An excellent comment. People don't realize that if a person gets out of the car, closing 10ft of distance takes about half of a second, and then they are wrestling your gun away from you. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, an officer never wants the person outside of their car. There is just too much potential danger. (There are a lot of real life videos from cop cars showing officers being shot and killed because of this.)
How is anything he said unsafe for the detainee? Sitting in the car has to be magnitudes safer than between the car and traffic. The question of safety here is between the two people. The officer has at least not been a felon. The person in the car is a complete unknown. In that case it makes sense to leave the unknown in the car and have the officer walking around.
I had a cousin who became a cop and he went from a nice boy to a bully telling "funny" stories about intimidating civilians (not criminals). It only took a couple years.
It depends a LOT on the department. When you have a police chief and underlings that put up with crap like that, then it fosters a bad environment. It's difficult to live in an environment that doesn't change you to fit it, so a bad cop environment makes for bad cops.
If you have a good police chief, command structure, and an enforced set of well designed rules for the officers to follow, then you end up with good officers that respect others.
Of course, if they are working in a prison, then good luck.
Granted MKV is just a container... it is still a far better container.
... that doesn't work with most devices or software on the market.
Really? In my experience, most devices released in the past couple of years support MKV just fine. Heck, even my Samsung TV uses them fine. The only things that don't seem to be those from companies that are pushing a specific media agenda such as Apple and MS. But at least generalized computers from both of them use software fine that plays back MKV.
AFAIK, most Superbit DVDs weren't double sided, and some regular Blu-rays are coming DVDs now, so I'm not sure how they justify more cost for more bits.
x264 has initial support for outputting Blu-Ray compliant bitstreams, so we may see more high bitrate movies in the future. AFAIK, the only issue with cost is paying for an encoder that will produce bitrates that high. Once you have a master, actual production of plastic is the same no matter the used space.
So, when are the peak energy demands for the USA? In the middle of the day, and In the summer. Hmm, when are the peak production times for Wind and Solar (its the same!).
This is not true. Wind farms in Tehachapi, CA are most active during the morning and evening hours due to sudden pressure changes in the desert as a result of heating and cooling. Pressures equalize by the middle of the day and the middle of the night, precisely during peak power (needed heating or cooling). Granted, that's only one location, but it's a big one. Solar, on the other hand, is more or less most active during peak power.
The issue is that those particular waters are already a heavily used commons. There's a lot of low impact commercial fishing, and tourism that already generate value off the currently common waters. Scattered turbines, and more important, a large network of underwater cabling, would muck up existing interests in the waters.
I honestly don't see any of those things being affected. How would windmills affect fishing? At the California wind farms, the mills are something of a tourist attraction, and people are always buying postcards with pictures of them. And what do undersea cables have to do with anything? They would prevent people from dragging nets along the bottom, but that's about the worst thing you can do to an area. And are average wind speeds going to be affected that much? It's not like 400 foot walls are being built around people's homes.
I'm not too familiar with California law, so I'm guessing here. But it sounds like the original finder was in fact selling the story, and not the device, which the finder and buyer were actively trying to find the original owner to return the item. If you find an item and are actively trying to return it to it's owner, I wouldn't think you would be legally required to turn it in to the police.
If I find a wallet, or a dog, with identification, and the value of the item is >$1000, and I legally required to turn the item in to the police instead of simply attempting to contact the owner? The police are usually meant for when the owner of the item is entirely unknown.
He had attempted several times to find someone at Apple to take the phone back. He had an active ticket number to reference. In many places, turning a lost item in to the police means that they hold it for 30 days, and if no one claims it then they declare the finder as the new owner.
Man says he has a prototype Apple device and a well known news company with ties all over the industry says they will give the man $5k for the phone, and they promise to return it to the rightful owner. Man knows the police are unlikely to get the item returned, and thinks news company has a really good shot, so agrees.
Man walks away with $5k and a good idea the item will be returned to the rightful owner. As an alternative, he could have sent it in to the police for 30 days and then received ownership.
I bet he 'forgot' to mention that the phone looked like a prototype phone and mention it probably belonged to an Apple employee. (Rather than some random guy working at Walmart)
It is pretty clear from the stories that the person spent a significant amount of time talking to Apple. Are you really trying to say with all of the people he talked to, and the ticket number he was eventually assigned, and the testimony of an Apple employee who knew about it and said the guy claimed it was a prototype, that the guy called up Apple to say someone out there lost a phone? Really?
That's like saying,"I'm not paying a hooker to have sex with me, I'm paying her for her time, and if we just happen to get it on as two consenting adults it's not prostitution." That don't fly in court, either.
