Not really, this is about deploying resources in a preemptive fashion. And you'd have officers making contact with people across the various demographic groupings. Just to remind everybody that if they need help there's a police presence and if they're thinking of committing a crime there's a police presence.
Racial profiling is when you focus your attention on one group without any particular basis other than race, in this case you'd be deploying resources based upon crime stats and predictive intelligence. Ideally you'd end up with fewer arrests and fewer contacts with suspects as fewer individuals would be attempting to violate the law.
More or less, it's been known for many years that there are factors which tend to lead towards higher rates of crime. Things like the higher up you are in a highrise, the quality and quantity of lighting in an area and the location of obstructions to view.
The only issue I see with a system like this is cost and efficacy. If it works and is cost effective then there really is no problem with it. They aren't going to be issuing warrants and arresting people on the basis of being in the area where a crime is likely to hit, they'll use this to more effectively use resources that they've got.
One of the reasons why the sexual exploitation of minors is still so prevalent is low rates of reporting and easy access to children to molest.
Doesn't matter whether you're paying the bill or not, those things are typically communal property in most states. And at any rate, just because you're a jackass that's one step from domestic violence doesn't mean that it's the status quo to track and spy on ones family.
The only reason why anybody ever engages in that behavior is to control the family members. It's somewhat legitimate when it comes to kids, but when it comes to ones spouse there is completely no justification possible. It's one of the first steps towards full on domestic violence for a reason.
I'm not sure what the specifics are of NJ, but typically property purchased during marriage belong to both parties, meaning that it wouldn't be your car, it would be your and your spouse's car.
Also, in many states you could go to prison for that sort of behavior, whether you own the equipment or not, you don't have the right to violated wiretap laws.
Because that's not the motive, the motive is spying on the spouse. If you want to make sure that your property isn't stolen, you can get the car lojacked. But this is purely a matter of stalking your spouse for nefarious purposes. There is not situation under which it is OK to track a partner without their full knowledge and consent.
Except that nobody is using this technology for that purpose. If you're that concerned with the vehicle being stolen you get it lojacked, that way every police car in the country is tracking where it is and they seem to have a really high success rate.
This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.
This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.
Strictly speaking Sony is more or less a holding company for the various divisions. Which means that if you bought something games related it doesn't have the same idiots running it that run the music division or the computer division.
You can argue anything, it doesn't mean that it's either factually correct or relevant to the topic of discussion.
In this case this is just another instance of Sony infringing upon typical ownership rights. Sort of a somewhat less evil version of their CD rootkit or when they vandalized all those PS3s in response to an alleged crack.
Thinking any more deeply on it is a waste of energy as any country with a consumer protection regulatory system is going to say no to this. It's mostly because folks in the US are more interested in being completely dependent upon corporations over which they have no control that politicians that they can vote out of office that we get this sort of crap here.
Yes, but what happens when something like DNF, FO:NV or BM:AC comes out? Of those titles only Batman is going to be free of a Steam infestation and it's unlikely that the PS3 versions of games will be free of this bullshit.
You can boycott, but you end up hurting yourself and the industry tends to use the sales figures as evidence that there isn't enough DRM rather than that individuals are being scared off by increasingly onerous restrictions on what they can do with their own property.
That's reasonable, they're making profits on the basis of piracy and so one would expect for their profits to increase at about the rate of an increase in piracy. It doesn't mean that the numbers are bad. But, given the industry that they're in, it wouldn't be surprising if the figures were on the high side.
The UK? Oh please, for one thing they did it first and for another thing the UK is a sovereign entity over which we have no control. As for Libya, we didn't start their civil war and we're hardly the only nation involved with supporting the rebels. At this point I don't even think we're properly considered a major factor as we don't have any boots on the ground.
It could also be the fact that they've been releasing mostly crap for the last 20 years and that it's starting to catch up with them. Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA for years now and I'm hardly the only one. I doubt that it's been significant enough to represent more than a small fraction of that number, but the ITMS and not having to pay for tracks you don't want is probably a significant factor.
Indeed, Netflix, Hulu and Youtube have greatly diminished any interest I have in pirating movies or TV shows. I gave up piracy years ago due to not wanting to encourage the sort of bad behavior that it was rationalizing. But there's still times when I regret it, like having to wait a few days to play DNF because the retailers around here didn't want to sell it on an abnormal day.
