They've used gcc until now. I think on iOS, they were using an LLVM backend with a gcc frontend. They've clearly been trying to move away from gcc and they've been developing the clang front-end, but I didn't realize that they had a functional non-gcc toolchain.
IIRC, they said that XCode 4 would be using clang.
They weren't like this until a TRULY greedy corporation (Enron) committed SO much fraud in the commodities (energy) market in the U.S. that it nearly BANKRUPTED several states, causing its CEO to go to prison for 150 years, IIRC.
I'm still confused, apple can't choose to develop a new product and release it for free without getting in legal trouble?
You are not confused. What you stated is correct: Thanks to Enron's shennanigans, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act made CERTAIN "freebies" ILLEGAL. And not just a little illegal. REALLY illegal.
So, you can blame Enron and their accounting firm for this mess. Leave Apple out of it. They are no more able to avoid this than they are able to avoid charging sales tax in the U.S.
Or do you think Apple (or any other company) actually ENJOYS being the UNPAID collection agent for Federal and State governments?
This is much the same: Legal requirement. Not Apple's fault. Anyone else would have to do the same thing.
But 2.3 was "released" in December, so even buying direct from Google meant a 2-3 month wait on a phone barley a year old. iPhone 3GS owners (a phone nearly 2 years old now) got 4.3 the exact same day as everyone else.
To be fair (and before others point it out), Apple didn't release 4.3 for the Verizon iPhone yet. While the custom 4.2.6 build it shipped with has some of the 4.3 features, it doesn't have them all. So even Apple isn't perfect with getting updates out the door for all devices at once.
I am purely speculating, but don'tcha think that Verizon has an "approval" process of its own, and perhaps, just perhaps, that might not take EXACTLY the same time as AT&T's process?
"Always leave a multiple of four plus one" is hardly statistical math/deep AI.
It was only unbeatable because you always let it go first, but at least it seems to have accomplished its task of being fun to program.
Did I mention anything about letting it go first?
I do not remember that being a constraint. I think I actually made it so that either player could start.
You might be interested to know that the algorithm you describe is pretty close to Q-learning, which actually is a staple in AI/robotics/etc. Also see the closely-related "Value Iteration" algorithm.
I tend to be of the philosophy that the supposed differences between algorithms that "look ahead" and those that "learn" is just a matter of perspective: Both A* and Q-learning, for instance, can be viewed as "just" methods for computing the Bellman Value Function. (I'd say that, at base, about half of robotics, AI, and optimal control is about computing the Bellman Value Function. The other half is Bayes' Rule).
Interesting. I "discovered" that method completely independently, based on a line regarding IBM's early (1960's) efforts to "teach" a computer to recognize unbroken, natural speech (a skill that even the vaunted "Watson" seems not to even TRY, some 50 years later!). In the caption to the picture, it said something like "A technician teaches a computer at the IBM headquarters to recognize human speech. When the computer makes a mistake, the technician "punishes" it by pressing a button."
That gave me the idea that "punishing" incorrect behavior AND "rewarding" correct behavior might be easily simulated in my game.
What is even more interesting, and what I forgot to mention in my long-winded post, was that there IS a purely mathematical "solution" to the 23 matches game. In fact, there were already BASIC programs that used the formula (which involved something about the square-root of the remaining matches, IIRC). But I did not use any of that. Just the "reward/punishment training".
Thanks for the info. Glad to see that at the ripe-old age of 22 (and completely self-taught in computer programming) I was in such good company!
and STILL I got punish-modded for a simple mistake of not reading TFA, rather than slashdot's RIDICULOUS, MISLEADING HEADLINE.
You must be new here.
Nope. Been here since 2003. Still doesn't make it right. However, I do note that I was later "rewarded" for my retraction. So, bitching sometimes does help!
Actually, the concept of "shareware" was created first with the Mac terminal application "RedRyder" ( back then we called them "programs", sonny!).
PC-Talk was a terminal program written in BASIC, is well known to be the first shareware program as it was freeware but asked for donations, and its distribution was in fact simply the.BAS source code (so it was also open source in 1982.)
You've got your history mixed up, young man.
If so, I stand corrected. Maybe it was only the TERM "shareware" that the author of RedRyder (later called White Knight) coined.
