|
On the plus side it will increase use of the car pooling lane anyway
|
|
|
|
|
I know one researcher who isn't married.
|
|
|
|
|
Better than sleeping if there is an emergency. Of course the car may be safer without the driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which probably means that we'll see a few niche self-driving cars on the market in a few years. No seats, just tinted windows and a comfortable mattress.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
All of us could've predicted that (and we probably have somewhere, just not on a news website) 
|
|
|
|
|
How do we get code a developer (or some random stranger) writes into production? copy con \\server\program ?
|
|
|
|
|
Not for me: [^].
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
What they are really saying is that prescription medicine abuse can be monitored. And who determines your amount of pain and what you need to control it...why throw it in a formula and if you come out on the wrong side of the equation they will cut you off.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
What is "appropriate" is determined by the person who has to take the medications, not the doctor.
As for the costs that they are using as a justification; it is a nonsense-number 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have blight on mine.
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Soon you'll please their appetite
They devour
Topping on pizza crushes you
Overpower
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
A Southern California woman was recently ordered to provide her fingerprint to unlock a seized iPhone, according to a report by the Los Angeles Times. Could she pick which finger to use?
|
|
|
|
|
Why do I think now the action-movie "demolition man"? 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see what the big deal is. As long as there is a warrant, a person should be required to unlock their phone, whether it's locked with a passcode or a fingerprint, pattern, facial rec, etc
Why would a smartphone be protected by the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself but their home, car, etc. would not? The government can search your property when they have a warrant - wouldn't that include smartphone, computer, physical safe, etc? It's not like the police can show up at my door with a warrant and I can say, "no, I can't let you in, because I have the right not to incriminate myself."
|
|
|
|
|
It's been a while since I studied this, so I may be wrong, but I believe that there is a distinction between something like giving a fingerprint or blood sample and providing a passcode. The 5th amendment protects against giving incriminating testimony against oneself. The courts have interpreted that to mean things that reveal the contents of a person's mind or knowledge. So, since fingerprints and blood/DNA samples do not reveal the contents of a person's mind or use their knowledge against themself, they are legally permissible. Passcodes are not since they reveal the contents of a person's mind or what they are thinking.
Similarly, people can be forced to provide a key for a safe but not the combination.
As to whether that's right or not, that debate has been going on for a long, long time. Personally, history has shown me that I'd rather err on the side of the individual than err on the side of the government. Governments have historically proven to abuse power when given too much of it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I was reading, too. I just don't understand why there would be a distinction. I would generally be in favor of the rights of the individual over the government, but in this case I think making a distinction between a key for the safe and the combination, that just seems silly. It doesn't make any sense. Whether one believes the government should get into the safe or not, it shouldn't matter what method the owner uses to secure it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
Unlocking your phone for them is tantamount to providing evidence against yourself, and that's a violation of the 5th amendment. The courts (and by extension, law enforcement) cannot compel you to testify against yourself.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Unlocking your phone for them is tantamount to providing evidence against yourself, and that's a violation of the 5th amendment. The courts (and by extension, law enforcement) cannot compel you to testify against yourself.
I understand what the argument is - I just don't think it makes sense. The government can force you to open your front door so they can come in and search your house when they have a warrant (or they'll just break it down, and they're not going to pay to repair it, AFAIK). How is that different from opening the "front door" of your phone or computer by unlocking it for them?
Again, I understand that current legal precedent says that those ARE different, I just don't agree.
|
|
|
|
|
“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report. Mental note: watch out for falling asteroids when crossing the street
|
|
|
|
|
I really am a lot more worried about a car killing me. The article stated in the next 100 years. Not likely to live another 100 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Not likely to live another 100 years.
Speak for yourself! I am hoping that medical breakthroughs will keep me going at least another 200+ years.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Just hope it is not a 100+ years in an iron lung
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