Also Steam being ubiquitous really dose make me wonder if it would be such a bad thing to crack the games that I've bought for personal use.
Probably folks that want more than 30 second clips and don't want to pirate. I remember talking to somebody in that industry a couple years back and the operators that know what they're doing are still making plenty of money.
They just tend to be more specialized these days than they used to be and a lot of sites actually focus on quality in a way that wasn't true in the past. Creating the shoots isn't really that difficult typically, especially for the ones that are done in doors, and consequently with a high volume it's not the tough to make a buck at it these days.
Steam is pretty much the worst offender out there. Most DRM doesn't allow for the possibility of losing an entire account worth of purchases all at once without the company going under. Valve OTOH doesn't seem to be too shy about taking an entire account worth of games away because of a declined CC or other snafu in the process.
On top of that the client itself is complete garbage severely impacting the experience by using a ridiculous amount of processing time. I've taken to setting the affinity of it and setting the priority to low when I launch it because otherwise games that run fine otherwise become a slide show.
He's trying to trademark a term that's already in common use and claiming that his wife coined the term for somebody elses product. This isn't a case of somebody that's unaware that a term is already in use and trademarks it anyways. This is somebody that's deliberately trying to trademark a term which refers to a product that he doesn't own, control or create.
Given the use that he's citing only the most ignorant of examiners isn't going to wonder how the first use can possibly be in a sales transaction without it being explained in the same document.
At this point they've lost that battle and really should have lost their trademark a long time ago. Especially considering that I'm 30 and this is the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest that there's a name for the generic version of the hook and loop fastener. It's not like Kleenexes, where most folks call them that but people are aware that they are also called tissues.
Unless you're looking for academic papers, the results are hardly better than the competition. I see folks saying that google search is better, but having stopped using it several months back I don't miss it at all. Given how poor Google does at certain types of searches due to the methods they used to be fast it can be a really hassle trying to find information about error messages that affect particular versions of a program. And you end up with matching every single thing that is either the product or has the string of numbers. And putting it in quotes doesn't help you as often times the result that fixes the problem is for a subtly different version or omits the version altogether.
Unfortunately, if you don't make a profile then you have absolutely no say in what goes on with your data. Google+ is a step in the right direction as they allow for more granularity in sharing, but really all social networking sites are a grievous threat to privacy.
Now, when folks get the message that just because their privacy doesn't matter to them that it doesn't mean that privacy is so unappreciated with the rest of us it's not going to be an issue. Ultimately, if you can't get a release signed then you shouldn't be posting information about other people online.
In this case there's a lot of prior art. My circa 2002 VAIO had a Pentium 4 m processor with speedstep technology that could do that. I think that AMD's cool 'n' quite can as well. On top of that, I'd really love to hear them explain how these patents are different from either of those technologies.
Prior inaction? They were just granted the patent a couple months ago. You can't file a patent suit until you've been granted the patent. Hence why so many trolls deliberately delay the process as much as possible.
Not entirely, since nobody can do a patent search anymore and there are so many overly broad and invalid patents granted it's nigh impossible to avoid being sued for patent infringement.
Technically they can do a patent search before patenting or producing but if they're subsequently sued successfully, they are then looking at treble damages.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Apple typically does a good job with usability, but not always. Take the stupid one button mouses that they went for making folks mix in liberal use of the keyboard to do what one could previously do with just a standard 3 button mouse. Or worse that stupid hockey puck mouse that was pretty much unusable.
The iPod is a pretty egregious example as they had to rip off Creative for the interface and the button arrangement itself isn't any easier to use. Probably the only advantage they had in terms of usability was opting to allow it to be plugged in as a mass storage device rather than using a specialized driver. And that itself was a marginal trade off meaning that it had to search for new music whenever it was powered on rather than just skip right to playing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, this is about deploying resources in a preemptive fashion. And you'd have officers making contact with people across the various demographic groupings. Just to remind everybody that if they need help there's a police presence and if they're thinking of committing a crime there's a police presence.
