Recall however that legislating the availability of heavy retribution based on fuzzy guidelines is a dangerous game, and can lead to those without multimillion dollar legal teams being left out in the cold. As in, if I don't have the money to prove that my idea was "nonobvious," even though it is, I can no longer absorb the risk associated with claiming that it's nonobvious, even though it is, and so I can't open up shop. Guess I'll sell my idea to someone with a bigger legal department.
Like the problems with "loser pays all" in litigation, sometimes this setup ironically tends to hurt the little guy most of all.
Why? Kyoto didn't impose any real restrictions on developing nations, and it's not the US's job to play hero all the time. If everyone is going to get behind reducing emissions, fine, but there's no reason for us to suffer if there isn't going to be any global net gain. Recall, if you will, that China now surpasses us in total CO2 emissions. So what, exactly, would have been the point?
And don't give me any of that "showing leadership" trash. Developing nations are pretty utilitarian, (they don't have the resources to be anything else), and aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot because they'll see how hip and cool conservation is when the US does it, and then want to follow. Global warming is one of the few so called "global" issues that actually lives up to its name, and if a large majority isn't on board, we're all just wasting money that could be better used elsewhere.
You're right, and really their big mistake was that they escalated the situation, rather than controlling it. Controlling the situation would have meant either no force, or they just all grab him and carry him out. None of this zap him once... then again, then maybe a few more times, then stand around while he cries... I mean come on.
But you're obviously aware of how the situation turns out differently when professionals handle it.
I'm not laying blame anywhere. I'm just pointing out that since that a linux install is frequently much harder than its XP counterpart. That's what the OP was talking about, that's what I'm talking about. The average user doesn't care WHY it's harder, they just care that it is.
>>What's much more likely is if your "men in black" were to use the hundreds of *readily available* security cameras mounted.... everywhere....
This is probably the better point. Sure, flying cameras disguised as insects are cool in science fiction stories, but when you consider that not only would the government essentially be spending a zillion dollars to build something that would inevitably break in public and get everyone fired in a huge scandal, they'd also be spending that money to avoid using something that already works, works well, and have already been paid for, i.e. generic held and mounted cameras.
He didn't get fired, and if you're upset that he didn't get fired, consider the situation from the point of view of someone who doesn't hate managers on principle and is interested more in the health of the company. Why get rid of a perfectly good executive when you don't have to? It's easy to get the department back in working order if you're replacing a peon, but not if you are replacing the department head. So the intern is toast, but the guy 3 levels above him stays because it's better for the company that way. It's not like anyone should expect the business world to be fair in the first place (else why does my boss get payed so much more than me?), so why are you surprised?
Unless you have any poorly supported hardware, in which case prepare for hours (if not days) of running google searches, reading mailing lists and forums, downloading tarballs, compiling code, and just general fighting before you get everything to work. SOMETIMES (perhaps even frequently) the install goes very smoothly. But when it doesn't the average user is in way over his or her head. Whether you like it or not, linux still has plenty of serious hardware support issues.
That of course doesn't mean the poster you were responding to was right himself, he wasn't, but then neither is the picture of a linux install always being about as hard as putting in a disk and letting it run.
You really don't see the difference? First off, in a bottom line utilitarian sort of sense, the things you listed don't injure nearly enough people for society to get in a fuss about it. Contrast that with the huge number of people that get killed and injured in auto accidents, and I think it may be obvious why society cares about one and not the other. But a better reason is that some risks just seem more reasonable than others. Yes, people get hurt climbing large rocks, but at least it's enjoyable enough that it seems like an OK trade. Sky diving is also a lot safer than you (apparently) think.
But the difference to me is that letting people make obviously bad, harmful decisions is not somehow a virtue. We all know that no one needs a nanny state that can't abide by the thought of anyone getting a scraped knee, but seriously, where is the sense in allowing stupid people to throw away their lives for nothing? We know that it's a much better idea to wear a belt - its not inconvenient or uncomfortable, and its much, much safer. So tell me, where is the good in ignoring that?