But isn't that exactly the argument of perfectly legal and widely used escort services? I think the difference is the advertised intent. I think that in sting operations the police need to record the suspect making a verbal agreement to exchange sex for money.
Here, the intent seemed pretty clear that Gizmodo never intended to keep the phone. The spent time verifying the likelyhood that it was an Apple device and not a Chinese knockoff. Then they immediately let Apple know that they were in possession of a device believed to be Apple's, and that they would return it upon receipt of a statement from their legal department that the phone was theirs.
It could also be argued that Gizmodo was more likely to be able to return the phone to the original owner than the police department, an idea I would readily agree with. If so, then Gizmodo could be said to have done the right thing, and without their involvement it is possible (or probable) that the original owner would never have received their possessions back.
Decreasing production in response to decreased demand is a fairly typical business practice
However in this case the numbers don't really match up. Demand for NAND isn't exactly going away, and the facilities are already there. With the cost remaining high, the logical move is to at least maintain production with current facilities, and look for ways to decrease costs. These types of manufacturing typically increase efficiency the longer they operate, which decreases production costs, and increases margins. If they could maximize their production with current facilities, in a market with high prices, they will still make a killing. And if they are lucky, they would overpower their competitors.
Now, if all of the companies produce at maximum rates, then they might risk flooding the market and killing their margins. But cooperating to keep manufacturing down and prices up is called collusion, which is sort of the point.
I honestly don't know what Gizmodo is thinking. This isn't one of those "Oh, Apple's mean lawyers are hounding a bunch of harmless kids and their rumor sites again" situations. This is a "Gizmodo staffers have just published a public admission of having committed a state and/or federal crime(and not one of those minimally and largely civilly enforced ones, like DMCA violations and DRM circumvention tools)". One or more of them could easily go to prison.
If you RTFA (yeah, I know) you will see that the original person that found the phone waited around to try and return the phone to the owner. The next morning, seeing the phone had been wiped and that it was obviously a prototype, they contacted Apple. They talked to many people, got a ticket number, and were promptly ignored by Apple.
Eventually Gizmodo ended up with it, and realized it was the real thing. So they managed to track down the original guy that lost it, pass along all of their information, and double check that with the guy that someone was going to contact them, all in an effort to get the phone back to Apple.
Of course, just coming out and making libelous comments about Gizmodo is a lot easier than actually reading.
also good, the settings are stored in XML text files. Bad stuff in Windows: an opaque binary database format that is prone to corruption... yuck.)
People really need to stop mentioning "prone to corruption" in regards to the Windows Registry. That was true in the Windows 9x days, but I know I haven't seen a corrupted registry in years. I suspect I haven't seen one since 2000/XP (excluding the 9x based ME).
There are also benefits to a binary format, such as speed. Storing hundreds of thousands of settings in XML isn't exactly ideal. If it were, SQLite would use it. The Windows Registry also allows advanced per-key permissions, only some of which can be worked around using file permissions (although admittedly I've only seen complex permissions used to work around really poorly designed programs in Windows).
Still, there are areas where it falls short. If you're going to make a complex database like system for settings, you might as well abstract it so that a user's registry settings can be accessed from anywhere on the network using something like SQL commands. It would also make sense to use a common storage format. Microsoft has had decades to work on good database designs, and they have some really good ones. But instead of reusing their good designs, they reinvent the wheel every time they want to store a little data. (Mozilla realized this for themselves, and switched from their bizarre in-house-developed Mork to SQLite.)
Still, if you need to fix a bizarre issue without a GUI, it's nice to be able to open an XML file in your editor of choice and poke around for the problem.
I agree. The book was pretty decent. Really should have been cracked into 2 books.
The movie was sub par. Everyone seems to want to make it out as some horrible atrocity. Honestly I have seen *MUCH* worse.
I actually thought the book was two books that had been bound as one. It is a really clean separation between the two parts. I enjoyed both parts, but I was probably 15 when I read them. I don't have any real desire to go reread them, but there were several parts that I thought were exceptionally clever and good ideas (and a few others that were over the top hero+luck).
That's basically how I felt about the movie too. I thought that putting John Travolta in platform shoes was a really poor excuse for the aliens though. And the humans were too much like monkeys, and the whole "use equipment from an ancient airbase" change in the movie was just goofy.
RETARD, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PERSONAL COMPUTER. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CAR WITH A PERSON INSIDE OF IT.
the standards of implementation are different... just like they are with airplanes THAT ALREADY IMPLEMENT THE FEATURE I'M SUGGESTING.
First, be nice. It's unlikely you were raised by a pack of wolves, so you should have learned that name calling isn't exactly adult behavior.
