This is a lot more likely. The relationship with Israel is more nuanced. They would be used sometimes, but they're not a default go-to. Canada is a dear friend all the time in any country, though.
You're reading something into the layman's explanation that isn't in the bill. They aren't allowed to do it with a different word, either.
Laws aren't that flexible. People make the mistake of thinking so because they don't realize that when lawyers are arguing about the meaning of a word, it is a technical jargon word that laypeople don't understand. A law never means a different thing just based on what word you use to describe your behavior.
Sounds like your State needs a "ballot initiative" process. There is no good reason to get stuck with bad laws. In my State only parents with children "have to" have electric access, (and even then only if it is the primary source of heating) and you can hook up to the grid with a home install as long as you have an approved inverter. (~$750 minimum these days, used to be $1500) Of course, we also only get wholesale credit for power sent to the grid.
Education + ballot initiative system + vote-by-mail = politicians that ask the engineers what to do.
People see Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) kicking ass and they might wonder how to get a good Senator. Have good State-level politics. How do you do that? Have an initiative system and use it a few times to over-rule the State-level morons everybody starts with. Then primary out the legislators who voted for whatever was repealed. (both parties) POW! Now you have a State legislature that cares about what voters want, who are scared to get their wrists slapped, who will refer controversial bills directly to the people. It creates an improved voter culture too, which is where Senator Wyden comes in.
Every single State legislator who voted yes on a bill repealed by voters in the next election has lost their primary. Every single one. Both parties. It works, and it is like a miracle in changing the tone and reducing the power of lobbyists.
Pizza Hut often has pizza with free toppings, you just pay based on size. The more toppings you choose, the less you get of each one. There is no reason for this to change the price based on their typical menu.
Thanks for playing, but you're accusing Ruby of having some deficiency so big that it isn't usable. That is complete nonsense. I'm a professional Ruby programmer, the idea that I would do some benchmark and find out, "golly gee, this is so slow nobody can use it. Derrrr" I mean, seriously. Ruby has been in use for decades, get over yourself. There is no possible way for you to suddenly discover that it is so slow that clients are wishing for PHP. It is laughable, because the usefulness of Ruby is not theoretical. It is being used in the wild.
It is up to the accuser to provide the benchmarks that show whatever they are accusing. You won't find them, because Ruby doesn't have slow regex, and is actually quite good at the text-munging tasks that involve lots of regex.
When you're accusing people who advocate something specific in a specific case of believing software "...should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way" then you've given up on even the claim of intellectual honesty.
Especially where they cite actual, specific, non-random, real technical reasons, and you claim to be aware enough of the situation to form an opinion. If you know enough to know you disagree, you'd have to know that you're disagreeing with real things, real technical decisions that are actually happening, and have known, public reasons. Pretending to disagree, but actually just pretending that there were no reasons for the decisions, is just dishonest.
If you're expecting cows to jump out of your way, you're not going to survive a rural highway in cattle country. Seriously, you have to slow way down for corners, and you have to keep an eye out for dust in the distance and slow down when you see it. You can't drive 85 and wait to see the cow. And you'll probably find out that the accident will be your fault, and you just bought a whole cow.
Sheep will try to run, but don't count on them being smart enough to succeed.
Goats might stand in the lane and make you stop, then bite the valve stem off your tire. Accelerate as soon as the goat clears the bumper, don't give it any time for mischief.
Thanks for playing, but it isn't slow, and you haven't shown it to be slow. Benchmarks linked by google show Ruby to have faster regex than python, so clearly, fast enough to be used in the wild.;) Oh yeah, we already knew Ruby is indeed used in the wild.
Post your benchmark results already, lets see it. Show that Ruby is so awful that it makes it untrue that "if you assume the exact same idiots actually get hired either way, their bad Ruby isn't any worse than their bad PHP would be." It would have to be so bad to make Ruby not even usable, but we know that isn't true.
Well, just for the record, that doesn't change what I said. I stand by it.
A well-tended roadside will still have various objects on it. There will be roadside objects, and most of them will be stationary. They will include shrubberies, even when well-tended. A large number of people with vision within the range accepted by the DMV for driving will be unable to distinguish cows and stationary roadside objects at 80mph until they are inside the stopping distance.