Situation A: A single person - the author - becomes a semi-millionaire.
Situation B: A multitude of people - the author, the people working at the publisher, the people working at the printing press, the people working in distribution, and so forth and so on - receive a reasonable, but not stellar, income.
But, in "Situation A", the electronic-distribution model, you have conveniently left out all the "support personnel" that are involved, from the IT people who maintain the distribution servers and network, to the web-apps developers who wrote the "bookstore" app, to the hundreds of hardware and software developers, marketing, manufacturing and distribution personnel that bring you e-readers like the Kindle, not to mention all the tens-of-thousands of people who maintain the underlying cellular distribution network.
So, as you can see, both "Situations" call for a LOT of support personnel, who, in addition to the author, are making a living due, at least in part, to the fact that the e-book is selling like the proverbial hotcakes.
And, unlike the dead-tree distribution chain, at least with the current e-book profit-sharing model, the AUTHOR actually has immense control over the pricing and marketing of his book; which has GOT to be a more equitable approach to the marketing of someone's brain-work than the old dead-tree sales and distribution model.
Capitalistic or Socialistic; who cares? There is absolutely no way that this is NOT an improvement over "The Way It Has Always Been(tm)".
Shareware was also extremely popular on classic Mac OS and at least in early OS X. Lots of very high quality software (including games), too, much of which would have been straight commercial releases on Windows.
Actually, the concept of "shareware" was created first with the Mac terminal application "RedRyder" ( back then we called them "programs", sonny!). Distributed and marketed solely by word-of-mouth and what we would call "trial downloads" on CompuServe (still want to put a $ sign in their name!) and other BBSes. The author wrote about coming home from a week's vacation shortly after publishing RedRyder only to find his apartment effectively carpeted with envelopes with checks in them. And with that, the concept of "shareware" was born.
For a long time, he was the only SUCCESSFUL shareware (he coined the term!) publisher; but after awhile that changed, and the Mac community still enjoys a very healthy (MUCH more so than on Windows) shareware catalog. In fact, most independently-distributed Mac apps are shareware (and a lot are freeware now, too).
Back in my youth, programming in BASIC and 6502 assembler on the Apple ][, I wrote a "learning" game of "23 matches". The object of this 2-person game (in this case, human v. computer) is to avoid taking the last match. Each round, the player can take 1, 2 or 3 matches.
Although written in about 100 lines of Woz's Integer BASIC, the learning algorithm was simplicity itself: Each round, the computer kept track of its moves (and only its moves) in a table that was indexed by how many matches were left (a 22-row by 3 column table). The table started out with all "zeros" in each of 3 X 22 "weighting" columns (1 column for each possible "move" at each point). If the computer won a round, it incremented the "weight" of each "choice" that was made as the "pile of matches" for that round dwindled. Conversely, if the computer lost a round, it decremented all the "weight" cells at the junctures of "how many left?" X "how many did I take?".
And the algorithm was "predisposed" to "favor" the move that was the "most successful" at any given "how many left?" point.
That was it. No statistical math. No deep AI. Nothing. Just sort of a "path of evolutionary success" that formed a kind of "groove" that guided the correct answer at any given point, without regard to the past moves in a round, nor with any "forward-looking" capability, either. Just stimulus-response.
It was fascinating to watch just how quickly this algorithm "learned". During the first 5 or 6 rounds, it hardly ever won. By the 12th or 13th round, it was pretty hard to beat. By about the 20th round, it was no fun to play anymore, because it was simply unbeatable at that point, and had to be "lobotomized" (lose its "experience").
And, just like those walking robotic "insects" that teach themselves to walk in a matter of minutes with only 2 simple rules (IIRC, standing up is better than laying down; and moving forward is better than standing still), this was a real eye-opener as to just how simple a "learning" algorithm can be, and still achieve results that are both impressive and effective.
If you have a neighbor who is a plumber, electrician, contractor, or handyman, you'll find that they demand to be paid for their time and their work.
Neighbour? Sure. Friend? Maybe. My friends who are plumbers and electricians and handymen often help friends for free with their problems. Are they asked to rewire a whole house? No. Are they asked to replace a faucet or figure out a wonky socket? Sure. Welcome to friendship.
