We know how to do this, and it's only radical on AM talk radio. Look at the US economy from 1950-1978ish (the largest economic expansion anywhere in history) to see how.
That -- compared to the period preceding and following -- had a higher share of the returns of the economy going to labor. It didn't, though, radically flatten the distribution of capital in anything even remotely like the way I'm talking about -- like where you have a healthy middle class receiving a sizable portion of their income from small capital holdings rather than a middle class almost entirely dependent on wage labor with a very small contribution from capital.
This is a technicality, but it's fair enough. The other browsers should unprefix their implementations.
Until CSS3 is at least a recommendation rather than a draft, the CSS3-draft-related features remain proprietary extensions to CSS and the prefixes are appropriate.
In some cases, they may be using prefixes because their prefixed versions actually behave differently from the final standard.
Since the final standard does not exist yet, it is rather premature to remove prefixes on the assumption that the behavior (even if it matches the current draft) will match the final standard.
What in the hell were they thinking? EMAIL IS NOT A FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL, DAMMIT.
SMTP is a store-and-forward protocol which handles arbitrary file content reasonably well, is mature, and is ubiquitous. There may be technically superior store-and-forward protocols for arbitrary content in internet-scale systems (AMQP is shaping up to be one, for instance, though even the current work on v1.0 focuses on internal institutional systems and doesn't, IIRC, get into the weeds of addressing and interoperation necessary for internet-scale deployment, leaving that for a future revision), but none with the maturity and ubiquity of e-mail.
You can blame MS for that. They were after all the ones that popularized the neutered overpriced "designed for Windows" hardware, which was a real piece of hardware with a couple chips removed so that they required Windows only software to work.
While obviously Microsoft popularized it in the specific "designed for Windows" form in, as I recall, the Win95/NT4-era, I think that the concept of offloading functions from peripherals to software running on the workstation the peripheral was serving as a measure which both saves costs and ties the peripheral to a specific operating system predates its use by Microsoft -- NeXT, for instance, did the same thing with its Canon-manufactured laser printers, as I recall.
So, we're still making lots of stuff here, but we need fewer people to do it.
Yeah, this is the big result of hitting a certain point in technology. And, ultimately, why the US -- and the world, more generally -- needs to find a wind a way to radically flatten the distribution of capital holdings to prevent crushing poverty with a narrow super-wealthy elite even in the places that have had thriving middle classes.
The US dollar is on a crash course towards hyperinflation. The United States Federal government, as well as the governments of 49 of the 50 states, are legally insolvent.
No, they aren't. They might be insolvent in some fuzzy, non-legal sense, but they aren't legally insolvent (and I think you'll find that the US federal government, in particular, is an entity to which the concept of legal insolvency under any existing provision of law simply doesn't apply.)
My guess, though, is that what you are doing is confusing running an operating deficit with insolvency. The two are almost completely unrelated concepts.
Sailing vessels only go faster than the wind when they travel with the wind coming from the side.
Not really the side. Ideally, sailing vessels can acheive speeds through water faster than the wind over the same water sailing arbitrarily close to the wind, so long as they aren't sailing exactly with it. The reason is simple, as long as they aren't sailing directly with the wind, there is an angle that a sail can be set at in which it will produce a thrust with a non-zero component in the direction the boat is facing (and the boat will move in that direction because, due to its keel, it is moving through the water in a constrained direction, rather than skimming over the water, in which case it would move in the direction of the wind rather than the facing of the boat.) Only directly in the wind can this not be acheived with a single sail.
Directly into the wind, however, this could in theory be done with two sails, equidistant from the axis of the ship, set at angles that are mirror-image reflections of each other with respect to the axis of the ship. As a practical matter, the sails would interfer with each other sailing in any direction except directly with the wind, which makes it impractical with conventional sails on a boat.
