A major issue I have is with the utter lack of the ability to challenge such claims.
It is one thing for a police officer to be in 'hot pursuit' and literally chasing a suspect or other obvious clue that a crime is in progress or imminently likely. In those cases, while there is no guarantee that there will be evidence which can prove that the police officer is telling the truth, there is a very strong possibility that such a claim could be subject to counter-evidence. A passerby could witness the police officer chasing the suspect into a home, or a passerby (or security camera, or dashcam, etc) could witness the police officer just walk into the home with no cause. In other words, in those situations if the officer lies, he has a non-zero risk that those lies could be exposed.
This contrasts greatly with 'smell' evidence. In continuing the theme above, there is literally no possible way to disprove the officer's statement. No one can say that the officer did not smell pot because the entire process utilizes ephemerial evidence and is processed entirely within the officer's mind. Even if someone was standing on the exact same porch and said they smelled nothing, that is not going to be enough evidence to overturn the initial 'finding' of the officer's nose (as part of any challenge against evidence later obtained based on the 'alert' of the smell)
Any statement which cannot be falsified under any circumstances should NOT be acceptable. Understand, it this doesn't mean that a 1 on 1 conversation between two people in a locked room 20' underground can't be brought into court, because it is possible (if not probable) that such a conversation could have been overheard or taped, and thus subject to potential contradiction. I'm referring to statements which are utterly unfalsifiable. It is almost tantamount to the officer claiming justification based on ESP.
That said, I'm also deeply concerned because even in the event of valid detection/alert, it doesn't mean a crime has/is being committed in that location. All it means is that XYZ chemical/smell was detected at that location. We all know that smells travel, linger, cling, and very pertinent to this topic: transfer.
My friend's father smoked tobacco. He would pick up my friend from school, and I would hitch rides home with him from time to time. My mother would always know when I rode home with Mr. Jones, her nose was sensitive enough that even though no one was even smoking in my presence, simply riding in the car with a person who smoked earlier in the day was enough for her to 'alert'. In my opinion, a mere smell should not be cause for a search, it could certainly be cause for increased interest and investigation for actual evidence, but in itself shouldn't be sole justification.
Unfortunately, if they do allow something like this, despite claims that such activity would be 'infeasible' due to manpower/technological limits, we all know that such infeasibilities will evaporate in only a few years as companies scramble to sell departments handheld chemical sensors (or until departments redirect funds to sniffing units) And by then, the search will be established and such 'expectations' we have to not be sniffed will be settled law.
In my 'ideal dream world', even if such a search is allowed, there would be punishments for false positives. An officer that smelled 'xyz' better find that 'xyz' in the subsequent search or be subject to penalties/punishment. Right now, there is no mechanism in place to deal and that is deeply disturbing because the entire process is currently unfalsifiable.
Unless someone is so fat they risk falling through the floor onto the person below them there is literally no harm they do which is not voluntarily taken on by society.
Drunk driving has a direct and likely INVOLUNTARY cost. You don't have to pay for obesity if you dont want to.
In Windows 7 the address bar shows little triangles between folder names instead of slashes. A difference yes, but is it really that big of a difference?
Actually, yeah.
If I want to point someone to a folder, I can click anywhere on the bar and control-C to copy the address. With windows 7, I have to click on the small little folder icon, which will then display the address with the drive\folder\subfolder format. If I missclick it will send me to the root of that drive.
If I want to change to a different folder by simply typing in a character, I've got to click on blank space or the little icon to switch over to the address style format, etc.
Yeah, pretty minor stuff, but it was still an annoyance. And we are talking about UI issues, minor annoyances build up and make the whole experience bad even if the software itself 'works'.
It's like the ribbon in office. I hate that thing with a passion. I've tried to use it, and I'm sure that focus studies have placed all the appropriate icons in the optimal places.... but it doesn't work for me, I don't like it, and I don't like how much time I waste looking for a damned button with a little picture that someone decided looked like what I was trying to do rather than the damned word.
"Oh, yeah, you want to do that... well just click on 'Home' (because that's descriptive) and click on the little rectangle with the thick black line above and to the side.... NO not the one with the arrows on the end of the line."