BTW the top speed for a cow is 25mph, not 5mph. If cows could only run at human walking speed, cowboys wouldn't need to ride horses. Kinda sucks to be that far off with your basic facts, and then to do the math anyways. If you make up the fact, why not just make up the conclusion, why bother with fake math? BTW, the average human top speed is only 22mph. A horse with rider and saddle can do 27mph. Usain Bolt can do ~ 28mpg at the top speed between 60m and 80m marks on a 100m race. Almost nobody else in the world can outrun a cow charge.
But even if it took 4 seconds for the cow to get into the road, now subtract the 1.5 seconds it takes for an attentive human to respond, and they have 2.5 seconds of braking. ~ 15fps braking is normal, so you'll hit the cow at 54mph. Now, starting from 60mph you'd hit that cow at 35mph; just slow enough for your airbags to save you.
The real problem is that you can't assume you'll have 4 seconds, and that isn't because of the cow running out in the road. The problem is that at 80mph it will take 7.8 seconds to stop, which is over 900ft. So you have to not only see that there is an object near the road, but decide it is dangerous and slam on the brakes when you're almost 1000ft away. On wide open roads the visibility is often less than that right on the road just from various optical illusions. At 60mph you only need 515ft to stop; that is a lot more realistic to make decisions about stopping at that distance.
With a moose, if you stop that might be just the beginning of your troubles.
I'm not normally the tinfoil type, but I've burned down this road so many times this seems like the most likely cause.
And there are so many security holes in the old versions, I can't go back. If it was safe I'd be using one from 5 years ago, when the quality was still fairly high.
In order to receive federal highway dollars, States have to establish and enforce speed limits. This is tested by the federal government by doing spot checks of traffic. They have to give out some number of tickets based on the percent of people speeding and the total traffic on the road, in order to be compliant.
Generally in the US speeding is enforced using radar guns that have a stated error of 5mph, so it needs to be at least 6mph over the limit to make a worthwhile ticket. At least 8 over is the general unofficial police rule, and many cops use 10 over.
If they want to ticket you for 1 mph over they can, but they would have to follow you for a significant distance and measure their own speed following, or time your travel between 2 mile post markers and show your average speed was over the limit.
Speedometers in the US show a slightly higher speed than reality, they are highly unlikely to show a low speed.
On straight, flat ground 20 and 55 are going to be about the same for something large and slow like a cow. 80 gets into different territory because most people don't have good enough distance vision, so by the time the supposed shrubbery resolves into a cow, there isn't enough stopping distance left.
There is if you're risk averse and would prefer to be driving 85 but only drive 72 because some cops will start ticketing at 73. Then you're plugging up the road and you know it, but won't drive faster.
Also, if you get the ticket you might see the change as a real change.;)
As a foreigner I'd have hoped you'd be more offended by the faux-surprise at NSA spying, and the big whoopdy-whoop they made about it, when it wasn't news to them and they were doing it too.
You seem bothered by the technical incompetence without being bother by the lying about who the enemy is, even creating a fake enemy that in reality is a friend (USA), in order to hide what they themselves were doing.
If this is the common German attitude, then I think we can expect the German government to stay the same but get better at feeding you BS.
The funny thing is that one of his examples has just such a general provision; the courts say it is not vague, and that it does specify what is illegal.
It is actually somewhat controversial and if you read legal blogs you'll see lawyers writing about it all the time. Accountants write about it too. There are lots of people who got hit with this law who have supporters who say they got swept up in felony enforcement merely for having bad judgement and being ignorant, or for following the advice of their bank teller. The prosecutors and the courts consistently say no, they intended to avoid tax reporting and some people just don't consider that to be as important as the law tells them it is.
The courts don't mind these types of provisions, because they do in fact clearly state what is illegal, and define it. The danger with these laws is that prosecutors have a more difficult time getting a conviction because it is all about intent, and the intent can be difficult to prove. When there are more physical parts of the law for people to violate, then the prosecutors have an easier time; they only have to prove that you intended to do a physical thing, which is proven by showing that you did it, and were under your own control. Something like structuring, they have to prove that you intended to avoid the requirement; for example if they can prove that your business had $12k in cash to safe-keep, and you deposited $9k in the bank and $3k in the company safe, and then you deposited the money in the safe at a different time, and you repeated this pattern. Some real cases are even thinner than that. Certainly at least some of the people doing this were only trying to minimize paperwork and were not in fact intending to avoid paying their taxes, which is the source of the controversy about it. But from the side of the courts, there is no actual controversy.