And by the way, its not like there aren't regulations surrounding sky diving, because people DID decide that some risks were reasonable and some were not. If you're asking why it hasn't been banned, well, neither has driving. WE JUST REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PUT ON A BELT.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem is people don't understand that the taser is actually a really crappy method of restoring order or difusing a public disturbance. Getting tased makes people go crazy, and go "Ouch" really loudly. But, it's not scary in the same way a big stick is, so they aren't motivated in the same way to be quiet. So the cops tase them again, and then again (and maybe again) until they are finally quiet. Meanwhile we've had a pretty long period of the person being tased screaming and yelling for the cops to stop.
Whatever you think about tasers, I think we can all agree that at the very least non-lethal does not in any way imply non-painful. For non-violent confrontations, it's frequently in everyone's best interest to just keep it in its holster and try something else.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The video of that ID-less kid refusing to leave the library at UCLA was pretty bad. And those WERE definitely cops. Really the problem with the taser is nothing to do with its lethality, it's simply that some cops haven't been trained that the taser is not a good method of difusing a situation and preventing a scene. In fact, because it hurts like a bitch and tends to make people scream, it's good at doing pretty much the opposite.
So you can argue about whether that guy at the recent John Kerry rally deserved to be tased, but either way the police involved should have known that the route of a quick and professional resolution to the incident was probably more along the lines of carrying him out, rather than giving him 20000 volts. And by they way of course, they WERE definitely cops. Browse youtube more often or something.
You're drawing an incorrect parallel to what has been happening with health insurance, and car owners without this feature will be fine. While improvements in the abilities of health insurance companies to predict who is going to get sick have started to make it near impossible for certain people to get health insurance, that's only because those people are literally UNPROFITABLE (as in taking a loss) for the insurance companies. The word unprofitable there is the key though.
Yes, car owners without this feature may be more subject to successful thefts, and therefore LESS profitable than their counterparts with the service, but unlike someone who just found out they have terminal cancer and is looking to get insurance, they are still SOMEWHAT profitable, just less. I assume that they are still profitable, because clearly no one has this service now, yet auto insurers are making money.
So anyhow, whereas some people can't get health insurance because insurers know that they are far too likely to take a big loss on them, people will have an easy time getting auto insurance without this feature because auto insurers will still be able to make money off of them. People without the feature may have to pay more for that insurance, and they can independently decide whether that's what they want to do, but they'll certainly be able to find it.
I love how slashdotters think they're so smart when they criticize duck and cover.
Look: if a nuclear exchange between us and the soviets had occurred, the entire world would not have been turned to glass. Sure, people close to ground zero's would be screwed no matter what they did, but as it turns out a huge number of people would have been in regions where their actions immediately following that first big flash decided whether they lived or died. The "duck and cover" training is an attempt to protect (among others) those people who would be in the "hurricane force winds" section of the blast. So just like in a hurricane, you keep your face away from windows so your head doesn't get blows off by the glass, and you get under something sturdy.
I know it was hardly perfect, but in the event of a nuclear exchange, duck and cover would have saved plenty of lives. I don't know why it was discontinued, maybe the increase in relative armaments started to make it less and less worthwhile, but either way it's hardly the retarded nonsense that people here try to make it out to be.
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROTECT PEOPLE VERY CLOSE TO GROUND ZERO.
and just to add to that, I'm all for making drugs more difficult to abuse (along the lines of putting S2O in racing N2O), but can we be a little less malicious about it?
I knew all that my latin in highschool would be useful for something. I just never dared to hope it would be something as important as correcting trivial errors on Slashdot!
Here goes:
Habius might a singular genitive of an irregular noun, or a masculine second family nominate noun, but either way, it isn't "habeas" which is a subjunctive 2nd person singular verb meaning "may you have" [the body].