In the end, every other damned piece of software I use utilizes a dropdown text (and sometimes text/icon) menu system so that's what my brain is expecting to see.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if the two main systems I use at work didn't have different versions of office, 2003 and 2007. (I think). So I'm always able to see exactly what I want out of the corner of my eye.
Yeah again, ranting about minor details. But this is the internet, next to porn and lolcats what else is there?
I'm sure that there is some setting that would fix this for me, but I really dislike the feeling of Windows 7 with regard to traversing directories and library management.
1. I like my address bar on my windows to show the old style "C:/folder/1/2/3/another/andthefile.file" 2. The behavior of the 'back' button is different than the 'up' button.
Sometimes what is 'back' is NOT one level up in the directory structure. I didn't like having to click on the weird folder list thing that the address bar became. It required extra thought. Here is how I like to work:
1. I have a 'Project' Folder with a/budget and a/contract folder in it. 2. Under/budget there may be/archive,/proposed,/alternative, etc 3. I'm working in/proposed and I decide I want to open up a SOW to double check a task description. 4. by muscle memory I know I can go "CLick CLick" on the up arrow and I'll be in 'root' of my project directory structure.
Sure, I could look at the address bar and click the 'Project folder' but somehow that just doesn't work as well for me. Probably because I will combine it with use of the back button.
Up Up "Contract" click on SOW, Back Back Back and I'm again in my 'proposed' directory.
It may not be logical why I like it like that, but it's what I find to have become my method and... well, it works for me damnit.
It makes a big difference when criminal charges or lawsuits are filed.
In the US at least, there are laws which apply extra penalties for people if they willfully violate them. For 99.99% of all email traffic, things like this don't mean anything. However, when you start dealing with things like breaches of confidential data, trade secrets, PII, proprietary information... it makes a big difference.
Working in the Defense Industry, one of the big things that we work hard to remind our workers of, is that it is VERY important to mark things properly with respect to Proprietary information.
The very LAST thing you want is a big contract win subject to protest because a dumbass project manager forgot to mention that one of our competitors accidentally cc'd them on their cost data. Even if we would have won the contract anyway, the whole thing now becomes a huge waste of money and can potentially kill the entire program.
It's important, and it DOES have legal force, just not in the "Oh I said that was confidential so you can't repost it" manner that a lot of people think it does.
The problem is the concept that a self inflicted collective impact of a behavior is in itself sufficient justification for governmental authority over that behavior. Why is it unreasonable for those who want to provide welfare programs to assume the risk that providing that service might have behavior linked costs?
The important difference that people advocating increased authority seem to miss is that there are costs that society bears without consent (ie violence and theft) and costs that society consensually accepts (social healthcare means society intentionally assumes the cost). The former is why we form a police force. The latter is something we decide to apply to ourselves. When looking at consensual costs, we need to just accept them as part of the deal.
I just see the 'cures' from increased regulation over my personal behavior to be much worse than the disease (healthcare cost)
It pisses me off because I know that a lot of potential accessories were held back from the market because the Nexus was banned.
It's my one complaint about this phone atm, that there are so few things in the way of mounts, etc.
(It's also why Apple's decision to go with thunderbolt is damned annoying. Nothing like seeing speakermounts which could be standard split into two 'camps' on store shelves)
I was confused as hell, but here is what I've gleaned:
1. Most noble gases were dissolved in/embedded in the early Earth's rock. 2. Xenon due to a variety of factors, did not behave in a similar manner, and thus was free floating in the early atmosphere. 3. A 'big event', like the event that caused Earth's moon to form also knocked the original atmosphere into space. 4. Because almost all of the xenon was in the atmosphere at the time of the event, it was literally lost (from the perspective of the Earth) to space and was either acquired by the other planets or sun, or blown by the solar wind out to the edge of the solar system and beyond. 5. Some small amounts of xenon were recaptured by Earth (like how the bits that formed the moon are still 'bound' to Earth) and those small amounts are what we measure in our current atmosphere.
In short:
Xenon exists in the atmosphere, not rocks. Impact event knocks off Earth's atmosphere (and the Xenon), Earth's atmosphere is replaced by outgassing from the previously saturated rock. The rock did not contain Xenon, so we have only trace amounts today.
That's kind of my point though. It means you have to check the MX records of everyone you ever email just to ensure that it isn't being sent to be processed?