Your loopholes don't have any loopholes in them. The gambling one, any normal anti-child-gambling law will cover that already. The kid is originating the bet, and no new provision is needed there. The fact that you did the crime and nobody at the track cared has nothing to do with what the law says, or what is legal. Also, the adult who helped you was probably acting as an illegal bookie. That's the thing; you may in fact have hit a situation without a loophole, but where you shifted the risk from the track, to the adult helping you. It is still illegal and in the same way.
In the second example, it is illegal in the US to "structure" deposits to avoid the $10k reporting requirement. Lots of people go to jail for that. Some had even been following advice from their banker, which isn't a valid excuse. There are not 100 ways around this law, there are not any ways around this law. There are probably ways to avoid getting caught, but if you admit your actual behavior you will go to jail. There is no magic formula you can call out, "alakazam - loophole open!" And if there was, it would still be illegal structuring. The law goes after all deposit structuring to avoid reporting, it does not, and does not need to, list out the fine details of each of your 1000 "creative" techniques. They aren't creative and won't create anything.
Just because motivated jerks can "undermine" legislation doesn't mean the world is filled with the loopholes you imagine, or that the actual things that are illegal are as fuzzy as you think.
Frequent smokers are unlikely to get bloodshot eyes unless they smoke more than their normal daily peak dose. Not everybody munches. Not everybody driving stoned will have smoked it in the car, just like not every drunk driver drank in the car. The effects last 5-8 hours, after all.
It is entirely unreasonable to expect that to be universally the case across a population of humans.
The only rational expectation is that behavior will be distributed according to a natural distribution and some of that behavior will be exceptionally good or bad.
But they weren't predicting anything. They talk about their discovery and reporters want to ask about products, and they say, "oh, it will be at least 10 years before this makes it into a product." There is no actual prediction there. When I hear actual predictions they're usually more like "10-30 years." 10 years is enough time for all sorts of things to fall together. And if it isn't a product in 30 years, maybe it never will be.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a lot more likely. The relationship with Israel is more nuanced. They would be used sometimes, but they're not a default go-to. Canada is a dear friend all the time in any country, though.
That's why the US intelligence agencies will always know what you're doing. You believe in security theater, home-made variety.
You're reading something into the layman's explanation that isn't in the bill. They aren't allowed to do it with a different word, either.
Laws aren't that flexible. People make the mistake of thinking so because they don't realize that when lawyers are arguing about the meaning of a word, it is a technical jargon word that laypeople don't understand. A law never means a different thing just based on what word you use to describe your behavior.
You derped all over yourself there. Your claim doesn't even survive the headline, you don't need to have read the summary. ;)
Sounds like your State needs a "ballot initiative" process. There is no good reason to get stuck with bad laws. In my State only parents with children "have to" have electric access, (and even then only if it is the primary source of heating) and you can hook up to the grid with a home install as long as you have an approved inverter. (~$750 minimum these days, used to be $1500) Of course, we also only get wholesale credit for power sent to the grid.
Education + ballot initiative system + vote-by-mail = politicians that ask the engineers what to do.
People see Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) kicking ass and they might wonder how to get a good Senator. Have good State-level politics. How do you do that? Have an initiative system and use it a few times to over-rule the State-level morons everybody starts with. Then primary out the legislators who voted for whatever was repealed. (both parties) POW! Now you have a State legislature that cares about what voters want, who are scared to get their wrists slapped, who will refer controversial bills directly to the people. It creates an improved voter culture too, which is where Senator Wyden comes in.
Every single State legislator who voted yes on a bill repealed by voters in the next election has lost their primary. Every single one. Both parties. It works, and it is like a miracle in changing the tone and reducing the power of lobbyists.
My public utility is totally behind renewables and if they could reduce the demand from the community they would.
They are "greenies," as are most Americans.
So both the claim that utilities are scared, and the claim that greenies think they are scared, these are both dubious to me.
Demand won't actually shrink, growth will flatten. Greedy companies will freak out, public utilities will breath a sigh of relief.
Pizza Hut often has pizza with free toppings, you just pay based on size. The more toppings you choose, the less you get of each one. There is no reason for this to change the price based on their typical menu.
Thanks for playing, but you're accusing Ruby of having some deficiency so big that it isn't usable. That is complete nonsense. I'm a professional Ruby programmer, the idea that I would do some benchmark and find out, "golly gee, this is so slow nobody can use it. Derrrr" I mean, seriously. Ruby has been in use for decades, get over yourself. There is no possible way for you to suddenly discover that it is so slow that clients are wishing for PHP. It is laughable, because the usefulness of Ruby is not theoretical. It is being used in the wild.
