h4pless

Also, thank you for the response.

Alright, first off let me say that I am not a lawyer which is part of why I asked the question, but the first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

Belief in God is a pretty big establishment of many religions, and the free exercise of such an establishment includes the recitation of such prayers asking for his help. In as much, I believe there is a freedom of religion issue here and I do not understand the amendment to indicate that religious requirement to be necessary for protection under the first amendment.

My curiosity lies more with your 4th paragraph. Has anyone ever raised a constitutional argument for any use of a copyrighted work outside of the scope you have mentioned, which looks to be very clear that it only applies to religious gatherings, or has anyone questioned what constitutes a "place of worship" in our modern age? Is it completely beyond reason that someone could argue that the internet is their "place of worship"? Many people attend all sorts of religious ceremonies online. And their right to do that is I believe protected by the first amendment and I don't believe arguing peoples beliefs are really ever deserving of an argument.

[branching off to address the 3rd paragraph and question

To your other question that seems slightly off topic but seemed provoking, the reason these words became spiritually meaningful to me is that they describe a time in our nation's history when we were fighting a war that the American people had very little say in, in a foreign land and the best they could do was pray to God to see the country that they loved through.

There are a lot of things going on in and outside this country that most people can't do anything about more than pay attention to what's happening and hoping (/praying) for the best. So it seemed relatable to the situation we are in now.

And not that it's really any of your business but yes, my religion started after 1938, in fact it started around 2007 when I became disillusioned with the tenets of my religion, could not find a religion without the mandatory governance of law and ritual and cultivated my own belief system given my favorite teachings of many of the principle thinkers to create a system of belief for myself. Is that a problem?

end 3rd paragraph response branch]

Well to quote the quoted regulation:

"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"

They aren't really doing any of that are they? Do they say that LTE will never be available to you on your device? Or that you can only use it so many hours per day or only between such and such a time? I believe that is what would be required for them to violate these regulations. And it appears that they are acting within their legal rights to postpone their "mandatory inspections to make sure the devices aren't bugged with something that could disrupt their networks" or something. Are they doing it to gain a market advantage for a bit? Sure. Is it immoral? Maybe. But is it against FCC regulation? That's much harder to prove.

To say they are sidestepping regulation is one thing, or to say that they're being immoral for their corporate actions. But suggesting that they are violating FCC regulation is a statement of fact. A statement that could lead to you being sued with libel.

I'm not saying you are wrong to be upset, I'm just saying: be careful what you say.

The future is nigh.

I see this sensor as something that has an immense number of valuable uses to everyone, as well as creating an immense number of potential abuses.

Whenever I see new technology I think of the Mom and Pop shops, run by people who aren't a part of the technology movement and how it would effect them. And when I think of that shop and this device, I think of people being able to scan the store and not just to get a video image of the layout and camera locations, but a properly rendered floor plan of the store where one could pinpoint unsurveilled merchandise.

I also see a lot of regulation coming from this. Imagine a world where anyone can go to a store, pick up an object, scan it at the store and then go home and print it on a 3-d printer. It might require theft to be redefined and create a slippery slope for people who like to take pictures of things with their iPads for creative inspiration.

I'm not trying to argue against this technology by any means, but with every new technology that comes out, a lot of questions are raised for me.

I guess the issue for me is more focused towards humanity rather than the technology. It's probably a nonsensical concern as there's no way to know if we'd really be better or worse off with/without any technology that has been developed and disseminated. But like Uncle Ben/Voltaire said, ~"With great power comes great responsibility."

With the advancements in technology and their increasing acceleration, we are being spoon fed an increasing amount of power. My concern is whether or not we are responsible enough for it. This sensor looks amazing, and I can't wait to see the great uses for it but like every new technology that completely amazes me, it reminds me: The future freaks me out.

I am sorry to say that I assumed the author was her father for most of the letter. Her arguments made much more sense to me after rereading it with that information, but I guess it's a statement in itself that with the discussion of her technical background and her strong assertive tone, I assumed her a man. Reality: checked.

Carets are risky comment selectors aren't they? Who knows whose truth you'll be supporting next...

It's good that they did this for sure. I remember reading that people were also having problems with the rear glass shattering from the thermal shock of being placed on cold counter tops. I'd still probably get a case for it, though. If you have generally pretty dry hands like mine, a case can reduce the strain of holding on to a generally slippery phone. I also don't know if this would be changed by the little nubs but I had issues with it regularly sliding out of my pocket while on couches.

