the HP website told me I should not attempt to run any other operating system or even a dual boot and if I do so, my sound, graphics, network card and many other computer components will not operate properly. Funny--I thought I bought a computer with an operating system, not an operating system with a computer.
If your graphics card supports DirectX10, they're not actually lying.
Sometimes such evidence can be thrown out of a case (see STATE OF OREGON v. VITALIY V. MATVIYENKO). In such an event, only the circumstantial or eyewitness evidence will be admissible -- the officer's testimony that the driver was drunk, and (if we're lucky) his video, or maybe a few additional witnesses.
Imagine, if you will, that someone gets pulled over for swerving erratically. The officer gives him a sobriety test, which he fails, and then breathalyses him, which he also fails. However, the breathalyzer is thrown out for a reason such as the one above, and then in court the man swears up and down that he wasn't even drinking that night, that maybe he was just a little tired. Now, the officer's testimony might not be enough to convict him in this case. But imagine if the cross examiner could come up immediately afterwards and grill the witness about the information in this database which shows he was at a bar just an hour earlier?
Don't get me wrong, I like my privacy. I also don't like bloated federal programs that may not have any tangible benefit whatsoever. But I don't think that busting someone who is DUII is ever a bad thing; I mean, to sound perfectly cheesy, when you drive drunk, everyone loses. Pointing out that this system might reduce DUII's is really a bad argument for axing it.
"this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases"
I mean, I can see some other reasons that this might be a bad system, but I don't think this is one of them...
If one of your loved ones were on such a flight, would you still be so coldly analytical? Suppose it were your wife? Your son? Your parents? Of course it's worth the money. Every human life is priceless to their dear ones.
What if we spend the $40 billion protecting the planes, but because we spent the money there we weren't able to protect X number of young girls who were abducted from urban areas without enough police presence and street lights? Would you still be so hotly irrational?
It's impossible to know where tragedy will strike, so it's best to spend your money protecting against the most probable attacks (since you only have so much of it to spend).
It isn't guaranteed that it will press the right one all of the time. And, when it eventually screws up, and gets the reward anyway, you'll start to undermine the persistence of the behavior you trained.
It could still work. I'm just pointing out a glaring roadblock.
Slashdot Mirror
the HP website told me I should not attempt to run any other operating system or even a dual boot and if I do so, my sound, graphics, network card and many other computer components will not operate properly. Funny--I thought I bought a computer with an operating system, not an operating system with a computer.
If your graphics card supports DirectX10, they're not actually lying.
Does anybody really give a fuck about unborn babies? No. The only people who care about unborn babies are unborn babies themselves.
If this has a genetic basis (almost certain)
Cite a source.
So doesn't this all kind of suggest that maybe the internet really IS a series of tubes?
This convicted monopolist
Monopoly isn't inherently illegal, though the FTC may still split your company. Anti-competitive practices are illegal.
Paying for music? Eating at McDonald's?
I think you might be lost little sheep, the rest of the herd went that way.
Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy
All politicians are PC guys! duh!
I'm not even sure why the vast majority of them are even bothered marking private
That's because, on myspace, either your entire profile is private, or none of it is.
I didn't argue that it was a bad idea *because* it might help in a DUI case
Nah, that was just the loon who wrote the article summary.
Does this mean if I advocate OLPC I am supporting America? ... How sad. I thought this was an International effort.
I must have missed the news on the day that America was no longer a nation.
and grill the witness
I'm sorry, I meant to say "the defendant."
Sometimes such evidence can be thrown out of a case (see STATE OF OREGON v. VITALIY V. MATVIYENKO). In such an event, only the circumstantial or eyewitness evidence will be admissible -- the officer's testimony that the driver was drunk, and (if we're lucky) his video, or maybe a few additional witnesses.
Imagine, if you will, that someone gets pulled over for swerving erratically. The officer gives him a sobriety test, which he fails, and then breathalyses him, which he also fails. However, the breathalyzer is thrown out for a reason such as the one above, and then in court the man swears up and down that he wasn't even drinking that night, that maybe he was just a little tired. Now, the officer's testimony might not be enough to convict him in this case. But imagine if the cross examiner could come up immediately afterwards and grill the witness about the information in this database which shows he was at a bar just an hour earlier?
Don't get me wrong, I like my privacy. I also don't like bloated federal programs that may not have any tangible benefit whatsoever. But I don't think that busting someone who is DUII is ever a bad thing; I mean, to sound perfectly cheesy, when you drive drunk, everyone loses. Pointing out that this system might reduce DUII's is really a bad argument for axing it.
You'll notice that I specifically quoted the part about DUII's.
If you don't like the windows tax, build it yourself.
"this 'drinking record' could also create problems for people in civil and criminal lawsuits as proof of alcohol purchases in DUI cases" I mean, I can see some other reasons that this might be a bad system, but I don't think this is one of them ...
If one of your loved ones were on such a flight, would you still be so coldly analytical? Suppose it were your wife? Your son? Your parents? Of course it's worth the money. Every human life is priceless to their dear ones.
What if we spend the $40 billion protecting the planes, but because we spent the money there we weren't able to protect X number of young girls who were abducted from urban areas without enough police presence and street lights? Would you still be so hotly irrational?
It's impossible to know where tragedy will strike, so it's best to spend your money protecting against the most probable attacks (since you only have so much of it to spend).Opportunity cost
as droves of people logged on to complain about corruption among officials
Could this have been a denial of service attack?
I mean, a lot of people out there would have cause to mess with China.
Pirated music sounds atrocious? If so why is it so popular?
Why is McDonald's popular?
Oh, stuff it. It was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek and it was hilarious.
A lot of people still read the newspaper ... hell, I'm only 20 and I read the Financial Times.
It isn't guaranteed that it will press the right one all of the time. And, when it eventually screws up, and gets the reward anyway, you'll start to undermine the persistence of the behavior you trained.
It could still work. I'm just pointing out a glaring roadblock.
who are fed thousands of images a day to sort-for-food
How do you determine whether or not to reward the animal without already knowing what is in both pictures?
And if you already know, what's the point?
Because super villains always respect authority?
criminality has always favored the not so bright
Don't be so sure.
Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to exercise it.