The N-series were great too, I loved both my N73 and later a N82, both with Gameboy emulators.
I also bought a Garmin license where I could install Garmin on my Symbian phone to do car navigation on my phone, this was at a time where most people had specific hardware for GPS navigation, now we're used to having apps on our phones, but it felt quite special back then!
I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all.
I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal, it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
As sibling comments have mentioned, not (no longer?) true.
"Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth…"
> Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.
It can in fact. You should read "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane - the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video. Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all. Especially since the Supreme Court massively weakened the Fifth Amendement in 2013.
> the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video
There's no mention in this of him trying to delete uploads (or I missed it, do you have a timestamp?).
And also, the original lecture isn't a reupload but found on the channel of his own university (both at the time of the first and the second lecture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
He mentions it several times throughout the talk. It's been a while since I've seen it, so I don't remember the times. But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation. The low quality dupe you found was uploaded years after the original video.
> But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation.
Damn, you need to watch it again. He only updates the advice to say that one needs to be explicit about their intention to remain silent and await an attorney.
> and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video.
I didn't know that, that's pretty interesting.
> Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all.
I don't think that's true. That's true for not cooperating, but you should do so with a lawyer. You shouldn't' talk to police until you get a lawyer. That's all.
If you watch the talk they linked to you can see that the advice has been updated to be "you must explicitly tell the officers you want a lawyer" and it has nothing to do with retracting his previous advice. The original "Don't Talk to the Police" upload seems to still be there (uploaded 12 years ago). Do wait for your attorney to be present but also explicitly tell the officers that you will refrain from any more discussion until then.
> Silence can’t be used against you.
> Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
They're two sides of the same coin. Let's say you are being accused of crime X, and you know you're innocent of it, and can prove it, because your spouse did it/you were hooking up with a congressman on grindr at the time/you were doing something else illegal you don't want to admit to/you believe the US justice system is fair and impartial.
The sentencing for said federal crime is N years. The prosecution charging you with crime X, plus Y plus Z with a potential max sentence of M years, or you can take a plea for N-2 years".
It all boils down to "are you willing to gamble spending M (where M >>>> N-2) years in prison based on an accusation designed to intimidate you".
> I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
They're different concepts but they're very tightly coupled (hence why both were being discussed here). If you could be presumed guilty then your right to remain silent would be rendered moot. And the entire reason the right to remain silent was established was so that innocent people wouldn't be deemed guilty (and thus punished, tortured, etc.) merely based on being coerced into testifying against themselves. Without it you would be as good as guilty.
They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
It's interesting how messages gets their own life.
I was building a user-impersonation system, and it allowed a power-admin to login as another user to change their settings and to help them.
When you signed in as the user it said:
> You are now signed in as User\##{user_id}, behave nicely ;-)
and when you switched back to your admin it said:
> You are now signed back in as Admin\##{admin_id}, wreak havoc! ;-)
I met with a former colleague years later, and he still referred to the wreak havoc message that I didn't think about for more than 10 seconds, but I had installed that in his brain and it lived there as a memory of that company and that system.
You infected him with a mind virus. He's going to tell about that message to other people, who will tell about it to others. Before you know it, it's gone viral.
For us, our Nomad cluster clients (the instances that runs the workloads), are a bit more ephemeral, the workloads are moved around servers, and the servers go up and down as we scale the infrastructure.
A database, that should be highly available, that is on a node that's going down, might disrupt database clients and end-users.
Not to say that you can't host databases inside the cluster, you can place databases on more stable servers (tag them with "db", be careful when you make changes) and don't move workloads, or manage expectations with the database clients.
The non-profit Plastic Deposit Organisation, responsible for managing Denmark's container deposit system, estimates that this change alone will enable them to collect and reuse approximately 70 million additional bottle caps annually. This equates to 140 tonnes of plastic each year.
This assumes a 90% cap return rate before (which seems low) and a 100% return rate afterwards (not in Denmark myself but I can't be the only one to have returned zero of the new caps vs almost 100% before).
The whole thing smells like a made up issue concocted by some company wanting to sell their bottle cap solution.
Denmark exports a lot of the produced food, and we are one of the most intensely farmed countries in the world, 60.4% of Denmark consists of fields, and 48% of Denmark's land area is used to grow food for animals, animals which are primarily pigs.
We also yearly import 1.8 million tons of soy from South America to feed said pigs, because we can't grow enough food for them ourselves.
It would be nice to have some nature to walk in, it's something I miss here and something there's a lot of in England, and it's great combined with their public footpath system!
Yup, and to add to this, the large majority of this meat is produced for export, and it's sold super cheap, I personally believe a good way of solving this is only giving EU support to non export farming, eg if you receive EU subsidy the good shouldn't be allowed to be exported, or those taxes would have to be repaid.
As currently we're destroying the nature, and waters due to this extremely intensive farming and as others have mentioned Denmark is producing 200-300 % of our domestic need + it requires significant import from south America where it wouldn't surprise me if this import lead to significant deforestation.
I know China is also working on increasing their domestic production[1] which is one of the primary markets that Denmark is exporting a lot to , It was 85000 tons last year[2]
this is about farmland that should never have ben cultivated to begin with, it was a temporary emergency practice from WW2 that lobbyists kept alive after the war.
Yes, but it can be quite burdensome if your Apple account has any value to you. (Say, if you are an app developer for instance, or aren't quite sure which services you have registered with an apple email address, etc.)
37signals/Basecamp wrote about something similar on their blog, they saw traffic switching almost immediately: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/3857-when-disaster-strikes and in their comments they said it was hinted that it was just a DNS update with low TTLs.
I also bought a Garmin license where I could install Garmin on my Symbian phone to do car navigation on my phone, this was at a time where most people had specific hardware for GPS navigation, now we're used to having apps on our phones, but it felt quite special back then!