Second, we aren't talking about the standards of implementation. I'm obviously not suggesting someone use Windows 98 to run a car. I'm attempting to illustrate to you (obviously unsuccessfully) the paradigm of trusted devices.
Third, an airplane with active RADAR adjusting automatically to avoid impacting the ground is completely different than airplanes automatically talking to each other and working out their own flight paths independent of ground control or anyone else.
first, i believe your drivers license should be revoked for mental instability. second, i never said the cars should blindly trust the other signals... i suggested a trusted mesh network... many signals, combined with the cars own sensors, requiring conspiracy to manipulate. third, i never suggested that cars would steer themselves out of their lane... they would just suggest to the other car that it shouldn't be changing lanes and the other car could choose what to do next... perhaps just a signal on the dashboard similar to "door ajar". decreasing the accelerator is something rev limiters already do.
First, I strongly suspect your parents never let you outside, so you never learned to play well with others. You're a real prick.
Second, you're making the same mistake that DRM developers for hardware (such as DVD or Blu-ray players) make; once someone else owns a piece of equipment, you can no longer implicitly trust said equipment. Once someone else owns some hardware/software, there is no way to be 100% sure that the information you are receiving from it is not tampered with. You can only have a trusted mesh when you trust all of the nodes. You can only trust all of the nodes if you own them all and they are all under your control.
Third, you have just announced that you're not talking about fully autonomous cars, which is a bit confusing because THAT IS WHAT TFA IS ABOUT.
But even a car that only prevents you from changing lanes and controls acceleration or deceleration would be dangerous to just trust data from other vehicles. Imagine a vehicle that sends out ghost signals which say you are bounded on all sides by other vehicles. They could prevent you from ever changing lanes, or force you to slow to a stop to avoid hitting the "vehicle" in front of you. And the thing is, who would know? If there are lots of cars on the road, how would you know who was sending out the evil bits? And if you call the police who would show up 10 minutes later, how would they know (out of the thousands of cars that have passed by in the mean time)? And how do you stop some random person from putting a transmitter in the grass by the road which randomly wreaks havoc? And how do you track that person down? Being controlled by an invisible wireless signal from an unknown source is simply not the same as being run into by another car.
I'd love to see cars that spit out information for others to use. Gathering data for analysis, even if you know some of it is bad, is still a good thing. Blindly allowing the actions of your car to be affected by other, potentially compromised, sources is not.
well... obviously the car manufactures should not hire the developers behind windows 98 and IE 5.5 because they do horribly insecure work. there are already 100s of processing units in modern cars trusting 1000s of signals. when the implementation is correct, a correct purpose can be served
You can run Windows 98 by itself and trust the video card not to have malicious intentions for the rest of the computer, which is, as it happens, exactly analogous to one part of a car not having malicious intentions for the rest of the car. But just because you trust your video card is no reason to trust every other computer out there, with who knows what software running on them.
Modding the car software isn't exactly uncommon. Someday, while you're driving down the road in the fast lane, and you're in my way, I'm going to press that secret button under my dash. The one that sends your car a signal to let it know that a car to the right of it is swerving to the left hard. And when you end up in the ditch, I will drive by laughing, because your silly car just trusts everyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
An excellent comment. People don't realize that if a person gets out of the car, closing 10ft of distance takes about half of a second, and then they are wrestling your gun away from you. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, an officer never wants the person outside of their car. There is just too much potential danger. (There are a lot of real life videos from cop cars showing officers being shot and killed because of this.)
Is there some sort of new high powered Prius that I don't know about that can outrun a cop car?
How is anything he said unsafe for the detainee? Sitting in the car has to be magnitudes safer than between the car and traffic. The question of safety here is between the two people. The officer has at least not been a felon. The person in the car is a complete unknown. In that case it makes sense to leave the unknown in the car and have the officer walking around.
I had a cousin who became a cop and he went from a nice boy to a bully telling "funny" stories about intimidating civilians (not criminals). It only took a couple years.
It depends a LOT on the department. When you have a police chief and underlings that put up with crap like that, then it fosters a bad environment. It's difficult to live in an environment that doesn't change you to fit it, so a bad cop environment makes for bad cops.
If you have a good police chief, command structure, and an enforced set of well designed rules for the officers to follow, then you end up with good officers that respect others.
Of course, if they are working in a prison, then good luck.
Granted MKV is just a container... it is still a far better container.
... that doesn't work with most devices or software on the market.
Really? In my experience, most devices released in the past couple of years support MKV just fine. Heck, even my Samsung TV uses them fine. The only things that don't seem to be those from companies that are pushing a specific media agenda such as Apple and MS. But at least generalized computers from both of them use software fine that plays back MKV.