The car seems to use the two bladed propeller to provide the an effect like that of two sails. I don't think the spinning of the "propeller" is the source of thrust as with a normal propeller -- it would seem intuitively to be important to address the force imbalances from the non-driving component of force produced by each blade acting as a sail, though I'm not clear what driving the spin with the wheels gets you that letting the blades spin freely (like a windmill) wouldn't. The references to the wheels acting like a keel make sense, but that doesn't seem to require driving the prop -- as long as its easier to roll the wheels than slide them, they act as a keel.
Then: "So let's have an app contest to design neat applications for smartphones!"
Now: "Well it didn't work out because the apps were designed for smartphones..."
Well, except the contest wasn't specifically for smartphones, though it included them. The problem appears to be that with smartphone apps permitted, those kind of apps dominated, perhaps because they are most interesting to developers, even though they don't, to the same degree, dominate the contest sponsors interests.
Of course, it would be easy enough to solve this problem with focus by excluding smartphone-specific apps from the contest, rather than not running the contest. (Since smartphones can use the web, a web-app only contest would still, most likely, develop apps that could be used by -- or at least, could be readily adapted to -- smartphones, while assuring that the apps had a broader potential reach.)
It's not "illegal", it's "infringing", first of all.
Infringing copyrights is illegal.
You are probably confusing "illegal" with "criminal".
Second, they'll simply pull the app remotely off any phone on which it's been installed. Problem solved.
That, again, might limit the impact of the past infringement; it wouldn't make it so it didn't happen. Copyright law doesn't make it okay to infringe and distribute unauthorized copies so long as you go out and collect them all up once you get caught.
However, speeding tickets are criminal charges - they simply aren't felony charges (unless the speeder is exceeding the limit by greater than 15 mph in most states)
Nice try, but you are completely wrong. Minor moving violations (including speeding below a certain threshold -- and, yes, 15-20 mph is pretty common here) are not criminal charges at all, they are civil infractions (usually, speeding above 15 mph over the limit and other major moving violations are mostly still not felonies, they are misdemeanors, though some -- some DUIs, lots of things involving injuries, and obviously vehicular homicides -- are felonies.)
It's saying that the credibility of law enforcement officers should be judged by the same standard as anyone else's. They should not automatically be assumed to be more credible just because they are law enforcement officers.
No, that's not what GGP is saying, because GGP says specifically that the judge should be compelled to give equal weight to both sets of testimony. That goes much further than saying that the judge as trier of fact should not automatically assume an LEO is more credible than another witness because of his status, but that the judge cannot assess facts such as training, experience, bias, etc., to determine that the specific testimony given by the specific witness who is an LEO on the specific question before the court is more credible than the specific testimony given by the specific witness who is not an LEO on the specific question before the court.
Which would break the legal system. Triers of fact -- whether judges in bench trials or juries in jury trials -- have to be able to consider the available, relevant facts and determine which testimony from which witnesses to give greater or lesser weight.
Except that the end result of all men not remaining equal is that we now have a situation where policemen are infallible
No, we don't. The fact that a particular trier of fact may choose to view a police officer as more or less credible than another witnesses due to their training, experience, personal biases, and other relevant personal characteristics does not mean they are "infallible".
you can be convicted of a crime without any evidence,
Doubly wrong. Speeding and other minor moving violations are not crimes, and eyewitness testimony is evidence. You can be found liable for something that is not a crime -- and for which, therefore, the criminal standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply, and instead the much weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies -- with far less overwhelming evidence than would be required for a criminal conviction. This is neither new nor surprising.
In what amounts to the limit case of a contested charge under this standard -- where you have two witnesses (one who is the source of the charge and one who is its target) and no other evidence on the contested questions of fact -- this does mean that usually the witness who the trier of fact finds most convincing is going to determine the outcome of the case. This isn't actually an uncommon situation in minor, noncriminal cases, whether or not the government is involved.
I think one could have a reasonable debate, with good arguments on both sides, about the proposition of changing the burden on the government in many non-criminal situations where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is used to the intermediate "clear and convincing evidence" standard, and there may be some particular cases where there is a good case to be made that certain things that are currently treated as non-criminal ought to be treated as criminal and have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied. But I don't think the kind of hyperbole you are engaging in does anybody any good.