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're arresting anyone for abuse of the HOV lane. Building a society where anyone can be arrested at anytime because everyone is in violation of some obscure law is certainly a very Bad Thing, but this isn't really an example of that.
"I was going to write a story criticizing the mayor, but then I realized he might fine me a reasonable amount for violating a well known and legitimate law! Big Brother strikes again!"
>>Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies.
What the fuck? Why do people keep saying this? Do religious creation myths not conflict irreconcilably with the theory of the big bang? Aren't miracles pretty much a violation of the laws of physics (hence their name)? I'm willing to concede that a discussion of the afterlife can be seen as entirely separate from scientific issues, as it posits essentially an entirely separate universe for use after death, but that hardly implies that science and religion don't talk about the same things, and have very different opinions about the facts surrounding them and the mechanics driving them.
But I think the question here is over how intentional Apple's behavior is. I can't shake the suspicion that the situation is much more similar to the mechanic having a special tool in the back room that could have handled the inspection fine, but he used the normal one because he doesn't like your use of a custom chip, and is just as happy to ruin it as not to.
Maybe Apple feels they can't support hacked phones because of their partnership with AT&T, but your analogy implies an accident, which this really isn't. You can argue about whether Apple should have to ensure that their patch doesn't brick phones that are breaking their TOS, and maybe that's a legal question, but you can't argue about whether they knew it would and chose not to do anything about it. I think that's why people are upset.
Slashdot Mirror
Recall however that legislating the availability of heavy retribution based on fuzzy guidelines is a dangerous game, and can lead to those without multimillion dollar legal teams being left out in the cold. As in, if I don't have the money to prove that my idea was "nonobvious," even though it is, I can no longer absorb the risk associated with claiming that it's nonobvious, even though it is, and so I can't open up shop. Guess I'll sell my idea to someone with a bigger legal department.
Like the problems with "loser pays all" in litigation, sometimes this setup ironically tends to hurt the little guy most of all.
Why? Kyoto didn't impose any real restrictions on developing nations, and it's not the US's job to play hero all the time. If everyone is going to get behind reducing emissions, fine, but there's no reason for us to suffer if there isn't going to be any global net gain. Recall, if you will, that China now surpasses us in total CO2 emissions. So what, exactly, would have been the point?
And don't give me any of that "showing leadership" trash. Developing nations are pretty utilitarian, (they don't have the resources to be anything else), and aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot because they'll see how hip and cool conservation is when the US does it, and then want to follow. Global warming is one of the few so called "global" issues that actually lives up to its name, and if a large majority isn't on board, we're all just wasting money that could be better used elsewhere.
You mean like... cease?
I'm not usually a grammar nazi... but sheesh.
You're right, and really their big mistake was that they escalated the situation, rather than controlling it. Controlling the situation would have meant either no force, or they just all grab him and carry him out. None of this zap him once... then again, then maybe a few more times, then stand around while he cries... I mean come on.
But you're obviously aware of how the situation turns out differently when professionals handle it.
I'm not laying blame anywhere. I'm just pointing out that since that a linux install is frequently much harder than its XP counterpart. That's what the OP was talking about, that's what I'm talking about. The average user doesn't care WHY it's harder, they just care that it is.
>>What's much more likely is if your "men in black" were to use the hundreds of *readily available* security cameras mounted.... everywhere....
This is probably the better point. Sure, flying cameras disguised as insects are cool in science fiction stories, but when you consider that not only would the government essentially be spending a zillion dollars to build something that would inevitably break in public and get everyone fired in a huge scandal, they'd also be spending that money to avoid using something that already works, works well, and have already been paid for, i.e. generic held and mounted cameras.
Sometimes bugs are just insects.