As a recovering friend-helper, with these problems (and let's be honest; we're talking about WINDOWS problems here), disinfection/recovery/rebuilding headaches OFTEN place the job-complexity (or at least, annoyance-ity) closer to the "install an under-counter dishwasher where one never existed before, including all necessary plumbing, carpentry, and electrical work" than to the "replace a faucet" example. "Replace a faucet" is about equal to a "Install a video driver" bit; which I will gladly do for free for friends and family; but anymore, I simply refuse to even try to recover hopelessly infected Windows machines. Life's just too short.
The linked article says "A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance." So I guess they ARE saying around 177,500 iOS apps are also offenders.
But I am taking the whole article with some skepticism.
Which is exactly WHY I posted a RETRACTION; but nobody seemed to notice, and STILL I got punish-modded for a simple mistake of not reading TFA, rather than slashdot's RIDICULOUS, MISLEADING HEADLINE.
If there is ANYONE who deserves to be punish-modded into oblivion, it is the person who wrote that FRAUDULENT summary.
Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).
I retract my previous post. I didn't RTFA, and didn't realize the Summary was misleading.
Sorry, Androids, I apologize. I guess we're ALL in the license-violation-boat together...
Why did the Android fan-mods feel it necessary to punish-mod my RETRACTION of my previous post? Isn't that just completely unecessarily snarky?!? Afterall, I admitted that I didn't read before posting (!!!), and APOLOGIZED.
FFS, is THAT what slashdot has devolved into? I can understand my original post being downmodded to some extent; but NOT THE RETRACTION OF THAT POST (which I posted like one MINUTE later).
Sheesh! Pretty fuckin' lame, mods. I hope it happens someday to you when you make a mistake.
They're not members of the Illuminati. We do have standards - do you really think we'd let idiots like them join? Puppets, yes. Members? Certainly not!
And where does the Constitution explicitly guarantee your right to record police officers without consent? I don't see that...
You seem to be under the common, but VERY mistaken impression that the U.S. Constitution is a list of non-prohibited actions. It is not. It is a list of LIMITS on the powers of Government (BTW, "government" has no "rights", only "powers"). Note that it is written in that context, e.g. "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed.", et cetera.
the person in front of me (Joe) is on the phone leaving a message while I'm talking to my friend then Joe is guilty of illegal wiretapping.
There is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause in most states. When officer friendly has you stopped by the side of the road, he has a reasonable expectation of privacy that any threatening BS he says to you is not going to come back and bite him in the ass - and the 2 party wiretapping law backs that up. In line a Dunkin Donuts, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from the person beside you in line.
Of course, if what is said is egregious enough, it will still bite the sayer in the ass, but maybe not as hard when it is illegally obtained.
2 party consent is going to become a very frequently broken law now that everybody walks around with recording devices on their person all day long.
Excuse me; but "Officer Friendly" DOES have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" when he's at home viewing his kiddie-porn; but he does NOT have that same expectation of privacy while performing his job AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PUBLIC, while stopping you ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
The ONLY thing that makes this case at all viable is New Hampshire's draconian "All Parties" consent laws, NOT the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE's "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing his PUBLIC JOB on a PUBLIC ROAD.
That would require being an active citizen. It's much easier to just post on Slashdot talking about how elected officials are all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati.
But, but, they ARE all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati!
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever people refer to it as WP7, I momentarily get excited and wonder if Word Perfect has finally returned.
Great Shiva's Ghost!
Why?!? And don't tell me about that Marquis De Sade-inspired "text" mode, or whatever they called it.
That's all fine and dandy, but considering that presumably, females of other species don't want them, either, why do they still exist there?
That's something of a presumption, given the fact that condoms can still be bought "ribbed for her pleasure".
Um, I think there is a bit of a difference between "ribbed" and "spiny"...
They've used gcc until now. I think on iOS, they were using an LLVM backend with a gcc frontend. They've clearly been trying to move away from gcc and they've been developing the clang front-end, but I didn't realize that they had a functional non-gcc toolchain.
IIRC, they said that XCode 4 would be using clang.
Small teams of developers, ten at the most. Good fucking luck managing 50+ programmers using Xcode.