In Australia (where I am from) an advertisement needs to either have a disclaimer (normally small text at the bottom) if there is vagueness about what it is saying, or what the advertisement says needs to be taken at face value - meaning "what it implies".
Surely the US would have that too?
No, the US instead has a strong Constitutional guarantee of free speech which sharply limits government prior restraint of speech, even for commercial speech; disclaimers are rarely required except for products in certain particularly tightly regulated industries.
A misleading ad might provide a basis for a fraud claim from someone who bought a product based on the advertisement, which is -- rather than any specific requirement for disclaimers -- most of the disclaimers seen in US ads are provided, but even then (due to the fact that, e.g., "puffery" is found to be protected) the ad has to be pretty blatantly false to provide a strong likelihood that such a claim would succeed.
The single pair of eyes also boils down to an argument between you and the charging officer. If we truly lived in a society where "all men are created equal", then the judge would have to give equal weight to both sets of testimony,
Er, no. "All men are created equal", does not imply "all men remain equal in every respect".
And, as much as it might be convenient to an argument we want to make in a case like this, I don't think anyone here really wants to live in a world in which the trier of fact in a legal case is bound to treat all witnesses as equally credible without being free to make judgements about potential bias, indicators of honesty, training and experience relevant to the assessments of facts the witness is presenting, etc.
Telling whether or not an object is getting closer to you is not very difficult.
Neither is, with some training, estimating approximate speeds for a narrow class of objects (e.g., "cars") under very specific situations (e.g., "being observed from rest from the roadside"). Surprisingly enough, its fairly common for traffic police to be trained in that skill.
Further, where its relevant to a case (whether or not its a speeding case) anyone can testify to a visual estimate of speed in court; of course, any party hurt by such testimony is free to try to get the trier of fact -- judge or jury depending on whether its a bench or jury trial -- to give less weight to that testimony based on the witness's lack of training and expertise, but the evidence is generally admissable.
HTML5 hasn't been agreed to yet, here is an advertisement saying that IE9 is 100% compliant.
The advertisement doesn't claim anything about compliance with anything. It claims that IE9 passes 100% of the tests labelled "HTML5" that Microsoft has constructed.
It doesn't claim that those tests either represent the whole of the HTML5 spec or any draft thereof, or even that they test behavior required by the spec or any draft thereof, or even -- except by implication -- that passing them indicates behavior that is acceptable under some draft of the HTML5 spec.
At the end of 2007 the world saw 3.3 billion mobile phone users. Two years later - 4.6 billion. It should get to 5 rather quickly. Don't be surpised with 90% of the planet quite soon.
I would be surprised if 90% of the planet had a mobile phone anytime soon, though I wouldn't be surprised if the number of active mobile phone accounts exceeded 90% of the population soon. It is a mistake to assume that the number of active mobile phones is equal to the number of people with mobile phones.
Computers now cause as many problems as they solve
Every time a problem is blamed on a computer, there are at least human errors involved: at least one at the root of the original problem, plus the error of blaming the computer.
Yeah, but back then speeding tickets were a) not very common (according to people who were driving then) b) rarely paid because hearings degenerated into a lot of "did not" - "did too" ing. (educated guess plus anecdotes) c) not very high (matter of public record)
I don't think the "not very high" holds up when adjusted for inflation, and now, while tickets are regularly paid its because they are rarely challenged -- many (and by some accounts most) challenges to tickets succeed, most often because the ticketing officer doesn't show up to testify at all -- and part of the reason that they are rarely challenged is that in many jurisdictions, there are positive incentives not to challenge them (e.g., you can avoid negative reflection on your driving record if you pay the ticket and pay an additional fee to go to traffic school, if you challenge the ticket and lose, you don't have that option.)
Honestly, I'm shocked that any serious court... would accept this type of citation.