It's a bit of two front problem. We need to be able to communicate easily with people, and we need the ability to be secure in our communications. Checking the MX records for everyone violates that first aspect.
We need a system that behaves like, well mail. You send a letter TO someone, and if anyone screws with it or reads it enroute they can be prosecuted. It's sad because it isn't like a letter is anything close to secure, but we seem to pretend that with things like email that just because something is technically possible it is justified.
There is nothing really technically preventing the post office from reading the contents of your letters, so we made sure our laws said 'don't do that'. We really need the same approach with email. Sure, you would have to trust the entity handling your email, but the same is true for letters. And nothing in this would prevent you from encoding your email (as you can now) just as you can currently encode your letters.
And in the end, you still have to rely on the recipient protecting that data. I don't think it is unreasonable for a ban on scanning incoming email outside of the purposes of blocking spam, etc. Just a brief period of protection that terminates at 'delivery'.
So what happens when I setup my email at IndustrialComplex@fakeaddress.com to be processed by gmail?
Not that I think the lawsuit is valid, but you can't really know that google will be handling the mail beforehand without some serious investigation going on.
Well, it looks like something bugged and it stripped out the middle part of my comment. What happens when a metal detector has a false positve? You step back, take off your belt, and try again. less than 10s
When this device has a false positive, you don't KNOW it's a false positive, it just says "I DETECTED EXPLOSIVES ON THIS GUY". Where are the explosives? Well, it doesn't tell you that, so now you have to check everything about this guy, including his luggage, which is probably already on the plane. You are probably going to want to check the luggage of his travel companions because that might be how it got on him. So you are probably going to have to dig out his luggage at a minimum, pull him to the side and do a full invasive search because chemical 'smells' aren't really localized and it could be in his shoe, his undergarments, maybe it was his hair that set off the sensor... etc. Wasted time greater than 10 minutes possibly even up to an aborted flight.
In other words, a false positive, if you actually believe the sensor, is going to require a real thorough search.
If you don't believe the sensor, then you won't perform the full search, but then that raises the question: If you aren't going to treat your sensor as if you believe what it reports, what is the use of the sensor?
What happens when a metal detector has a false positve? You step back, take off your belt, and try again. 10 minutes possibly even up to an aborted flight.
In other words, a false positive, if you actually believe the sensor, is going to require a real thorough search.
If you don't believe the sensor, then you won't perform the full search, but then that raises the question: If you aren't going to treat your sensor as if you believe what it reports, what is the use of the sensor?
Imagine it like this: You are told to use 1 full spraycan of paint per wall, and thousands of walls to paint. The can of paint is not enough to cover the entire wall.
No matter how hard you TRY to paint each wall the same way, if you look hard enough, there will be differences in the spray pattern. Even if you noticed the differences, there really wouldn't be anything you could do to eliminate them, and trying to duplicate a pattern would probably require millions of attempts to get it 'just right'.
It's not so much that the GPUs are manufactured with differences, it's that the differences are actually defects in the manufacturing. Trust me, the GPU makers would LOVE to be able to produce them without any variation, but for now and the probable future, any chip of similar complexity is going to have a bit of a 'fingerprint' due to fabrication defects.
'Need' is quite an interesting term to use when discussing faux leather stitching on a calendar app.
Of course, I disagree with this UI designer as I think it is important to provide visual clues in an icon that denotes its purpose/function. If it helps people realize that the icon with a Month and the number 31 is a calendar, well, then it does serve a purpose.
I'm not knocking you, I just thought the concept of considering older person's needs when referring to this topic was just an amusing phrase.
In pretty much every jurisdiction that has updated their laws since the internet was invented.
Accessing a computer without authorization is illegal (pretty much everywhere). Knowing HOW to access the computer does not grant authorization for access. Don't confuse the ability to do something with permission to do it. Otherwise, simply posessing the key to a house would imply permission to enter the house.
Every single time I've done something like your method, I've often found myself 'fearing' or finding myself in need of a charge for some device or another. It's not exactly fun to worry that a device want to use on the other end may be down to 10% power by the time you land.
First, we can't assume that there is a right or wrong in the fact that people will want to use electronic devices, and that they will want them to be available. With that in mind, we have to assume that people may want to USE those devices, and that's where planning ahead by charging becomes insufficient.