He didn't get fired, and if you're upset that he didn't get fired, consider the situation from the point of view of someone who doesn't hate managers on principle and is interested more in the health of the company. Why get rid of a perfectly good executive when you don't have to? It's easy to get the department back in working order if you're replacing a peon, but not if you are replacing the department head. So the intern is toast, but the guy 3 levels above him stays because it's better for the company that way. It's not like anyone should expect the business world to be fair in the first place (else why does my boss get payed so much more than me?), so why are you surprised?
Unless you have any poorly supported hardware, in which case prepare for hours (if not days) of running google searches, reading mailing lists and forums, downloading tarballs, compiling code, and just general fighting before you get everything to work. SOMETIMES (perhaps even frequently) the install goes very smoothly. But when it doesn't the average user is in way over his or her head. Whether you like it or not, linux still has plenty of serious hardware support issues.
That of course doesn't mean the poster you were responding to was right himself, he wasn't, but then neither is the picture of a linux install always being about as hard as putting in a disk and letting it run.
Ah I wish I hadn't already posted a bunch of times and could mod you up. The OP's point was stupid on so many levels it's ridiculous.
>>If I feel like risking my ass driving without a seatbelt that is my risk to take.
And if the people with all the guns and dogs think that its the right idea for you not to, I guess they can do that to.
You really don't see the difference? First off, in a bottom line utilitarian sort of sense, the things you listed don't injure nearly enough people for society to get in a fuss about it. Contrast that with the huge number of people that get killed and injured in auto accidents, and I think it may be obvious why society cares about one and not the other. But a better reason is that some risks just seem more reasonable than others. Yes, people get hurt climbing large rocks, but at least it's enjoyable enough that it seems like an OK trade. Sky diving is also a lot safer than you (apparently) think.
But the difference to me is that letting people make obviously bad, harmful decisions is not somehow a virtue. We all know that no one needs a nanny state that can't abide by the thought of anyone getting a scraped knee, but seriously, where is the sense in allowing stupid people to throw away their lives for nothing? We know that it's a much better idea to wear a belt - its not inconvenient or uncomfortable, and its much, much safer. So tell me, where is the good in ignoring that?
And by the way, its not like there aren't regulations surrounding sky diving, because people DID decide that some risks were reasonable and some were not. If you're asking why it hasn't been banned, well, neither has driving. WE JUST REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PUT ON A BELT.
The problem is people don't understand that the taser is actually a really crappy method of restoring order or difusing a public disturbance. Getting tased makes people go crazy, and go "Ouch" really loudly. But, it's not scary in the same way a big stick is, so they aren't motivated in the same way to be quiet. So the cops tase them again, and then again (and maybe again) until they are finally quiet. Meanwhile we've had a pretty long period of the person being tased screaming and yelling for the cops to stop.
Whatever you think about tasers, I think we can all agree that at the very least non-lethal does not in any way imply non-painful. For non-violent confrontations, it's frequently in everyone's best interest to just keep it in its holster and try something else.
The video of that ID-less kid refusing to leave the library at UCLA was pretty bad. And those WERE definitely cops. Really the problem with the taser is nothing to do with its lethality, it's simply that some cops haven't been trained that the taser is not a good method of difusing a situation and preventing a scene. In fact, because it hurts like a bitch and tends to make people scream, it's good at doing pretty much the opposite.
So you can argue about whether that guy at the recent John Kerry rally deserved to be tased, but either way the police involved should have known that the route of a quick and professional resolution to the incident was probably more along the lines of carrying him out, rather than giving him 20000 volts. And by they way of course, they WERE definitely cops. Browse youtube more often or something.
You're drawing an incorrect parallel to what has been happening with health insurance, and car owners without this feature will be fine. While improvements in the abilities of health insurance companies to predict who is going to get sick have started to make it near impossible for certain people to get health insurance, that's only because those people are literally UNPROFITABLE (as in taking a loss) for the insurance companies. The word unprofitable there is the key though.
Yes, car owners without this feature may be more subject to successful thefts, and therefore LESS profitable than their counterparts with the service, but unlike someone who just found out they have terminal cancer and is looking to get insurance, they are still SOMEWHAT profitable, just less. I assume that they are still profitable, because clearly no one has this service now, yet auto insurers are making money.