Why? Speeding tickets were allowed before radar guns existed, after all; speeding tickets based on anything but an officers observation of the speed of the car (possibly relative to his own car and speedometer, possibly not) are comparatively novel.
It hardly meets the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is the Constitutional standard of proof required for conviction in criminal cases; most moving violations are not considered criminal violations in the Constitutional sense, and the applicable standard of proof is lower (I believe, in most jurisdictions, the standard is a simple preponderance of the evidence, as in most civil cases.)
Which means, when the only evidence is two witnesses, whichever witness the trier of fact finds most credible.
"Congress shall make no law... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
this fails on these grounds.
Discussion drafts often include things that are contrary to existing law (potentially including the Constitution.) This is fairly routine -- the purpose of a discussion draft is to present policy alternatives for discussion. Determining whether they are desirable and, if so, what steps (regulation, legislative proposals, proposed Constitutional amendments) need to be taken to acheive them, and whether the effort needed to implement them is worth the perceived benefit happen, generally, at a stage later than a discussion draft.
Slashdot Mirror
That -- compared to the period preceding and following -- had a higher share of the returns of the economy going to labor. It didn't, though, radically flatten the distribution of capital in anything even remotely like the way I'm talking about -- like where you have a healthy middle class receiving a sizable portion of their income from small capital holdings rather than a middle class almost entirely dependent on wage labor with a very small contribution from capital.
Until CSS3 is at least a recommendation rather than a draft, the CSS3-draft-related features remain proprietary extensions to CSS and the prefixes are appropriate.
Since the final standard does not exist yet, it is rather premature to remove prefixes on the assumption that the behavior (even if it matches the current draft) will match the final standard.
SMTP is a store-and-forward protocol which handles arbitrary file content reasonably well, is mature, and is ubiquitous. There may be technically superior store-and-forward protocols for arbitrary content in internet-scale systems (AMQP is shaping up to be one, for instance, though even the current work on v1.0 focuses on internal institutional systems and doesn't, IIRC, get into the weeds of addressing and interoperation necessary for internet-scale deployment, leaving that for a future revision), but none with the maturity and ubiquity of e-mail.
While obviously Microsoft popularized it in the specific "designed for Windows" form in, as I recall, the Win95/NT4-era, I think that the concept of offloading functions from peripherals to software running on the workstation the peripheral was serving as a measure which both saves costs and ties the peripheral to a specific operating system predates its use by Microsoft -- NeXT, for instance, did the same thing with its Canon-manufactured laser printers, as I recall.
Yeah, this is the big result of hitting a certain point in technology. And, ultimately, why the US -- and the world, more generally -- needs to find a wind a way to radically flatten the distribution of capital holdings to prevent crushing poverty with a narrow super-wealthy elite even in the places that have had thriving middle classes.
No, they aren't. They might be insolvent in some fuzzy, non-legal sense, but they aren't legally insolvent (and I think you'll find that the US federal government, in particular, is an entity to which the concept of legal insolvency under any existing provision of law simply doesn't apply.)
My guess, though, is that what you are doing is confusing running an operating deficit with insolvency. The two are almost completely unrelated concepts.
Not really the side. Ideally, sailing vessels can acheive speeds through water faster than the wind over the same water sailing arbitrarily close to the wind, so long as they aren't sailing exactly with it. The reason is simple, as long as they aren't sailing directly with the wind, there is an angle that a sail can be set at in which it will produce a thrust with a non-zero component in the direction the boat is facing (and the boat will move in that direction because, due to its keel, it is moving through the water in a constrained direction, rather than skimming over the water, in which case it would move in the direction of the wind rather than the facing of the boat.) Only directly in the wind can this not be acheived with a single sail.
Directly into the wind, however, this could in theory be done with two sails, equidistant from the axis of the ship, set at angles that are mirror-image reflections of each other with respect to the axis of the ship. As a practical matter, the sails would interfer with each other sailing in any direction except directly with the wind, which makes it impractical with conventional sails on a boat.
