Quite. I'd be surprised if some spotty little herbert in Vilnius hasn't hacked it already.
I don't think looking ahead to a future where this will require additional electrical code is "FUD". I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Let's say they did have a deliverable, and failed to consider installation issues until that day. Now *that* would be an "end run around reality". Anybody bringing product to market should definitely be considering how it will fit in the regulatory regime.
And while we're on the subject of products that haven't hit the market yet; that's a much more obvious criticism here. The Slashdot community of "ass holes" or whatever it was you said is skeptical because we've seen A LOT OF PROMISES THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT from companies that said they had some new PV tech. Remember a little company called Solyndra?
Anyway, I'm kinda done for the night. I have a late-night Illuminati disinterment meeting at the local grave yard. It'll be a long night, then I've gotta get up, recover from the blood hangover and get to the office in time to review the kitten-killing report. Damn that report. I hope they put the proper cover-sheet on it this time.
You'll notice I never said science fiction authors have a good understanding of nature, just a better one than your average artist.
Yes, I noticed. That I pointed out the fallacy in that belief seems to have escaped you in your rush to build a strawman and set it alight.
Nerd fight! Nerd fight! Oh wait, I'm a participant. Would a disinterested 3rd party please mock us by shouting "Nerd fight! Nerd fight!"?
Sorry but I think this is just another example of how the Internet is a flawed communication medium. I can't imagine that it would be like this at a cocktail party.
I mean, try to imagine me with a beer in my hand saying, "Won't there be code compliance issues, since you're trying to route power around window frames?" and you immediately throwing down your martini and shouting "Industry Shill" before anybody has a chance to say, "chill out dude, He's just a programmer".
Dude, switch to a different strain or just toke once next time. The medical stuff is not like the ditch weed you smoked in high school.
I'm in Juneau Alaska. The only way in and out of town is via plane or boat
... we are WORSE than rural. ... As of noon today, we just got 100Mb ..... something is wrong there.
100Mb? But we're talking about network connections, not the size of your flash drives.
If I had grey windows, I'd get less heat from open blinds in the Winter. I'd have to burn more gas.
That said, tinted windows on office building are already the norm so it could work in that setting. It all comes down to cost. Also, what kind of innovative code compliance will you need for wiring from every window?
Here's the text of the amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Note that it says that right of people to be secure is against unreasoanble searches - it doesn't say that any warrantless search is unreasonable. The second part describes how a warrants have to be issued when they are issued.
Much like the comma in 2A, it can be argued what the actual intent of 4A is - though I think the argument in favor of reading this as two separate clauses is stronger here, both from the wording, and in light of historical applications. For example, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has argued that 4A made it impossible for officers of law to enter premises without a warrant in hot pursuit, while chasing a criminal. If you accept that such is legal, then clearly not any "reasonable search and seizure" requires a warrant. OTOH, once you admit an exception like that, it kinda snowballs from there, so now we have a very complicated set of rules and exceptions defining what is reasonable and what isn't - and they are certainly not common sense.
Either way, the standing legal interpretation (as defined by various SCOTUS decisions) is the one which treats the two clauses of 4A as separate, and so warrantless searches are deemed legal in some circumstances. Furthermore, they have decreed that dog sniffing around the car is not a search at all, and therefore 4A does not apply. You can disagree, but if it comes to court, this is the standard by which you will be judged.
Honey, I decided what I want for Christmas...
Well, you said I should get more exercise, and it'll fit great in your "sewing room" that you haven't used since 1998.
He has Google, FaceBook and Twitter on his list. In those three cases the product is You.
Butt-hurt is the Right's fallback position for everything.
They live to be victims. Victims of a "war on christmas" or "violation of religious liberty" everytime someone says, "Happy Holidays". If someone asks a right-wing political candidate what they read, it becomes a "gotcha" question. If gays are allowed to marry, it becomes an "attack on the institution of marriage" as if two women going to city hall and getting a license is going to cause wives to start running out on their husbands.
There was a story this week on a "parody news" website about a schoolkid who was suspended because he wished his atheist teacher merry christmas. Of course, it wasn't true, but that didn't stop the Top Conservatives on Twitter from howling in outrage and death threats from pouring into the fictional teacher.
This imagined victimization has been cultivated by the Right for decades. Nobody should be surprised that it's been so effective on the knuckleheads.
And by the way, I am so proud that I have no idea what a "Duck Dynasty" is. I must be getting really old when I celebrate every instance of a new cultural phenomenon of which I am blissfully unaware.
I had millions of "KILL YOUR SMARTPHONE" bumper stickers ready to ship. Now what?
It should be noted that this is actually one of the reasons why so many people in Russia have a dash cam - because police is extremely corrupt.
(The other reason is because it's not just police, so if you get in an accident with some high-ranked official - which is entirely possible due to the way they tend to drive - they will try to bribe the police to make you the guilty party. It's not just an insurance thing, since it can mean felony charges if someone was hurt. And it sometimes reaches epically stupid proportions, like people being run over on a pedestrian crossing being charged with "assaulting" the driver by jumping at their car.)
It's like crypteia in Sparta: on Slashdot, you are encouraged to troll, but only so long as you're non-obvious enough to not get caught. If you do get caught, you're punished for not being eloquent enough with a negative Troll mod. ~
You know what the difference between Slashdot moderation, and police (or the agency that you represent here) is?
Your comment being modded down to -1, even if petty and unwarranted, only hurts your ego. A police officer can ruin your life at a moment's notice, either figuratively or literally.
Also, the reason why you're moderated the way you are is because most people here are sick and tired of you and the position that you represent. All your arguments have already been rehashed countless times and debunked thoroughly, so there's simply no point in addressing them again. At this point, you're going to be treated exactly as a Holocaust denier or a moon landing hoaxer - by whatever means are necessary to make you go away, or at least shut up, and stop annoying people. Those folks also regularly complain that their arguments are not heard and that they are a target of personal attack. I hope you enjoy being in that company.
(FWIW, I personally didn't ever mod down any of your comments.)