I will typically charge up my phone the night before, but it is real easy to drain a smartphone over the course of a coast-to-coast trip in the US. 1 hour to the airport, 1.5 hours there, 4 hours first flight, 2 hour layover, 2.5 hour second flight.
If you actually USE your equipment during those periods, it is very easy to discharge a full battery even if you carefully manage what features are turned on. Let's say your flight is delayed, a couple extra hours get inserted in there, perhaps there is road construction on your way to an unfamiliar airport and you run some GPS app on your phone to route you through the unfamiliar city, even if you use a car charger, those things are powerhungry and can drop a phone's battery at an astounding rate. (a nasty surprise is finding out that the GPS app was still running in the background as you waited at the security line and your battery is now at 20%)
I'm sorry, but no. Pre-charging a device doesn't even come close to providing a solution to the problem. Even IF I'm sure that I'll have enough charge to last a flight, I still top off in the terminal if I get the chance.
When I lived up North, I didn't just keep my car's gastank full when bad weather was approaching. I kept a spare 5 gallons with me just in case. I also made sure to keep it topped off if it ever dropped to 75%. Sure, 6 hours of run-time for my engine should be fine, but it was a hell of a lot nicer knowing that should I get stranded, I'd be able to run it for an entire night.
But when it comes to portable electronics, it's never a sure thing as to how long it is going to last. I prefer to have the option to keep it topped off while travelling.
Slashdot Mirror
A major issue I have is with the utter lack of the ability to challenge such claims.
It is one thing for a police officer to be in 'hot pursuit' and literally chasing a suspect or other obvious clue that a crime is in progress or imminently likely. In those cases, while there is no guarantee that there will be evidence which can prove that the police officer is telling the truth, there is a very strong possibility that such a claim could be subject to counter-evidence. A passerby could witness the police officer chasing the suspect into a home, or a passerby (or security camera, or dashcam, etc) could witness the police officer just walk into the home with no cause. In other words, in those situations if the officer lies, he has a non-zero risk that those lies could be exposed.
This contrasts greatly with 'smell' evidence. In continuing the theme above, there is literally no possible way to disprove the officer's statement. No one can say that the officer did not smell pot because the entire process utilizes ephemerial evidence and is processed entirely within the officer's mind. Even if someone was standing on the exact same porch and said they smelled nothing, that is not going to be enough evidence to overturn the initial 'finding' of the officer's nose (as part of any challenge against evidence later obtained based on the 'alert' of the smell)
Any statement which cannot be falsified under any circumstances should NOT be acceptable. Understand, it this doesn't mean that a 1 on 1 conversation between two people in a locked room 20' underground can't be brought into court, because it is possible (if not probable) that such a conversation could have been overheard or taped, and thus subject to potential contradiction. I'm referring to statements which are utterly unfalsifiable. It is almost tantamount to the officer claiming justification based on ESP.
That said, I'm also deeply concerned because even in the event of valid detection/alert, it doesn't mean a crime has/is being committed in that location. All it means is that XYZ chemical/smell was detected at that location. We all know that smells travel, linger, cling, and very pertinent to this topic: transfer.
My friend's father smoked tobacco. He would pick up my friend from school, and I would hitch rides home with him from time to time. My mother would always know when I rode home with Mr. Jones, her nose was sensitive enough that even though no one was even smoking in my presence, simply riding in the car with a person who smoked earlier in the day was enough for her to 'alert'. In my opinion, a mere smell should not be cause for a search, it could certainly be cause for increased interest and investigation for actual evidence, but in itself shouldn't be sole justification.
Unfortunately, if they do allow something like this, despite claims that such activity would be 'infeasible' due to manpower/technological limits, we all know that such infeasibilities will evaporate in only a few years as companies scramble to sell departments handheld chemical sensors (or until departments redirect funds to sniffing units) And by then, the search will be established and such 'expectations' we have to not be sniffed will be settled law.
In my 'ideal dream world', even if such a search is allowed, there would be punishments for false positives. An officer that smelled 'xyz' better find that 'xyz' in the subsequent search or be subject to penalties/punishment. Right now, there is no mechanism in place to deal and that is deeply disturbing because the entire process is currently unfalsifiable.
Unless someone is so fat they risk falling through the floor onto the person below them there is literally no harm they do which is not voluntarily taken on by society.