So, how do projects like OS X get developed, if not in XCode?
You people have some weird laws.
They weren't like this until a TRULY greedy corporation (Enron) committed SO much fraud in the commodities (energy) market in the U.S. that it nearly BANKRUPTED several states, causing its CEO to go to prison for 150 years, IIRC.
I'm still confused, apple can't choose to develop a new product and release it for free without getting in legal trouble?
You are not confused. What you stated is correct: Thanks to Enron's shennanigans, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act made CERTAIN "freebies" ILLEGAL. And not just a little illegal. REALLY illegal.
So, you can blame Enron and their accounting firm for this mess. Leave Apple out of it. They are no more able to avoid this than they are able to avoid charging sales tax in the U.S.
Or do you think Apple (or any other company) actually ENJOYS being the UNPAID collection agent for Federal and State governments?
This is much the same: Legal requirement. Not Apple's fault. Anyone else would have to do the same thing.
But 2.3 was "released" in December, so even buying direct from Google meant a 2-3 month wait on a phone barley a year old. iPhone 3GS owners (a phone nearly 2 years old now) got 4.3 the exact same day as everyone else.
To be fair (and before others point it out), Apple didn't release 4.3 for the Verizon iPhone yet. While the custom 4.2.6 build it shipped with has some of the 4.3 features, it doesn't have them all. So even Apple isn't perfect with getting updates out the door for all devices at once.
I am purely speculating, but don'tcha think that Verizon has an "approval" process of its own, and perhaps, just perhaps, that might not take EXACTLY the same time as AT&T's process?
That was it. No statistical math. No deep AI.
"Always leave a multiple of four plus one" is hardly statistical math/deep AI. It was only unbeatable because you always let it go first, but at least it seems to have accomplished its task of being fun to program.
Did I mention anything about letting it go first?
I do not remember that being a constraint. I think I actually made it so that either player could start.
You might be interested to know that the algorithm you describe is pretty close to Q-learning, which actually is a staple in AI/robotics/etc. Also see the closely-related "Value Iteration" algorithm.
I tend to be of the philosophy that the supposed differences between algorithms that "look ahead" and those that "learn" is just a matter of perspective: Both A* and Q-learning, for instance, can be viewed as "just" methods for computing the Bellman Value Function. (I'd say that, at base, about half of robotics, AI, and optimal control is about computing the Bellman Value Function. The other half is Bayes' Rule).
Interesting. I "discovered" that method completely independently, based on a line regarding IBM's early (1960's) efforts to "teach" a computer to recognize unbroken, natural speech (a skill that even the vaunted "Watson" seems not to even TRY, some 50 years later!). In the caption to the picture, it said something like "A technician teaches a computer at the IBM headquarters to recognize human speech. When the computer makes a mistake, the technician "punishes" it by pressing a button."
That gave me the idea that "punishing" incorrect behavior AND "rewarding" correct behavior might be easily simulated in my game.
What is even more interesting, and what I forgot to mention in my long-winded post, was that there IS a purely mathematical "solution" to the 23 matches game. In fact, there were already BASIC programs that used the formula (which involved something about the square-root of the remaining matches, IIRC). But I did not use any of that. Just the "reward/punishment training".
Thanks for the info. Glad to see that at the ripe-old age of 22 (and completely self-taught in computer programming) I was in such good company!
and STILL I got punish-modded for a simple mistake of not reading TFA, rather than slashdot's RIDICULOUS, MISLEADING HEADLINE.
You must be new here.
Nope. Been here since 2003. Still doesn't make it right. However, I do note that I was later "rewarded" for my retraction. So, bitching sometimes does help!
Actually, the concept of "shareware" was created first with the Mac terminal application "RedRyder" ( back then we called them "programs", sonny!).
PC-Talk was a terminal program written in BASIC, is well known to be the first shareware program as it was freeware but asked for donations, and its distribution was in fact simply the .BAS source code (so it was also open source in 1982.)
You've got your history mixed up, young man.
If so, I stand corrected. Maybe it was only the TERM "shareware" that the author of RedRyder (later called White Knight) coined.
What is it? I remember it from Smash TV.