If you buy this phone, get a case for it. The thing slides off of pretty much anything, including apparently flat counter tops. Screen replacements are $130 and take 2 weeks. You won't get the awesome feel of the beveled edges, or the nice solid feeling of a thin but reasonably weighted piece of equipment, but definitely get a case lest you watch in horror as your shiny new phone crashes onto your hard tile bathroom floor after sliding off the granite counter top like a magical hovercraft.

This entire situation seems a bit backwards to me. As I read Andy Johnston's letter, I gather that 1) Trip hung up on Andy. 2) Andy thought this was rude. 3) Andy has a lot of friends in SF that use yelp. 4) Andy is going to tell his friends "how [Trip] treated [Andy] as well as [Andy's] feelings about the people who run Sauce."

While this is unprofessional to say the least, I see no extortion or anything like it all as the wording states that this recourse is based on a past event and is not contingent on Trip's future actions at all. Also it is everyone's right to tell their friends if they think a place or a person sucks, that's part of what friends are for. And Andy doesn't say that he's going to write a bad review or have his friends write a bad review, he just says that he's going to tell his friends how Trip treated him. That doesn't mean that his friends will necessarily write reviews for him and because of that there is no guarantee of harm in any way.

What's most interesting to me about this whole situation (and the part that seems backwards) is the Trip's way of dealing with this. So okay, a Groupon employee wrote an angry letter to a restaurant owner that was 100% unprofessional and was probably understood by the restaurant owner to be a threat of defamation by the Andy's network of friends. Trip's response? To publicly post the letters to Facebook along with the Andy's name, cell phone number and other contact information so that everyone else that doesn't like Andy's immature letter can call him any time of the day to tell him how much of a jerk he is? It seems a bit much.

Trip's response letter was well written and had good advice but I believe it should have ended there. By making this whole thing public, Trip is really acting no more mature than Andy was when he wrote the offending letter. Not to mention that it could open Trip up to legal liability as I believe California has laws regarding the publication of private facts (e.g. Andy's cell phone number). Either way, I think this whole situation demonstrates a lot of immaturity on both sides.

I thought the same at first and honestly expected that the guy had just flat out committed libel. But after a tiny bit of research, I found that his claims about the restaurant's cleanliness were in fact accurate. (http://bit.ly/16xkdCO)

So while he probably was just writing the review to help his friend, his review is informative and factually based so really, there is no reason to remove it or the guy's account as far as I can tell.

This also makes Andy J's threat to make his active Yelp friends aware of his discontent with the restaurant make all the more sense as they are obviously better at it than him.

Yeah, I believe this is the best point in the argument against pod transport. Even taking doctors out of the equation, if someone were to go into cardiac arrest on a plane, pretty much anyone on the plane would be qualified to operate an automatic external defibrillator and all flight attendants are required to be trained in CPR. The opportunity for first aid in this situation is the difference between life and death and it is unavailable in this pod design. 3 minutes without oxygen to the brain and serious brain damage is likely; 15 minutes without oxygen and you're pretty much guaranteed never to recover if you aren't already dead. If you have a cardiac episode on the hyperloop and need to be resuscitated, there's a good chance that the only good that those EMTs will do when the train arrives at its destination is to remove your dead body from the train.

$200/oz is hard proof that medical marijuana(MMJ) has driven down prices. I live in Colorado and used to be friends with the proprietor of an MMJ dispensay and he used to buy it for $4000 a pound or $250 an ounce and that was their per pound wholesale price. It was common when the MMJ businesses were starting up in CO for dispensaries to sell for ~$400 an ounce and grams at $20 which I believe was mostly comparable with street prices. The prices were driven down as more and more dispensaries entered the market and the competition became more fierce as a result of the market saturation to the point where they were advertising sub-$10 grams and sub-$200 ounces.

That $200/oz price may not be cheap to you, but it is half of what it used to cost and less than half of what these hippies can make selling it in New York.

An even better question to help is: Who is working on the new greatest technology, and how can I help?

Paul Graham and Steve Jobs weren't magical people... they are/were people who addressed the needs of the masses. Start looking at things that annoy you and figure out a way to fix them. That is way to better society.

Not to be snarky or anything but in short: we're currently working on the new ideas. Please give us a little bit of time before you ask Mr. Graham to give us a synopsis of the most logical projects to address. Trust me, whatever he wants done: there are people working on it. "What do you want to contribute?" is the more relevant question. What are your ideas for "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund"? and start working on those.