Racial profiling is when you focus your attention on one group without any particular basis other than race, in this case you'd be deploying resources based upon crime stats and predictive intelligence. Ideally you'd end up with fewer arrests and fewer contacts with suspects as fewer individuals would be attempting to violate the law.
More or less, it's been known for many years that there are factors which tend to lead towards higher rates of crime. Things like the higher up you are in a highrise, the quality and quantity of lighting in an area and the location of obstructions to view.
The only issue I see with a system like this is cost and efficacy. If it works and is cost effective then there really is no problem with it. They aren't going to be issuing warrants and arresting people on the basis of being in the area where a crime is likely to hit, they'll use this to more effectively use resources that they've got.
One of the reasons why the sexual exploitation of minors is still so prevalent is low rates of reporting and easy access to children to molest.
Doesn't matter whether you're paying the bill or not, those things are typically communal property in most states. And at any rate, just because you're a jackass that's one step from domestic violence doesn't mean that it's the status quo to track and spy on ones family.
The only reason why anybody ever engages in that behavior is to control the family members. It's somewhat legitimate when it comes to kids, but when it comes to ones spouse there is completely no justification possible. It's one of the first steps towards full on domestic violence for a reason.
I'm not sure what the specifics are of NJ, but typically property purchased during marriage belong to both parties, meaning that it wouldn't be your car, it would be your and your spouse's car.
Also, in many states you could go to prison for that sort of behavior, whether you own the equipment or not, you don't have the right to violated wiretap laws.
Because that's not the motive, the motive is spying on the spouse. If you want to make sure that your property isn't stolen, you can get the car lojacked. But this is purely a matter of stalking your spouse for nefarious purposes. There is not situation under which it is OK to track a partner without their full knowledge and consent.
Except that nobody is using this technology for that purpose. If you're that concerned with the vehicle being stolen you get it lojacked, that way every police car in the country is tracking where it is and they seem to have a really high success rate.
This is purely about stalking ones partner and there is no legitimate reason why one should be doing this without a court order. If you can't trust your spouse to be where he or she says, then you have serious problems and should be consulting with either a qualified marriage counselor or an attorney about a divorce.
This is just another case of the judge getting it completely wrong and where the rest of us ultimately suffer. Thankfully, I'm smart enough not to live in NJ, but if this gets appealed, which it ought to, it could very easily wind up applying beyond NJ.
Strictly speaking Sony is more or less a holding company for the various divisions. Which means that if you bought something games related it doesn't have the same idiots running it that run the music division or the computer division.
You can argue anything, it doesn't mean that it's either factually correct or relevant to the topic of discussion.
In this case this is just another instance of Sony infringing upon typical ownership rights. Sort of a somewhat less evil version of their CD rootkit or when they vandalized all those PS3s in response to an alleged crack.
Thinking any more deeply on it is a waste of energy as any country with a consumer protection regulatory system is going to say no to this. It's mostly because folks in the US are more interested in being completely dependent upon corporations over which they have no control that politicians that they can vote out of office that we get this sort of crap here.
Yes, but what happens when something like DNF, FO:NV or BM:AC comes out? Of those titles only Batman is going to be free of a Steam infestation and it's unlikely that the PS3 versions of games will be free of this bullshit.
You can boycott, but you end up hurting yourself and the industry tends to use the sales figures as evidence that there isn't enough DRM rather than that individuals are being scared off by increasingly onerous restrictions on what they can do with their own property.
They didn't leave, but considering the generally limited occasions for wearing a three piece suit, it's hard to wear one without looking pretentious.
That's reasonable, they're making profits on the basis of piracy and so one would expect for their profits to increase at about the rate of an increase in piracy. It doesn't mean that the numbers are bad. But, given the industry that they're in, it wouldn't be surprising if the figures were on the high side.
The UK? Oh please, for one thing they did it first and for another thing the UK is a sovereign entity over which we have no control. As for Libya, we didn't start their civil war and we're hardly the only nation involved with supporting the rebels. At this point I don't even think we're properly considered a major factor as we don't have any boots on the ground.
It could also be the fact that they've been releasing mostly crap for the last 20 years and that it's starting to catch up with them. Personally, I've been boycotting the RIAA for years now and I'm hardly the only one. I doubt that it's been significant enough to represent more than a small fraction of that number, but the ITMS and not having to pay for tracks you don't want is probably a significant factor.
