly communications fees are manageable, at $40/mo for cable internet, $10/mo for Netflix, and $2/mo for MagicJack phone service. Anything over $50 a month for communications services is more than we want to spend.
What Google's exercise shows is that unless you get cooperation with the wireless carriers to subsidize your phone, it's not going to sell. The article says that the phone cost $529. There is no way I would spend that much money on a telephone.
Slashdot Mirror
>Am I the only one who absolutely DID NOT understand your answer? How do you go from: 4+3+2 = 9 to: ( ) + 2 = 2 ? It makes no sense.
I summed the left and right hands of the equation separately.
The left side was 4+3+2, which equals 9
The right side was ( ) + 2, which I interpreted as 0 + 2, which is 2.
The question lacks context. If the idea was to use ( ) as a variable (say, "x"), then the question would have to say, "Provide the appropriate value to go in the parenthesis to solve the problem".
I had no idea the intent of the parenthesis was to indicate a variable.
>Same here. I just want them to be arrested and prosecuted based on observable behavior, such as the way that they drive.
>A dangerous driver who disregards safety is not exactly difficult to detect. On the plus side, doing things this way might
>accomplish more towards addressing the dangerous drivers who are quite sober but just aggressive and/or stupid.
The rub is, I think driving drunk and swerving over the lines a couple of times should be punished much more heavily than driving sober and swerving over the line a few times. Why? Because I suspect a person who is driving drunk is a far far greater threat to the public than someone who is unimpaired. To me, it is like randomly firing a firearm in the air in a crowded area.
>Then I'd rather you lobby for the repealing of the Fifth Amendment. That's a damn sight better than simply ignoring it.
That is a rather extreme position. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? I like the 5th amendment, and think it should be respected in nearly all cases. But not this one. Just like the 1st amendment doesn't apply in all cases, like yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
>A concept that is totally unrelated in subject but completely related in principle is the notion of a "free speech zone".
>You see, that's a clever way to get around the First Amendment. That was also perpetrated by someone who did not want to honestly
>lobby for the repealing of the First Amendment and instead wanted to play clever word games to effectively ignore it.
I agree with you on the concept of "free speech zones". But as the example I pointed out before illustrates, there are valid limitations on the 1st amendment. I don't think "free speech zones" are one of them, but there are, in fact, limitations on the 1st amendment. Likewise I think there are valid limitations on the 5th amendment. If blowing in a straw was somehow an imposition, or somehow infringed upon rights or discriminated against people, I could see why it would be a valid 5th amendment issue. But it doesn't.
Let me ask you this: If a device were invented that could determine a person's blood alcohol level without touching them, would you be against /that/ sort of device being used without consent? Suppose we had a device that could, remotely, detect the amount of alcohol in a person's perspiration, and thus infer their intoxication level? I don't see how it would be much different than a radar gun used to detect speeding.
>If it means throwing out 200+ years of jurisprudence and American traditions of freedom, if it means weakening the highest
>law of the land, then so be it as long as we catch a few drunks, right?
I do not believe that requiring a breathalyzer on demand as a requirement for driving significantly weakens anything.
>The difference is that in any other criminal matter, you are not punished for refusing to incriminate yourself. When the
>cop asks you to blow into a tube, he is asking you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the way our system is supposed
>to work. It's the cop's job to gather evidence that you have committed a crime. The fact that we really don't like this
>particular crime is not a good reason to change this. That's the sort of reactive emotional thinking that is a complete
>departure from the wisdom of "innocent until proven guilty".
Yes, you are correct in that you are being asked to prove that you are innocent, by being asked to cooperate with evidence gathering against yourself. But the reason why it's OK to change this for this situation is not because of the particular crime, but because the requested cooperation is TRIVIAL and does not have any negative effect on the suspect unless, of course, they actually are guilty.
But it is also important to note here that YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BREATHALYZER TEST. My brother-in-law did this, and then got a lawyer to get him substantially reduced charges because of the lack of eviden
>The notion that "driving is a privilege, not a right" has been twisted and abused so that if you are accused by the state of a DUI offense, >you either have to incriminate yourself or suffer a punishment for not incriminating yourself. On a MVR (motor vehicle record) the charge >for refusing a breathalyzer is quite similar to the charge for having taken and failed a breathalyzer. DUI, certain asset forfeiture laws, >and maybe sexual harassment are the only crimes where the accused must demonstrate innocence. None of this is compatible with a reasonable >interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, yet it goes on, because it's "for our own good" or something. Personally, I have zero sympathy for drunk drivers. When a police officer suspects impaired driving, and they pull you over and suspect you are drunk, I have no problem with asking for a breathalyzer. And if you refuse, I have no problem with assuming that the driver, was in fact drunk. Blowing on a breathalyzer is not a big deal. It is not some infringement on your rights to blow a little air into a straw. No reasonable person would refuse such a trivial request unless they had something to hide. >Criminals generally do not believe that they will get caught. If they believe that they will certainly get caught they tend not to do the crime. I'm not so sure about that. Every choice in life is made by weighing the benefits vs. the risks. While the risk of getting caught surely enters a criminals mind, so surely must the risk of the punishment if they are caught. For example, if drunk drivers were shot on the spot after failing a breathalyzer test, I imagine this would have an impact on drunk driving rates, even though it has no impact on your chances of being caught.