The car seems to use the two bladed propeller to provide the an effect like that of two sails. I don't think the spinning of the "propeller" is the source of thrust as with a normal propeller -- it would seem intuitively to be important to address the force imbalances from the non-driving component of force produced by each blade acting as a sail, though I'm not clear what driving the spin with the wheels gets you that letting the blades spin freely (like a windmill) wouldn't. The references to the wheels acting like a keel make sense, but that doesn't seem to require driving the prop -- as long as its easier to roll the wheels than slide them, they act as a keel.
Well, except the contest wasn't specifically for smartphones, though it included them. The problem appears to be that with smartphone apps permitted, those kind of apps dominated, perhaps because they are most interesting to developers, even though they don't, to the same degree, dominate the contest sponsors interests.
Of course, it would be easy enough to solve this problem with focus by excluding smartphone-specific apps from the contest, rather than not running the contest. (Since smartphones can use the web, a web-app only contest would still, most likely, develop apps that could be used by -- or at least, could be readily adapted to -- smartphones, while assuring that the apps had a broader potential reach.)
Infringing copyrights is illegal.
You are probably confusing "illegal" with "criminal".
That, again, might limit the impact of the past infringement; it wouldn't make it so it didn't happen. Copyright law doesn't make it okay to infringe and distribute unauthorized copies so long as you go out and collect them all up once you get caught.
The first part of that sentence is superfluous, since if you do know what goatse is, you still don't want to know.
Nice try, but you are completely wrong. Minor moving violations (including speeding below a certain threshold -- and, yes, 15-20 mph is pretty common here) are not criminal charges at all, they are civil infractions (usually, speeding above 15 mph over the limit and other major moving violations are mostly still not felonies, they are misdemeanors, though some -- some DUIs, lots of things involving injuries, and obviously vehicular homicides -- are felonies.)
See, for instance:
Maine courts
Michigan's ticket payment system
No, that's not what GGP is saying, because GGP says specifically that the judge should be compelled to give equal weight to both sets of testimony. That goes much further than saying that the judge as trier of fact should not automatically assume an LEO is more credible than another witness because of his status, but that the judge cannot assess facts such as training, experience, bias, etc., to determine that the specific testimony given by the specific witness who is an LEO on the specific question before the court is more credible than the specific testimony given by the specific witness who is not an LEO on the specific question before the court.
Which would break the legal system. Triers of fact -- whether judges in bench trials or juries in jury trials -- have to be able to consider the available, relevant facts and determine which testimony from which witnesses to give greater or lesser weight.
No, we don't. The fact that a particular trier of fact may choose to view a police officer as more or less credible than another witnesses due to their training, experience, personal biases, and other relevant personal characteristics does not mean they are "infallible".
Doubly wrong. Speeding and other minor moving violations are not crimes, and eyewitness testimony is evidence. You can be found liable for something that is not a crime -- and for which, therefore, the criminal standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply, and instead the much weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies -- with far less overwhelming evidence than would be required for a criminal conviction. This is neither new nor surprising.
In what amounts to the limit case of a contested charge under this standard -- where you have two witnesses (one who is the source of the charge and one who is its target) and no other evidence on the contested questions of fact -- this does mean that usually the witness who the trier of fact finds most convincing is going to determine the outcome of the case. This isn't actually an uncommon situation in minor, noncriminal cases, whether or not the government is involved.
I think one could have a reasonable debate, with good arguments on both sides, about the proposition of changing the burden on the government in many non-criminal situations where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is used to the intermediate "clear and convincing evidence" standard, and there may be some particular cases where there is a good case to be made that certain things that are currently treated as non-criminal ought to be treated as criminal and have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applied. But I don't think the kind of hyperbole you are engaging in does anybody any good.
No, the US instead has a strong Constitutional guarantee of free speech which sharply limits government prior restraint of speech, even for commercial speech; disclaimers are rarely required except for products in certain particularly tightly regulated industries.