I was just looking at Revel too. But from the homepage:

Development Status: Early adopters only. Pull requests welcome. Development is closing in on the "final" 1.0 design, but the rate of change is still high. Expect to get your hands dirty.

Wouldn't quite appeal for people looking for a Go based Rails yet, but I would have to agree.. it does look very promising.

chicken = 0 and chicken = chicken/0 are both declarative which will break your chicken loop. Also, anything divided by 0 is undefined. Try:

chicken(chicken = 0; chicken < chicken/chicken; chicken++){

  chicken chicken;

}

Which in pure chicken chicken would be:

chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken

chicken chicken chicken

chicken

[Edit: Add chicken chicken interpretation]

You're totally right. I was reading it like a sentence. My bad.

I like the Chicken he threw in after the return for good measure. Just didn't have enough chicken without it.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term "Hacker" in the context of this site. From Google:

Hacker: 1. An enthusiastic and skillful computer programmer or user. 2. A person who uses computers to gain unauthorized access to data.

It sounds to me like you are confusing the second definition with the first. This is a site for people to find the the most relevant news regarding technology and anything else that people with such interest would find intellectually stimulating. The article has nothing to do with technology but does fit into the intellectually stimulating category if people here are interested in it but do not confuse that with this being a place to discuss "disobedience" as you put it.

You can think of this site as being "Technology Enthusiast News" with startups being one of the primary focuses of discussion.

Some bugs are incredibly complex, however I do not think that exposing the user id in an HTML form and having a skeleton key style confirmation code that is not directly linked to a specific user is a complex bug. I agree that you can't just pay some large sum of money to have everything fixed before release: bugs happen. But security should be one of the number one priorities when designing and developing a new feature. This seems like little more than negligence on the part of the dev team and I think it is right that people are upset/bewildered that a security bug like this could be put into a production feature.

Your app idea is a method I have used in the past. I started a note in Evernote and when I tried a new bottle of wine, I would take a picture of the bottle, write a comment of it's quality [Avoid, Okay, Pretty Good, Fantastic], write down it's basic characteristics, and then write what food I thought it would pair well with.

One thing I have noticed about wine though is that even with a bottle of wine that I really like, the next bottle I get of the same vintage might be terrible. What the article does not mention is how important environmental conditions are for storing wine and how a case of wine can sometimes get ruined in shipping, sitting on a store shelf or not allowed to breathe properly.

Because of the amount of variation in wine quality I have adopted the habit of just buying $6 - $15 bottles and when I find something I like, I stick with it until I stop liking it. If it's a special occasion, I will put my faith in a nicer brand that I have tried and liked before that I believe will pair well with whatever food is being served but for the most part, buying expensive wines is too much of a gamble for me. Especially considering that my wine palate is not much more complex than your 3-star system.

You know what? I agree. I think now it was wrong of me to suggest he was unpatriotic at all. He is a patriot and he is equally afraid of the consequences for being so. It is not my place to judge what level of commitment defines a patriot. This man has definitely served his country (I have never questioned his heroism) and his actions have cause international discussion. His actions will always be up for dispute whether or not they were the right course of action, but nobody will question the man who stopped the "big brother is watching you" argument from being a conspiracy theory into being a public fact that must be dealt with. The man is a world-wide patriot in that regard.

This was a man who was running before facing a trial or even charges. Not a man in the justice system. Who knows what really happened to him? Nobody. Because he was being secretive about his actions. He has allowed nothing but conjecture to his fate. I have been under investigation by the FBI; it doesn't mean they're going to kill you.

Hey insuffi,

Thanks for the reply. To your response:

1) I am not trying to say that he should have stayed in the country to begin with necessarily because his act could obviously be construed as treason and be silenced immediately if jailed. I was also not trying to suggest that he is not a hero to this country (because by many accounts, he is) but rather I was trying to suggest that a patriot does not abandon the country to which he claims patriotism [because that would be completely illogical].

Now, Snowden is a very public international figure. If he were jailed, people would be watching his case very closely. Snowden's situation is different from Bradley Manning's because when a judgement is made, everyone will care because he did in fact give himself enough time to find refuge in another country and spread a full story and reveal himself to the world. He is now a popular culture figure for many countries.