Indeed, Netflix, Hulu and Youtube have greatly diminished any interest I have in pirating movies or TV shows. I gave up piracy years ago due to not wanting to encourage the sort of bad behavior that it was rationalizing. But there's still times when I regret it, like having to wait a few days to play DNF because the retailers around here didn't want to sell it on an abnormal day.
Also Steam being ubiquitous really dose make me wonder if it would be such a bad thing to crack the games that I've bought for personal use.
Probably folks that want more than 30 second clips and don't want to pirate. I remember talking to somebody in that industry a couple years back and the operators that know what they're doing are still making plenty of money.
They just tend to be more specialized these days than they used to be and a lot of sites actually focus on quality in a way that wasn't true in the past. Creating the shoots isn't really that difficult typically, especially for the ones that are done in doors, and consequently with a high volume it's not the tough to make a buck at it these days.
Steam is pretty much the worst offender out there. Most DRM doesn't allow for the possibility of losing an entire account worth of purchases all at once without the company going under. Valve OTOH doesn't seem to be too shy about taking an entire account worth of games away because of a declined CC or other snafu in the process.
On top of that the client itself is complete garbage severely impacting the experience by using a ridiculous amount of processing time. I've taken to setting the affinity of it and setting the priority to low when I launch it because otherwise games that run fine otherwise become a slide show.
He's trying to trademark a term that's already in common use and claiming that his wife coined the term for somebody elses product. This isn't a case of somebody that's unaware that a term is already in use and trademarks it anyways. This is somebody that's deliberately trying to trademark a term which refers to a product that he doesn't own, control or create.
Given the use that he's citing only the most ignorant of examiners isn't going to wonder how the first use can possibly be in a sales transaction without it being explained in the same document.
At this point they've lost that battle and really should have lost their trademark a long time ago. Especially considering that I'm 30 and this is the first time I've ever heard anybody suggest that there's a name for the generic version of the hook and loop fastener. It's not like Kleenexes, where most folks call them that but people are aware that they are also called tissues.
Unless you're looking for academic papers, the results are hardly better than the competition. I see folks saying that google search is better, but having stopped using it several months back I don't miss it at all. Given how poor Google does at certain types of searches due to the methods they used to be fast it can be a really hassle trying to find information about error messages that affect particular versions of a program. And you end up with matching every single thing that is either the product or has the string of numbers. And putting it in quotes doesn't help you as often times the result that fixes the problem is for a subtly different version or omits the version altogether.
Unfortunately, if you don't make a profile then you have absolutely no say in what goes on with your data. Google+ is a step in the right direction as they allow for more granularity in sharing, but really all social networking sites are a grievous threat to privacy.
Now, when folks get the message that just because their privacy doesn't matter to them that it doesn't mean that privacy is so unappreciated with the rest of us it's not going to be an issue. Ultimately, if you can't get a release signed then you shouldn't be posting information about other people online.
In this case there's a lot of prior art. My circa 2002 VAIO had a Pentium 4 m processor with speedstep technology that could do that. I think that AMD's cool 'n' quite can as well. On top of that, I'd really love to hear them explain how these patents are different from either of those technologies.
Prior inaction? They were just granted the patent a couple months ago. You can't file a patent suit until you've been granted the patent. Hence why so many trolls deliberately delay the process as much as possible.
You mean a decade of substandard to awful products wasn't enough?
Not entirely, since nobody can do a patent search anymore and there are so many overly broad and invalid patents granted it's nigh impossible to avoid being sued for patent infringement.
Technically they can do a patent search before patenting or producing but if they're subsequently sued successfully, they are then looking at treble damages.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. Apple typically does a good job with usability, but not always. Take the stupid one button mouses that they went for making folks mix in liberal use of the keyboard to do what one could previously do with just a standard 3 button mouse. Or worse that stupid hockey puck mouse that was pretty much unusable.
The iPod is a pretty egregious example as they had to rip off Creative for the interface and the button arrangement itself isn't any easier to use. Probably the only advantage they had in terms of usability was opting to allow it to be plugged in as a mass storage device rather than using a specialized driver. And that itself was a marginal trade off meaning that it had to search for new music whenever it was powered on rather than just skip right to playing.