It is up to the accuser to provide the benchmarks that show whatever they are accusing. You won't find them, because Ruby doesn't have slow regex, and is actually quite good at the text-munging tasks that involve lots of regex.
When you're accusing people who advocate something specific in a specific case of believing software "...should depend on some new random interfaces systemd invents to solve some minor problems in a new incompatible way" then you've given up on even the claim of intellectual honesty.
Especially where they cite actual, specific, non-random, real technical reasons, and you claim to be aware enough of the situation to form an opinion. If you know enough to know you disagree, you'd have to know that you're disagreeing with real things, real technical decisions that are actually happening, and have known, public reasons. Pretending to disagree, but actually just pretending that there were no reasons for the decisions, is just dishonest.
You are telling knowing lies here.
If you're expecting cows to jump out of your way, you're not going to survive a rural highway in cattle country. Seriously, you have to slow way down for corners, and you have to keep an eye out for dust in the distance and slow down when you see it. You can't drive 85 and wait to see the cow. And you'll probably find out that the accident will be your fault, and you just bought a whole cow.
Sheep will try to run, but don't count on them being smart enough to succeed.
Goats might stand in the lane and make you stop, then bite the valve stem off your tire. Accelerate as soon as the goat clears the bumper, don't give it any time for mischief.
Thanks for playing, but it isn't slow, and you haven't shown it to be slow. Benchmarks linked by google show Ruby to have faster regex than python, so clearly, fast enough to be used in the wild. ;) Oh yeah, we already knew Ruby is indeed used in the wild.
Post your benchmark results already, lets see it. Show that Ruby is so awful that it makes it untrue that "if you assume the exact same idiots actually get hired either way, their bad Ruby isn't any worse than their bad PHP would be." It would have to be so bad to make Ruby not even usable, but we know that isn't true.
Well, just for the record, that doesn't change what I said. I stand by it.
A well-tended roadside will still have various objects on it. There will be roadside objects, and most of them will be stationary. They will include shrubberies, even when well-tended. A large number of people with vision within the range accepted by the DMV for driving will be unable to distinguish cows and stationary roadside objects at 80mph until they are inside the stopping distance.
BTW the top speed for a cow is 25mph, not 5mph. If cows could only run at human walking speed, cowboys wouldn't need to ride horses. Kinda sucks to be that far off with your basic facts, and then to do the math anyways. If you make up the fact, why not just make up the conclusion, why bother with fake math? BTW, the average human top speed is only 22mph. A horse with rider and saddle can do 27mph. Usain Bolt can do ~ 28mpg at the top speed between 60m and 80m marks on a 100m race. Almost nobody else in the world can outrun a cow charge.
But even if it took 4 seconds for the cow to get into the road, now subtract the 1.5 seconds it takes for an attentive human to respond, and they have 2.5 seconds of braking. ~ 15fps braking is normal, so you'll hit the cow at 54mph. Now, starting from 60mph you'd hit that cow at 35mph; just slow enough for your airbags to save you.
The real problem is that you can't assume you'll have 4 seconds, and that isn't because of the cow running out in the road. The problem is that at 80mph it will take 7.8 seconds to stop, which is over 900ft. So you have to not only see that there is an object near the road, but decide it is dangerous and slam on the brakes when you're almost 1000ft away. On wide open roads the visibility is often less than that right on the road just from various optical illusions. At 60mph you only need 515ft to stop; that is a lot more realistic to make decisions about stopping at that distance.
With a moose, if you stop that might be just the beginning of your troubles.
I'm not normally the tinfoil type, but I've burned down this road so many times this seems like the most likely cause.
And there are so many security holes in the old versions, I can't go back. If it was safe I'd be using one from 5 years ago, when the quality was still fairly high.
In order to receive federal highway dollars, States have to establish and enforce speed limits. This is tested by the federal government by doing spot checks of traffic. They have to give out some number of tickets based on the percent of people speeding and the total traffic on the road, in order to be compliant.
Generally in the US speeding is enforced using radar guns that have a stated error of 5mph, so it needs to be at least 6mph over the limit to make a worthwhile ticket. At least 8 over is the general unofficial police rule, and many cops use 10 over.
If they want to ticket you for 1 mph over they can, but they would have to follow you for a significant distance and measure their own speed following, or time your travel between 2 mile post markers and show your average speed was over the limit.
Speedometers in the US show a slightly higher speed than reality, they are highly unlikely to show a low speed.
