Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:'Cuz they'll stop making non-AI versions (Score 1) 110

If the toaster has good brownness and heat-bounce sensors, I'm not sure AI is needed: just turn up or down the heat cells where needed to keep it even. Statistical analysis may be needed to manage adjacent cells, but once the formulas are known via lab testing it should be predictable.

Comment Firefox has some kind of leak (Score 1) 110

on my PC. I can't see it in Task Manager, but start getting "out of memory" errors after a couple of weeks and have to reboot. Restarting Firefox alone is insufficient to clear it. I suspect it has something to do with the graphics card rather than primary RAM, and could be co-caused with some other app.

Comment Re:Actively stalking is a different behavior ... (Score 1) 253

But the purpose of the stop was not enforcement of the vehicle code.

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations 24 -- or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered -- we cannot conceive of any legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1400 (1979)

Comment Re:Actively stalking is a different behavior ... (Score 1) 253

In California, as I suspect in most states, the driver is required to produce a license and registration when being pulled over for a traffic stop.

California Vehicle Code 12951(b) states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code."

Since the vehicle was not involved, the stop would not require a license to of produced. Of course, the cop would lie and make up a reason.

Comment Re:Actively stalking is a different behavior ... (Score 1) 253

Part of the job of the police is to prevent crime. They don't have to wait for the angry ex-boyfriend stalker to hurt someone, they can have a conversation before that to prevent things from going too far. It absolutely is not. Courts have ruled again and again that the police have no duty to protect. No, you falsely conflate the officers actual intentions with the cover your ass policies that exist for when they do not show up in time.

No, when they decide not to show up or release someone that they should have detained.

If you are not suspected of a criminal act, the police have no business detaining you, full stop. Absolutely untrue, if there is a public safety concern no specific crime is necessary to have an interview.

Read Terry v. Ohio | 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) 542 U.S. 177

Comment Re:Actively stalking is a different behavior ... (Score 1) 253

In many states, there is no requirement to show ID unless arrested. In other cases, there still has to be reasonable suspicion (the Terry standard).

Detaining someone for 1 second without reasonable suspicion violates the 4th amendment. Pulling someone over is not a consentual encounter, but the officer is probably trained to turn it into one. Extending the stop is unconstitutional. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015),. I suspect that even a diminimus extension would be unconstitutional. So, a false report could be argued a civil wrong, even when causing a deminimus delay.

Slashdot Top Deals

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire

Working...