Drunk driving has a direct and likely INVOLUNTARY cost. You don't have to pay for obesity if you dont want to.
In Windows 7 the address bar shows little triangles between folder names instead of slashes. A difference yes, but is it really that big of a difference?
Actually, yeah.
If I want to point someone to a folder, I can click anywhere on the bar and control-C to copy the address. With windows 7, I have to click on the small little folder icon, which will then display the address with the drive\folder\subfolder format. If I missclick it will send me to the root of that drive.
If I want to change to a different folder by simply typing in a character, I've got to click on blank space or the little icon to switch over to the address style format, etc.
Yeah, pretty minor stuff, but it was still an annoyance. And we are talking about UI issues, minor annoyances build up and make the whole experience bad even if the software itself 'works'.
It's like the ribbon in office. I hate that thing with a passion. I've tried to use it, and I'm sure that focus studies have placed all the appropriate icons in the optimal places.... but it doesn't work for me, I don't like it, and I don't like how much time I waste looking for a damned button with a little picture that someone decided looked like what I was trying to do rather than the damned word.
"Oh, yeah, you want to do that... well just click on 'Home' (because that's descriptive) and click on the little rectangle with the thick black line above and to the side.... NO not the one with the arrows on the end of the line."
In the end, every other damned piece of software I use utilizes a dropdown text (and sometimes text/icon) menu system so that's what my brain is expecting to see.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if the two main systems I use at work didn't have different versions of office, 2003 and 2007. (I think). So I'm always able to see exactly what I want out of the corner of my eye.
Yeah again, ranting about minor details. But this is the internet, next to porn and lolcats what else is there?
I must have a very precious version of windows indeed. No wonder I loved it so much!
(I actually never noticed the direction of the slashes on windows before... weird.)
Damnit, it's going to be one of those can't unsee things isn't it? Well, two can play that game. You are now aware of your tongue.
I'm sure that there is some setting that would fix this for me, but I really dislike the feeling of Windows 7 with regard to traversing directories and library management.
1. I like my address bar on my windows to show the old style "C:/folder/1/2/3/another/andthefile.file"
2. The behavior of the 'back' button is different than the 'up' button.
Sometimes what is 'back' is NOT one level up in the directory structure. I didn't like having to click on the weird folder list thing that the address bar became. It required extra thought. Here is how I like to work:
1. I have a 'Project' Folder with a /budget and a /contract folder in it. /budget there may be /archive, /proposed, /alternative, etc /proposed and I decide I want to open up a SOW to double check a task description.
2. Under
3. I'm working in
4. by muscle memory I know I can go "CLick CLick" on the up arrow and I'll be in 'root' of my project directory structure.
Sure, I could look at the address bar and click the 'Project folder' but somehow that just doesn't work as well for me. Probably because I will combine it with use of the back button.
Up Up "Contract" click on SOW, Back Back Back and I'm again in my 'proposed' directory.
It may not be logical why I like it like that, but it's what I find to have become my method and... well, it works for me damnit.
It makes a big difference when criminal charges or lawsuits are filed.
In the US at least, there are laws which apply extra penalties for people if they willfully violate them. For 99.99% of all email traffic, things like this don't mean anything. However, when you start dealing with things like breaches of confidential data, trade secrets, PII, proprietary information... it makes a big difference.
Working in the Defense Industry, one of the big things that we work hard to remind our workers of, is that it is VERY important to mark things properly with respect to Proprietary information.
The very LAST thing you want is a big contract win subject to protest because a dumbass project manager forgot to mention that one of our competitors accidentally cc'd them on their cost data. Even if we would have won the contract anyway, the whole thing now becomes a huge waste of money and can potentially kill the entire program.
It's important, and it DOES have legal force, just not in the "Oh I said that was confidential so you can't repost it" manner that a lot of people think it does.
There's not a metal on Earth that, even if transport prices to/from Mars dropped by a factor of 100, would be worth fetching from Mars.
Well duh, of course if it's a metal on Earth why send it to Mars?
If you were not in my same location, I couldn't give you cash.
Cash transmission via mail takes days.
Paper transmission via mail takes days plus the amount of time you sit on the check to ensure it clears.
Western Union requires you to go to them and charges a fee
Credit cards charge a fee (if they provide the service).
Bitcoins can be transferred to you with nothing more than an internet connection and an address.