Americathon. A little-known movie written by Phil Proctor and Peter Bergman of The Firesign Theatre. That was the clip running on the TV in Robocop.
Situation A: A single person - the author - becomes a semi-millionaire.
Situation B: A multitude of people - the author, the people working at the publisher, the people working at the printing press, the people working in distribution, and so forth and so on - receive a reasonable, but not stellar, income.
But, in "Situation A", the electronic-distribution model, you have conveniently left out all the "support personnel" that are involved, from the IT people who maintain the distribution servers and network, to the web-apps developers who wrote the "bookstore" app, to the hundreds of hardware and software developers, marketing, manufacturing and distribution personnel that bring you e-readers like the Kindle, not to mention all the tens-of-thousands of people who maintain the underlying cellular distribution network.
So, as you can see, both "Situations" call for a LOT of support personnel, who, in addition to the author, are making a living due, at least in part, to the fact that the e-book is selling like the proverbial hotcakes.
And, unlike the dead-tree distribution chain, at least with the current e-book profit-sharing model, the AUTHOR actually has immense control over the pricing and marketing of his book; which has GOT to be a more equitable approach to the marketing of someone's brain-work than the old dead-tree sales and distribution model.
Capitalistic or Socialistic; who cares? There is absolutely no way that this is NOT an improvement over "The Way It Has Always Been(tm)".
I'll buy THAT for a dollar!! (and I just did)
Can you name the movie that is originally from?
Hint: It is NOT The Running Man.
Shareware was also extremely popular on classic Mac OS and at least in early OS X. Lots of very high quality software (including games), too, much of which would have been straight commercial releases on Windows.
Actually, the concept of "shareware" was created first with the Mac terminal application "RedRyder" ( back then we called them "programs", sonny!). Distributed and marketed solely by word-of-mouth and what we would call "trial downloads" on CompuServe (still want to put a $ sign in their name!) and other BBSes. The author wrote about coming home from a week's vacation shortly after publishing RedRyder only to find his apartment effectively carpeted with envelopes with checks in them. And with that, the concept of "shareware" was born.
For a long time, he was the only SUCCESSFUL shareware (he coined the term!) publisher; but after awhile that changed, and the Mac community still enjoys a very healthy (MUCH more so than on Windows) shareware catalog. In fact, most independently-distributed Mac apps are shareware (and a lot are freeware now, too).
Back in my youth, programming in BASIC and 6502 assembler on the Apple ][, I wrote a "learning" game of "23 matches". The object of this 2-person game (in this case, human v. computer) is to avoid taking the last match. Each round, the player can take 1, 2 or 3 matches.
Although written in about 100 lines of Woz's Integer BASIC, the learning algorithm was simplicity itself: Each round, the computer kept track of its moves (and only its moves) in a table that was indexed by how many matches were left (a 22-row by 3 column table). The table started out with all "zeros" in each of 3 X 22 "weighting" columns (1 column for each possible "move" at each point). If the computer won a round, it incremented the "weight" of each "choice" that was made as the "pile of matches" for that round dwindled. Conversely, if the computer lost a round, it decremented all the "weight" cells at the junctures of "how many left?" X "how many did I take?".
And the algorithm was "predisposed" to "favor" the move that was the "most successful" at any given "how many left?" point.
That was it. No statistical math. No deep AI. Nothing. Just sort of a "path of evolutionary success" that formed a kind of "groove" that guided the correct answer at any given point, without regard to the past moves in a round, nor with any "forward-looking" capability, either. Just stimulus-response.
It was fascinating to watch just how quickly this algorithm "learned". During the first 5 or 6 rounds, it hardly ever won. By the 12th or 13th round, it was pretty hard to beat. By about the 20th round, it was no fun to play anymore, because it was simply unbeatable at that point, and had to be "lobotomized" (lose its "experience").
And, just like those walking robotic "insects" that teach themselves to walk in a matter of minutes with only 2 simple rules (IIRC, standing up is better than laying down; and moving forward is better than standing still), this was a real eye-opener as to just how simple a "learning" algorithm can be, and still achieve results that are both impressive and effective.
If you have a neighbor who is a plumber, electrician, contractor, or handyman, you'll find that they demand to be paid for their time and their work.
