That said, the maker community is not exactly small, and I think it's entirely reasonable for a device like this to be content with targeting that particular market, but in the end the maker community is still going to represent a fairly small fraction of the total number of appliance users out there. Trying to measure the appeal of a device that tends to appeal only to one relatvely tiny community by looking at the general population is not going to be indicative of how desirable that thing is for people who could actually use it.
Why does a 3d printer require mass consumer appeal to take off? What's wrong with it just being an appliance thats going to only most strongly appeal to somebody in the maker community?
Where do you figure you have only one loopback address?
0xfe80::/64 is explicitly reserved for link-local addresses in ipv6. You can add as many as you want.
Or is 18 quintillion addresses not enough for you?
And they were only able to 'smell' it BECAUSE they pulled him over. Which they only did BECAUSE of the tip
Which they are legally allowed to do.... when conducting any kind of impaired driving investigation (which is what the police were technically doing), they do not require any reason at all to suspect that any particular driver has been drinking to have just cause to expect them to pull over and ask the driver if they have had anything to drink that evening, and if so, how much. That they received an allegation that a particular driver was impaired gave them more than enough cause to track down the vehicle and briefly question the driver. His rights were not infringed. Police checkstops, which largely exist as preventative measure, and are most common during holidays or celebratory special events, would not be legal otherwise.
That the officers witnessed nary a minor traffic violation nor any other âoesound indici[um] of drunk driv ing,â ante, at 8, strongly suggests that the suspected crime was not occurring after all.I don't know if you realize this, but the police do not need any so-called substantiated reason to puill a vehicle over and ask the driver if they have been drinking... police are allowed to pull over and interrogate *ANY* driver that they choose, at any time, in the interests of pursuing impaired driver infractions, whether or not there is any basis to presume that the driver might be impaired. Police checkstops, which are most common around the holidays, are an excellent example of this. Actual allegation of impaired driving gives them even more than just cause to track a vehicle down and interrogate the driver.
Such interrogation, however, will generally only amount to whether or not the driver has been drinking, and (sometimes) asking where they are going or coming from (to ascertain the likelihood that there may be liquor present). If the officer is satisfied no law is being broken, then the vehicle is completely free to go. If, during said interrogation, evidence of any crime does become evident, then that can legitimately warrant additional investigation.
In no way were this persons rights infringed on when he was pulled over for alleged impaired driving.
"These are not cars for tree-huggers, as tree-huggers do not buy new luxury cars." Yeah? What about the 25,000 people that have bought a Tesla Model S in the last two years? They might beg to differ."
The thing that occurs most obviously to me is that most of the tens of thousands of people who have bought a Tesla Model S in the last two years are probably not your typical treehuggers.
A person's word that an infraction has been comitted does, however, reach the status of being able to ask the suspected vehicle to pull over and expect the driver to answer at least one question, which probably would have only amounted to "have you had anything to drink tonight?", perhaps with a caveat that they had received a report about the vehicle so that the driver understands the reason for the question. Police don't even really *need* a reason to expect that you answer such a question (roadside checkstops being an excellent example of this)... The fact that they had received a tip that identified a particular vehicle is more than enough to justify them tracking the car down and questioning him.
Of course, you can, if you want, always say that you won't answer any questions without your lawyer, but considering the nature of the question, all doing that would be liable to do is end up with you being detained until your lawyer actually arrived. If one isn't driving impaired in the first place, what possible rational reason could one have for not answering a question they would ask absolutely *anybody* they had stopped on suspicion of impairment?
Even if you had the plate #, you'd still need to tell the police where and when you had allegedly seen the vehicle. It would fairly quickly be determined that it was a false report. Bear in mind that deliberately making a a false police report is a crime.
Oh... and perhaps you were unaware, but 911 traces all calls. Still want to make that false report?
If the [sic] constitutes a 'public performance,' then so does the act of downloading a copyrighted document stored in a cloud storage service
Who stored the copyrighted document on the cloud storage device? If it was the user who had already purchased the rights to said storage from the provider of the copyrighted content then there's no problem at all. If it was the cloud service itself or somebody else that stored it there, ready for any end user who pays for the service to access it, then I can see there could be problems