The problem is the concept that a self inflicted collective impact of a behavior is in itself sufficient justification for governmental authority over that behavior. Why is it unreasonable for those who want to provide welfare programs to assume the risk that providing that service might have behavior linked costs?
The important difference that people advocating increased authority seem to miss is that there are costs that society bears without consent (ie violence and theft) and costs that society consensually accepts (social healthcare means society intentionally assumes the cost). The former is why we form a police force. The latter is something we decide to apply to ourselves. When looking at consensual costs, we need to just accept them as part of the deal.
I just see the 'cures' from increased regulation over my personal behavior to be much worse than the disease (healthcare cost)
It pisses me off because I know that a lot of potential accessories were held back from the market because the Nexus was banned.
It's my one complaint about this phone atm, that there are so few things in the way of mounts, etc.
(It's also why Apple's decision to go with thunderbolt is damned annoying. Nothing like seeing speakermounts which could be standard split into two 'camps' on store shelves)
I was confused as hell, but here is what I've gleaned:
1. Most noble gases were dissolved in/embedded in the early Earth's rock.
2. Xenon due to a variety of factors, did not behave in a similar manner, and thus was free floating in the early atmosphere.
3. A 'big event', like the event that caused Earth's moon to form also knocked the original atmosphere into space.
4. Because almost all of the xenon was in the atmosphere at the time of the event, it was literally lost (from the perspective of the Earth) to space and was either acquired by the other planets or sun, or blown by the solar wind out to the edge of the solar system and beyond.
5. Some small amounts of xenon were recaptured by Earth (like how the bits that formed the moon are still 'bound' to Earth) and those small amounts are what we measure in our current atmosphere.
In short:
Xenon exists in the atmosphere, not rocks. Impact event knocks off Earth's atmosphere (and the Xenon), Earth's atmosphere is replaced by outgassing from the previously saturated rock. The rock did not contain Xenon, so we have only trace amounts today.
That's kind of my point though. It means you have to check the MX records of everyone you ever email just to ensure that it isn't being sent to be processed?
It's a bit of two front problem. We need to be able to communicate easily with people, and we need the ability to be secure in our communications. Checking the MX records for everyone violates that first aspect.
We need a system that behaves like, well mail. You send a letter TO someone, and if anyone screws with it or reads it enroute they can be prosecuted. It's sad because it isn't like a letter is anything close to secure, but we seem to pretend that with things like email that just because something is technically possible it is justified.
There is nothing really technically preventing the post office from reading the contents of your letters, so we made sure our laws said 'don't do that'. We really need the same approach with email. Sure, you would have to trust the entity handling your email, but the same is true for letters. And nothing in this would prevent you from encoding your email (as you can now) just as you can currently encode your letters.
And in the end, you still have to rely on the recipient protecting that data. I don't think it is unreasonable for a ban on scanning incoming email outside of the purposes of blocking spam, etc. Just a brief period of protection that terminates at 'delivery'.
So what happens when I setup my email at IndustrialComplex@fakeaddress.com to be processed by gmail?
Not that I think the lawsuit is valid, but you can't really know that google will be handling the mail beforehand without some serious investigation going on.
Simple, you describe how your concept will work.
Proceed beyond the conceptual stage and determine if your concept holds up. If it does, congrats, your patent is valid.
If it doesn't work, you better hurry up and get a NEW patent because your old patent won't cover your now changed method/invention.
Sweet!
2 is actually a decrease as well since the probability of death before sexual maturity is still greater than 0.
Well, it looks like something bugged and it stripped out the middle part of my comment.
What happens when a metal detector has a false positve? You step back, take off your belt, and try again. less than 10s
When this device has a false positive, you don't KNOW it's a false positive, it just says "I DETECTED EXPLOSIVES ON THIS GUY". Where are the explosives? Well, it doesn't tell you that, so now you have to check everything about this guy, including his luggage, which is probably already on the plane. You are probably going to want to check the luggage of his travel companions because that might be how it got on him. So you are probably going to have to dig out his luggage at a minimum, pull him to the side and do a full invasive search because chemical 'smells' aren't really localized and it could be in his shoe, his undergarments, maybe it was his hair that set off the sensor... etc. Wasted time greater than 10 minutes possibly even up to an aborted flight.