Neighbour? Sure. Friend? Maybe. My friends who are plumbers and electricians and handymen often help friends for free with their problems. Are they asked to rewire a whole house? No. Are they asked to replace a faucet or figure out a wonky socket? Sure. Welcome to friendship.
As a recovering friend-helper, with these problems (and let's be honest; we're talking about WINDOWS problems here), disinfection/recovery/rebuilding headaches OFTEN place the job-complexity (or at least, annoyance-ity) closer to the "install an under-counter dishwasher where one never existed before, including all necessary plumbing, carpentry, and electrical work" than to the "replace a faucet" example. "Replace a faucet" is about equal to a "Install a video driver" bit; which I will gladly do for free for friends and family; but anymore, I simply refuse to even try to recover hopelessly infected Windows machines. Life's just too short.
The linked article says "A new study from open source services vendor OpenLogic reports that 71 percent of Apple iOS and Google Android apps are not in compliance." So I guess they ARE saying around 177,500 iOS apps are also offenders. But I am taking the whole article with some skepticism.
Which is exactly WHY I posted a RETRACTION; but nobody seemed to notice, and STILL I got punish-modded for a simple mistake of not reading TFA, rather than slashdot's RIDICULOUS, MISLEADING HEADLINE.
If there is ANYONE who deserves to be punish-modded into oblivion, it is the person who wrote that FRAUDULENT summary.
You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696
Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).
I retract my previous post. I didn't RTFA, and didn't realize the Summary was misleading. Sorry, Androids, I apologize. I guess we're ALL in the license-violation-boat together...
Why did the Android fan-mods feel it necessary to punish-mod my RETRACTION of my previous post? Isn't that just completely unecessarily snarky?!? Afterall, I admitted that I didn't read before posting (!!!), and APOLOGIZED.
FFS, is THAT what slashdot has devolved into? I can understand my original post being downmodded to some extent; but NOT THE RETRACTION OF THAT POST (which I posted like one MINUTE later).
Sheesh! Pretty fuckin' lame, mods. I hope it happens someday to you when you make a mistake.
You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696
Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).
I retract my previous post. I didn't RTFA, and didn't realize the Summary was misleading.
Sorry, Androids, I apologize. I guess we're ALL in the license-violation-boat together...
You flag the app, and Google will remove the apps from the android market. Why are Google to blame here? iOS has violations too. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/The+Blocks+Cometh/news.asp?c=26696
Ok, that's one iOS example down, 177,499 to go to equal Android ( at 71% of the 250,000 current iPhone apps).
They're not members of the Illuminati. We do have standards - do you really think we'd let idiots like them join? Puppets, yes. Members? Certainly not!
LOL! Touché, sir!
unconstitutional
And where does the Constitution explicitly guarantee your right to record police officers without consent? I don't see that...
You seem to be under the common, but VERY mistaken impression that the U.S. Constitution is a list of non-prohibited actions. It is not. It is a list of LIMITS on the powers of Government (BTW, "government" has no "rights", only "powers"). Note that it is written in that context, e.g. "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed.", et cetera.
the person in front of me (Joe) is on the phone leaving a message while I'm talking to my friend then Joe is guilty of illegal wiretapping.
There is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" clause in most states. When officer friendly has you stopped by the side of the road, he has a reasonable expectation of privacy that any threatening BS he says to you is not going to come back and bite him in the ass - and the 2 party wiretapping law backs that up. In line a Dunkin Donuts, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from the person beside you in line.
Of course, if what is said is egregious enough, it will still bite the sayer in the ass, but maybe not as hard when it is illegally obtained.
2 party consent is going to become a very frequently broken law now that everybody walks around with recording devices on their person all day long.
Excuse me; but "Officer Friendly" DOES have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" when he's at home viewing his kiddie-porn; but he does NOT have that same expectation of privacy while performing his job AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE PUBLIC, while stopping you ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
The ONLY thing that makes this case at all viable is New Hampshire's draconian "All Parties" consent laws, NOT the PUBLIC EMPLOYEE's "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing his PUBLIC JOB on a PUBLIC ROAD.
That would require being an active citizen. It's much easier to just post on Slashdot talking about how elected officials are all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati.
But, but, they ARE all corrupt and evil members of the Illuminati!