My State is doing a big tailgating enforcement thing right now, it is very popular.
On straight, flat ground 20 and 55 are going to be about the same for something large and slow like a cow. 80 gets into different territory because most people don't have good enough distance vision, so by the time the supposed shrubbery resolves into a cow, there isn't enough stopping distance left.
There is if you're risk averse and would prefer to be driving 85 but only drive 72 because some cops will start ticketing at 73. Then you're plugging up the road and you know it, but won't drive faster.
Also, if you get the ticket you might see the change as a real change. ;)
As a foreigner I'd have hoped you'd be more offended by the faux-surprise at NSA spying, and the big whoopdy-whoop they made about it, when it wasn't news to them and they were doing it too.
You seem bothered by the technical incompetence without being bother by the lying about who the enemy is, even creating a fake enemy that in reality is a friend (USA), in order to hide what they themselves were doing.
If this is the common German attitude, then I think we can expect the German government to stay the same but get better at feeding you BS.
The funny thing is that one of his examples has just such a general provision; the courts say it is not vague, and that it does specify what is illegal.
It is actually somewhat controversial and if you read legal blogs you'll see lawyers writing about it all the time. Accountants write about it too. There are lots of people who got hit with this law who have supporters who say they got swept up in felony enforcement merely for having bad judgement and being ignorant, or for following the advice of their bank teller. The prosecutors and the courts consistently say no, they intended to avoid tax reporting and some people just don't consider that to be as important as the law tells them it is.
The courts don't mind these types of provisions, because they do in fact clearly state what is illegal, and define it. The danger with these laws is that prosecutors have a more difficult time getting a conviction because it is all about intent, and the intent can be difficult to prove. When there are more physical parts of the law for people to violate, then the prosecutors have an easier time; they only have to prove that you intended to do a physical thing, which is proven by showing that you did it, and were under your own control. Something like structuring, they have to prove that you intended to avoid the requirement; for example if they can prove that your business had $12k in cash to safe-keep, and you deposited $9k in the bank and $3k in the company safe, and then you deposited the money in the safe at a different time, and you repeated this pattern. Some real cases are even thinner than that. Certainly at least some of the people doing this were only trying to minimize paperwork and were not in fact intending to avoid paying their taxes, which is the source of the controversy about it. But from the side of the courts, there is no actual controversy.
Your loopholes don't have any loopholes in them. The gambling one, any normal anti-child-gambling law will cover that already. The kid is originating the bet, and no new provision is needed there. The fact that you did the crime and nobody at the track cared has nothing to do with what the law says, or what is legal. Also, the adult who helped you was probably acting as an illegal bookie. That's the thing; you may in fact have hit a situation without a loophole, but where you shifted the risk from the track, to the adult helping you. It is still illegal and in the same way.
In the second example, it is illegal in the US to "structure" deposits to avoid the $10k reporting requirement. Lots of people go to jail for that. Some had even been following advice from their banker, which isn't a valid excuse. There are not 100 ways around this law, there are not any ways around this law. There are probably ways to avoid getting caught, but if you admit your actual behavior you will go to jail. There is no magic formula you can call out, "alakazam - loophole open!" And if there was, it would still be illegal structuring. The law goes after all deposit structuring to avoid reporting, it does not, and does not need to, list out the fine details of each of your 1000 "creative" techniques. They aren't creative and won't create anything.
Just because motivated jerks can "undermine" legislation doesn't mean the world is filled with the loopholes you imagine, or that the actual things that are illegal are as fuzzy as you think.
Frequent smokers are unlikely to get bloodshot eyes unless they smoke more than their normal daily peak dose. Not everybody munches. Not everybody driving stoned will have smoked it in the car, just like not every drunk driver drank in the car. The effects last 5-8 hours, after all.
It is entirely unreasonable to expect that to be universally the case across a population of humans.
The only rational expectation is that behavior will be distributed according to a natural distribution and some of that behavior will be exceptionally good or bad.
Only for 5-8 hours
But they weren't predicting anything. They talk about their discovery and reporters want to ask about products, and they say, "oh, it will be at least 10 years before this makes it into a product." There is no actual prediction there. When I hear actual predictions they're usually more like "10-30 years." 10 years is enough time for all sorts of things to fall together. And if it isn't a product in 30 years, maybe it never will be.
Yeah, I didn't think there was any "rift," I just thought, "wow, cyanogen hates choice and hates being open."