That would be why we don't accept a bullet entering a person as "probable cause" to believe the shooting is justified.

It's fine to use the dogs to find drugs. It is not fine to consider the dog alerting to be probable cause.

They do have uncanny accuracy for telling drugs from not drugs. They are also a pack animal and want to please their master. So it doesn't take them long to learn when their master will be pleased if they act like there's drugs in a car. It takes quite a while longer to teach them the fine points of the Constitution.

It's easy to just claim there must have been drugs in the car at one time and write it off.

Even if you bought your car brand new, you cannot be sure that nobody on the assembly line had drugs on them nor that a salesman at the dealership never rolled one in the car.

What do you base the claim of consistency on? I haven't seen any analysis showing any consistency at all in the field.

Am I the only one who sees that as the "adult" version of siblings in the back seat: "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!".

You know, your rant would have a lot more meaning if it weren't based entirely on a flawed assumption: that Google is changing non-mobile search ranking based on mobile site quality. They're not. Google is only changing the ranking of results delivered to mobile devices. The goal is to give people searching on mobile devices results that will work better on their devices.

They do know, and they do want that. That's the whole point.

It's broken because it subverts democratic representation and allows the already fantastically wealthy to get a bit more wealthy at the expense of moving everyone else closer to a situation like East Germany before the fall.

That's exactly what Google is doing. It's pretty clear in Google's announcement: "We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results" (emphasis mine). See for yourself http://googlewebmastercentral....

This is exactly the idea behind Lawrence Lessig's[*] brainchild: MAYDAY PAC. It's a PAC whose mission is to end all PACs (including itself). It raised some money and tried some things in the last election cycle, but didn't succeed. However, Lessig says they learned some lessons and are gearing up to try again.

Check it out at http://mayday.us./

[*] If you don't recognize that name it's because you haven't been paying attention to these issues. Among other things, Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons.

The thing is, it wouldn't just suck for people who know what they're doing. VOIP and some games won't work well that way either. Anything like that needs to be seen as a stopgap only running in parallel with IPv6 deployment. There actually are people claiming that more NATting faster is an actual solution to the problem INSTEAD of IPv6.

It's important not to mistake the bridge to the solution for the actual solution.

One way it might help is that it will make IPv4 feel very much like the second class citizen.

I have no doubt you will have a few id10t's calling rattling off (fake) credentials or actually meaning they managed people who did those things.

But honestly, is it so much to ask that the card flipper automatically ping the customer's router and others on their street before haranguing them to reboot their modem, router, PC, car, cell phone, and cat before even considering the possibility that they might know what they're doing?

Quite honestly, with some very basic training and proper tools, there's no reason any of my connection down calls should take more than 30 seconds to result in a truck roll even if they don't believe a word I say. For that matter, with proper monitoring, the truck should be rolling by the time I call.

To top it off, in addition to better customer satisfaction, they would save money by keeping the calls short and especially by avoiding rolling a contractor truck that has no ability to fix the actual problem on the line.

In the general case, 60+ year old adults DO have the most problem with that simply because computers were not part of their life until recently. There are, as usual, exceptions in the form of people who actually worked in the field and so had access to computers (and a reason to access them) much longer.

It'snot that younger people are somehow smarter or better, it's just that they have had longer (in general) to learn about computers.

The experience thing goes both ways. I found it amusing in a "Kids React" video where they were looking at an old desk phone and were thoroughly confused about things like rotary dialing. The best comment though was that it was too bulky to fit in your backpack, clearly not understanding that it was expected to remain on the desk. Again, not a matter of intelligence or other virtue, just a matter of life experience.

ISPs are a problem here, but so are equipment vendors. There has been a push for v6 over 2 or three hardware upgrade cycles. In theory, the vast majority of hardware in an ISPs plant should be just awaiting configuration. Alas, much of that equipment was only v6 checkbox capable rather than meaningfully capable. Cisco sold a lot of gear that used the custom ASICs to route v4 and the anemic CPU to route v6. It all looked fine in the demo, but falls right down under a production load.

Part of the problem is that the incumbents have massive blocks of IP addresses that they got when they were handed out like water. Back when nobody really looked at the justification section of the IP request. It's the new players that have a real problem getting addresses assigned. Next I suppose there will be a place to attach your latest colonoscopy report.

Have you actually worked with drug sniffing dogs? I have. They're actually the real deal in almost all cases. In fact one of my immediate family members owned a retired one. I also do work with tracking dogs as a hobby. While I don't doubt for a moment that there are some crooked cops using drug dogs inappropriately, this does not accurately or fairly describe most of them. Simple fact is that they are commonly used to find contraband and are successful in doing so regularly. They are successful in finding drugs WAY too often for it to be merely false positives to allow illegal searches.

Google's system will likely penalize tactics like this as not truly "mobile-friendly"