In other words, a false positive, if you actually believe the sensor, is going to require a real thorough search.
If you don't believe the sensor, then you won't perform the full search, but then that raises the question: If you aren't going to treat your sensor as if you believe what it reports, what is the use of the sensor?
What happens when a metal detector has a false positve? You step back, take off your belt, and try again. 10 minutes possibly even up to an aborted flight.
In other words, a false positive, if you actually believe the sensor, is going to require a real thorough search.
If you don't believe the sensor, then you won't perform the full search, but then that raises the question: If you aren't going to treat your sensor as if you believe what it reports, what is the use of the sensor?
My understanding is that even a 'perfect' chip is just a chip that achieved a certain set of criteria.
Sure, all your cores work, but there is a lot going on in there, and other areas like memory that may not be perfect.
Detecting is not the same as replicating.
Imagine it like this: You are told to use 1 full spraycan of paint per wall, and thousands of walls to paint. The can of paint is not enough to cover the entire wall.
No matter how hard you TRY to paint each wall the same way, if you look hard enough, there will be differences in the spray pattern. Even if you noticed the differences, there really wouldn't be anything you could do to eliminate them, and trying to duplicate a pattern would probably require millions of attempts to get it 'just right'.
It's not so much that the GPUs are manufactured with differences, it's that the differences are actually defects in the manufacturing. Trust me, the GPU makers would LOVE to be able to produce them without any variation, but for now and the probable future, any chip of similar complexity is going to have a bit of a 'fingerprint' due to fabrication defects.
When dealing with the government? Fair. Always.
You present the options like they are mutually exclusive. How about laws that fairly promote safety?
Should we just dismiss their needs?
'Need' is quite an interesting term to use when discussing faux leather stitching on a calendar app.
Of course, I disagree with this UI designer as I think it is important to provide visual clues in an icon that denotes its purpose/function. If it helps people realize that the icon with a Month and the number 31 is a calendar, well, then it does serve a purpose.
I'm not knocking you, I just thought the concept of considering older person's needs when referring to this topic was just an amusing phrase.
Congratulations. Here is your warp drive. Unfortunately, you tossed the guy who knew how to maintain it under a bus.
In pretty much every jurisdiction that has updated their laws since the internet was invented.
Accessing a computer without authorization is illegal (pretty much everywhere). Knowing HOW to access the computer does not grant authorization for access. Don't confuse the ability to do something with permission to do it. Otherwise, simply posessing the key to a house would imply permission to enter the house.
No, it doesn't solve the problem.
Every single time I've done something like your method, I've often found myself 'fearing' or finding myself in need of a charge for some device or another. It's not exactly fun to worry that a device want to use on the other end may be down to 10% power by the time you land.
First, we can't assume that there is a right or wrong in the fact that people will want to use electronic devices, and that they will want them to be available. With that in mind, we have to assume that people may want to USE those devices, and that's where planning ahead by charging becomes insufficient.
I will typically charge up my phone the night before, but it is real easy to drain a smartphone over the course of a coast-to-coast trip in the US. 1 hour to the airport, 1.5 hours there, 4 hours first flight, 2 hour layover, 2.5 hour second flight.
If you actually USE your equipment during those periods, it is very easy to discharge a full battery even if you carefully manage what features are turned on. Let's say your flight is delayed, a couple extra hours get inserted in there, perhaps there is road construction on your way to an unfamiliar airport and you run some GPS app on your phone to route you through the unfamiliar city, even if you use a car charger, those things are powerhungry and can drop a phone's battery at an astounding rate. (a nasty surprise is finding out that the GPS app was still running in the background as you waited at the security line and your battery is now at 20%)
I'm sorry, but no. Pre-charging a device doesn't even come close to providing a solution to the problem. Even IF I'm sure that I'll have enough charge to last a flight, I still top off in the terminal if I get the chance.
When I lived up North, I didn't just keep my car's gastank full when bad weather was approaching. I kept a spare 5 gallons with me just in case. I also made sure to keep it topped off if it ever dropped to 75%. Sure, 6 hours of run-time for my engine should be fine, but it was a hell of a lot nicer knowing that should I get stranded, I'd be able to run it for an entire night.
But when it comes to portable electronics, it's never a sure thing as to how long it is going to last. I prefer to have the option to keep it topped off while travelling.