Because I can't figure out how you are supposed to solve such a problem, and I have a BS in Computer Science.
Let's look at the problem:
4+3+2=( )+2
4+3+2 = 9
( ) + 2 = 2
So we have a false equality 9 = 2
Since this is not true, I can easily see how lots of kids would go through contortions to try and make it true.
But unless this is a trick question, why are the setting up false equalities like this for grade school kids?
While I agree with the absurdities of burials, it has been working for tens of thousands of years with little trouble.
Thank you for your technobable. :)
é
Cool.
If I have to choose between gangs of diggers and gangs of buryers, I'll take the gangs of diggers.
I'd rather see what is most popular, rather than not see what is most unpopular.
But I think the suggested random voting is best.
What's "coffee"?
My only experience with phone internet access is through my blackberry, which I find painfully slow. It reminds me of the old dial-up days.
My latest blackberry I think is 3G, and is faster than my old phone, but still painfully slow compared to my cable internet connection at home.
What sort of upload download speeds do you get with your tethered connection?
You are correct that it will cost money to implement a coded time share system, but that is the only solution that is guaranteed to work.
If you offer "free WiFi", then people will assume that it is a free service that they may partake of as they wish. Some few will stop and think and realize that there really is no free lunch, but most people won't care.
If you tie internet access time to food sales, say 15 minutes per dollar spent, then you cover your costs and discourage mooching.
If you are super concerned about atmosphere, then you can offer your best customers free WiFi. Or, allow the purchase of a monthly limitless-access subscription.
How do you make the funny e character when typing?
That is called a Trade Secret. Just like the formula for Coke is not patented, rather it is a closely-kept trade secret. Trade secrets may be kept for as long as the secret can be kept. This has nothing to do with patents.
Great post.
The article says it was invented in 1962. Surely the patent has expired by now?
>I agree with your point but I don't see any way the government could do it.
>Their are so many loopholes, requirements, deductions, exceptions, and what not in the US
>tax system that no tax service will get it completely correct.
This is PRECISELY why the government ought to be on the hook for providing the electronic means for filing taxes.
If the government-created tax system is so complicated that even THEY cannot create an electronic system for filing then THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE TAX SYSTEM.
If the government had to lay its cards on the table it would be obvious to all what a joke the tax system is.
It goes without saying that no government service is free as in beer.
Nonetheless, I should not have to pay a separate filing fee to file my taxes electronically directly with the government in a manner identical to what Turbo Tax does.
The savings in paperwork reduction alone ought to more than pay for such a service.
>Whenever you say "the government" should do something, you need to replace "the government" with
>"the government should take something from me/my family/my neighbors" .
>
>The government is not some entity separate from yourself, it acts using YOUR assets and its rules affect YOU.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I have long thought that it is a scam that you have to pay a third party to do electronic preparation and filing like the usual services (TurboTax, etc.) provide.
The government made the convoluted tax system - they should make the web-based application to navigate it.
What would you recommend?
>These things are essentially mobile/handheld computers.
The only reason I have such a device (blackberry) is because it is provided for free by my employer. The ability to do email and surf the web is neat in a pinch, but I find the interface of doing real computer work over a handheld device to be tedious. I personally would rather wait until I get back in front of a real computer, and I don't use the Blackberry for computer work unless I have to.
Prior to that I had canceled our personal cell phones even for their phone capabilities. The convenience was just not worth $80 a month to us for two phones on top of all the other monthly communications fees we had. I think cell fees are somewhat lower now but I bet they would still run $60 a month for two phones.
We have now canceled cable TV, so our monthly communications fees are manageable, at $40/mo for cable internet, $10/mo for Netflix, and $2/mo for MagicJack phone service. Anything over $50 a month for communications services is more than we want to spend.
You hit the nail on the head.
What Google's exercise shows is that unless you get cooperation with the wireless carriers to subsidize your phone, it's not going to sell. The article says that the phone cost $529. There is no way I would spend that much money on a telephone.
Works for digg.