So anyhow, whereas some people can't get health insurance because insurers know that they are far too likely to take a big loss on them, people will have an easy time getting auto insurance without this feature because auto insurers will still be able to make money off of them. People without the feature may have to pay more for that insurance, and they can independently decide whether that's what they want to do, but they'll certainly be able to find it.
I love how slashdotters think they're so smart when they criticize duck and cover.
Look: if a nuclear exchange between us and the soviets had occurred, the entire world would not have been turned to glass. Sure, people close to ground zero's would be screwed no matter what they did, but as it turns out a huge number of people would have been in regions where their actions immediately following that first big flash decided whether they lived or died. The "duck and cover" training is an attempt to protect (among others) those people who would be in the "hurricane force winds" section of the blast. So just like in a hurricane, you keep your face away from windows so your head doesn't get blows off by the glass, and you get under something sturdy.
I know it was hardly perfect, but in the event of a nuclear exchange, duck and cover would have saved plenty of lives. I don't know why it was discontinued, maybe the increase in relative armaments started to make it less and less worthwhile, but either way it's hardly the retarded nonsense that people here try to make it out to be.
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROTECT PEOPLE VERY CLOSE TO GROUND ZERO.
and just to add to that, I'm all for making drugs more difficult to abuse (along the lines of putting S2O in racing N2O), but can we be a little less malicious about it?
Kevin Trudeau?
Uh... isn't that a violation of the Hippocratic oath? And thank god booby trapping is still considered shameful and unamerican. Sheesh.
Damn serfs, getting computers. I wish we could put all stupid people on an island somewhere and just kill all of them.
But they DO talk about the same things. Would save a lot of trouble if they didn't, but them's the facts.
>>habius corpus
I knew all that my latin in highschool would be useful for something. I just never dared to hope it would be something as important as correcting trivial errors on Slashdot!
Here goes:
Habius might a singular genitive of an irregular noun, or a masculine second family nominate noun, but either way, it isn't "habeas" which is a subjunctive 2nd person singular verb meaning "may you have" [the body].
That felt great. Hail Caesar!
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're arresting anyone for abuse of the HOV lane. Building a society where anyone can be arrested at anytime because everyone is in violation of some obscure law is certainly a very Bad Thing, but this isn't really an example of that.
"I was going to write a story criticizing the mayor, but then I realized he might fine me a reasonable amount for violating a well known and legitimate law! Big Brother strikes again!"
I hate to say it, but hardly.
>>Religion and science have nothing to do with each other and anyone who even suggests that is making a grave mistake and fool out him/herself and the science s/he studies.
What the fuck? Why do people keep saying this? Do religious creation myths not conflict irreconcilably with the theory of the big bang? Aren't miracles pretty much a violation of the laws of physics (hence their name)? I'm willing to concede that a discussion of the afterlife can be seen as entirely separate from scientific issues, as it posits essentially an entirely separate universe for use after death, but that hardly implies that science and religion don't talk about the same things, and have very different opinions about the facts surrounding them and the mechanics driving them.
Sheesh.
Couldn't they at least write the software so that it checked whether it would brick the phone before doing anything? That's what makes me suspicious.
But I think the question here is over how intentional Apple's behavior is. I can't shake the suspicion that the situation is much more similar to the mechanic having a special tool in the back room that could have handled the inspection fine, but he used the normal one because he doesn't like your use of a custom chip, and is just as happy to ruin it as not to.
Maybe Apple feels they can't support hacked phones because of their partnership with AT&T, but your analogy implies an accident, which this really isn't. You can argue about whether Apple should have to ensure that their patch doesn't brick phones that are breaking their TOS, and maybe that's a legal question, but you can't argue about whether they knew it would and chose not to do anything about it. I think that's why people are upset.