A misleading ad might provide a basis for a fraud claim from someone who bought a product based on the advertisement, which is -- rather than any specific requirement for disclaimers -- most of the disclaimers seen in US ads are provided, but even then (due to the fact that, e.g., "puffery" is found to be protected) the ad has to be pretty blatantly false to provide a strong likelihood that such a claim would succeed.
Er, no. "All men are created equal", does not imply "all men remain equal in every respect".
And, as much as it might be convenient to an argument we want to make in a case like this, I don't think anyone here really wants to live in a world in which the trier of fact in a legal case is bound to treat all witnesses as equally credible without being free to make judgements about potential bias, indicators of honesty, training and experience relevant to the assessments of facts the witness is presenting, etc.
Neither is, with some training, estimating approximate speeds for a narrow class of objects (e.g., "cars") under very specific situations (e.g., "being observed from rest from the roadside"). Surprisingly enough, its fairly common for traffic police to be trained in that skill.
Further, where its relevant to a case (whether or not its a speeding case) anyone can testify to a visual estimate of speed in court; of course, any party hurt by such testimony is free to try to get the trier of fact -- judge or jury depending on whether its a bench or jury trial -- to give less weight to that testimony based on the witness's lack of training and expertise, but the evidence is generally admissable.
The advertisement doesn't claim anything about compliance with anything. It claims that IE9 passes 100% of the tests labelled "HTML5" that Microsoft has constructed.
It doesn't claim that those tests either represent the whole of the HTML5 spec or any draft thereof, or even that they test behavior required by the spec or any draft thereof, or even -- except by implication -- that passing them indicates behavior that is acceptable under some draft of the HTML5 spec.
I would be surprised if 90% of the planet had a mobile phone anytime soon, though I wouldn't be surprised if the number of active mobile phone accounts exceeded 90% of the population soon. It is a mistake to assume that the number of active mobile phones is equal to the number of people with mobile phones.
Every time a problem is blamed on a computer, there are at least human errors involved: at least one at the root of the original problem, plus the error of blaming the computer.
"One of the largest" != "the largest". They don't lead in either US or global marketshare, nor are they improving their position in either.
No, its a reason to vote with your dollars (whether as an end-user or someone investing in app development) and reject Apple's capriciousness.
Whining while rewarding Apple's capriciousness has counterproductive effects.
Bad analogy with the case at hand: eyewitness testimony is a recognized form of evidence in court.
Also, murder is a criminal offense, and thus has a different standard of proof than minor moving violations, which are not criminal offenses.
I don't think the "not very high" holds up when adjusted for inflation, and now, while tickets are regularly paid its because they are rarely challenged -- many (and by some accounts most) challenges to tickets succeed, most often because the ticketing officer doesn't show up to testify at all -- and part of the reason that they are rarely challenged is that in many jurisdictions, there are positive incentives not to challenge them (e.g., you can avoid negative reflection on your driving record if you pay the ticket and pay an additional fee to go to traffic school, if you challenge the ticket and lose, you don't have that option.)
Which, of course, requires visually estimating that your speed is approximately equal to that of the target vehicle.
Which just validates the idea of visual estimation of relative speed as a basis of a ticket.
Why? Speeding tickets were allowed before radar guns existed, after all; speeding tickets based on anything but an officers observation of the speed of the car (possibly relative to his own car and speedometer, possibly not) are comparatively novel.
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is the Constitutional standard of proof required for conviction in criminal cases; most moving violations are not considered criminal violations in the Constitutional sense, and the applicable standard of proof is lower (I believe, in most jurisdictions, the standard is a simple preponderance of the evidence, as in most civil cases.)
Which means, when the only evidence is two witnesses, whichever witness the trier of fact finds most credible.
Discussion drafts often include things that are contrary to existing law (potentially including the Constitution.) This is fairly routine -- the purpose of a discussion draft is to present policy alternatives for discussion. Determining whether they are desirable and, if so, what steps (regulation, legislative proposals, proposed Constitutional amendments) need to be taken to acheive them, and whether the effort needed to implement them is worth the perceived benefit happen, generally, at a stage later than a discussion draft.