However, the reason he invites claims of espionage is that he claims refuge in other countries. A patriot does not need to turn himself over to the government but must turn himself over to the people of the united states. By running he only makes himself appear more guilty in many people's minds. And by running he also opens himself up to a lot of conjecture as to why he's running.

2) The government is doing damage control by charging him. They have an unanswered opinion that can be broadcast to most of the country because he is fleeing (this old adage still applies to many people: An innocent man has nothing to hide). He is ruining his patriotic reputation by running from the country because he is giving everyone a chance to step back and insight any opinion they may about his patriotism, mental stability or really anything.

As a patriot I would agree he is justly afraid. But what I meant to suggest that by running, he is proving himself as a saboteur or spy to people who agree with many media streams and is leaving many things up to justifiable question.

Thanks again infinity0,

I did not mean to suggest that he should stay behind to face the justice system which could be corrupt, I meant to say that he should stay behind and trust himself to the American populous, a lot of which considers him a hero.

When you are travelling around and running from something, things can happen. I've had a few friends die/be murdered while travelling in foreign countries so I have a personal reason to sort of understand when something happens or somebody dies while travelling. But at large in this country people have seen Taken or Hostel or some other anti-traveling movie that has conditioned them to think that travelling in inherently unsafe. By travelling you open yourself up to whoopsie-daisy style deaths in which it is just understood that you died because you were being incompetent in some fashion.

In the American legal system however, the jail which you are held in is responsible for your well being. And with somebody as high-profile as Ed Snowden, if something were to happen to him while he was in jail, everyone would know about it and some people would have to answer questions.

And if he were convicted of espionage while he was staying in this country, 1) His charges as a spy wouldn't make sense because it would be understood that he still considered himself a US citizen so he would have nobody to be accused to be spying for aside from the people of the US and 2) if he was convicted, imprisoned, executed or whatever could be the case, the laws and the legal system that did it would be under immense scrutiny by the ACLU, the EFF and anyone else the actions pissed off and would probably face extremely harsh repercussions.

Hey thanks for replying,

I agree that he would easily be found guilty of the charges if he were to present himself to a courtroom. But what I was trying to suggest was that if he admitted himself to the court system, and was found guilty, there is a much larger chance that there would be a lot more question as to whether or not the law was just (not to mention that if he stayed in country, espionage charges would make a lot less sense).

By running, he invites the comparison to being a spy. It will be a major talking point in the news to come. And it's generally unsafe. If he is still alive and well, he opens himself up to a lot of mortal vulnerability by travelling.

I wasn't trying to say that he wasn't a hero. In fact I think him one of sorts. I was just trying to say that he wasn't a patriot. A patriot does not fight against his country from a foreign country or abandon his land. I just believe that there is a major difference between being a patriot and being a national hero.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate feedback over a superficial down-vote. However I don't understand how I suggested that being a patriot is loving one's government.

Thanks for the reply and sorry for deleting the original comment. At the time I was getting down-voted without any feedback so I figured it worthless to keep it. But to your comment, I completely agree.

Snowden running is not something to be confused with an admission of guilt, but at the same time, it does prove that he is not a patriot. With his worldwide recognition: the safest course would be for him to publicly turn himself in to a US police station or deliver himself to a courtroom. He would have a very public trial and would have an even farther reaching message in this country. By running he shows that he has no faith in this country and no longer considers himself a citizen. Not only that but he opens himself up to a ridiculous amount of risk by being wide open in foreign countries where things are semi-expected to happen to travelers by this country. If something happens to him while he's in the legal system of this country, the people responsible for him would be crucified by the media and everyone else. Granted he could be silenced and have his reputation destroyed by the media while incarcerated in this country but I believe a patriot works with the system or fights within it, only a coward runs.

I haven't tested all the cases but this method seems to win every time I've tested it against myself:

Start on an edge-center container [N,E,S,W], marking it with it's corresponding sub-board space. Employ the Orwin gambit to fill the initial edge container. When your opponent selects the last space in the first container, wherever you are sent: pick it's corresponding sub-board space and then employ the Orwin gambit again and then repeat the routine until the game is finished. Your opponent gets to pick your next moves but because they eventually must send you to a filled square on the second and third rounds, you have the ability to control the game's end.

Starting in the center gives you a tactical disadvantage because it only leaves you 4 paths to victory compared to your opponents 8 with him/her in a position affecting 4 lines, whereas by starting on a side piece, you have 7 paths to victory and your opponents position only benefits him on 2 lines.