AFAIK, most Superbit DVDs weren't double sided, and some regular Blu-rays are coming DVDs now, so I'm not sure how they justify more cost for more bits.
x264 has initial support for outputting Blu-Ray compliant bitstreams, so we may see more high bitrate movies in the future. AFAIK, the only issue with cost is paying for an encoder that will produce bitrates that high. Once you have a master, actual production of plastic is the same no matter the used space.
So, when are the peak energy demands for the USA? In the middle of the day, and In the summer. Hmm, when are the peak production times for Wind and Solar (its the same!).
This is not true. Wind farms in Tehachapi, CA are most active during the morning and evening hours due to sudden pressure changes in the desert as a result of heating and cooling. Pressures equalize by the middle of the day and the middle of the night, precisely during peak power (needed heating or cooling). Granted, that's only one location, but it's a big one. Solar, on the other hand, is more or less most active during peak power.
The issue is that those particular waters are already a heavily used commons. There's a lot of low impact commercial fishing, and tourism that already generate value off the currently common waters. Scattered turbines, and more important, a large network of underwater cabling, would muck up existing interests in the waters.
I honestly don't see any of those things being affected. How would windmills affect fishing? At the California wind farms, the mills are something of a tourist attraction, and people are always buying postcards with pictures of them. And what do undersea cables have to do with anything? They would prevent people from dragging nets along the bottom, but that's about the worst thing you can do to an area. And are average wind speeds going to be affected that much? It's not like 400 foot walls are being built around people's homes.
Legal doesn't necessarily mean right.
I'm not too familiar with California law, so I'm guessing here. But it sounds like the original finder was in fact selling the story, and not the device, which the finder and buyer were actively trying to find the original owner to return the item. If you find an item and are actively trying to return it to it's owner, I wouldn't think you would be legally required to turn it in to the police.
If I find a wallet, or a dog, with identification, and the value of the item is >$1000, and I legally required to turn the item in to the police instead of simply attempting to contact the owner? The police are usually meant for when the owner of the item is entirely unknown.
To play the devil's advocate:
He had attempted several times to find someone at Apple to take the phone back. He had an active ticket number to reference. In many places, turning a lost item in to the police means that they hold it for 30 days, and if no one claims it then they declare the finder as the new owner.
Man says he has a prototype Apple device and a well known news company with ties all over the industry says they will give the man $5k for the phone, and they promise to return it to the rightful owner. Man knows the police are unlikely to get the item returned, and thinks news company has a really good shot, so agrees.
Man walks away with $5k and a good idea the item will be returned to the rightful owner. As an alternative, he could have sent it in to the police for 30 days and then received ownership.
Which was a better choice?
I bet he 'forgot' to mention that the phone looked like a prototype phone and mention it probably belonged to an Apple employee. (Rather than some random guy working at Walmart)
It is pretty clear from the stories that the person spent a significant amount of time talking to Apple. Are you really trying to say with all of the people he talked to, and the ticket number he was eventually assigned, and the testimony of an Apple employee who knew about it and said the guy claimed it was a prototype, that the guy called up Apple to say someone out there lost a phone? Really?
That's like saying,"I'm not paying a hooker to have sex with me, I'm paying her for her time, and if we just happen to get it on as two consenting adults it's not prostitution." That don't fly in court, either.
But isn't that exactly the argument of perfectly legal and widely used escort services? I think the difference is the advertised intent. I think that in sting operations the police need to record the suspect making a verbal agreement to exchange sex for money.
Here, the intent seemed pretty clear that Gizmodo never intended to keep the phone. The spent time verifying the likelyhood that it was an Apple device and not a Chinese knockoff. Then they immediately let Apple know that they were in possession of a device believed to be Apple's, and that they would return it upon receipt of a statement from their legal department that the phone was theirs.
It could also be argued that Gizmodo was more likely to be able to return the phone to the original owner than the police department, an idea I would readily agree with. If so, then Gizmodo could be said to have done the right thing, and without their involvement it is possible (or probable) that the original owner would never have received their possessions back.
I'm fairly certain that iPhone OS 4 will be supported on older iPhones, but that not all features will be active (like multi-tasking).
Decreasing production in response to decreased demand is a fairly typical business practice
However in this case the numbers don't really match up. Demand for NAND isn't exactly going away, and the facilities are already there. With the cost remaining high, the logical move is to at least maintain production with current facilities, and look for ways to decrease costs. These types of manufacturing typically increase efficiency the longer they operate, which decreases production costs, and increases margins. If they could maximize their production with current facilities, in a market with high prices, they will still make a killing. And if they are lucky, they would overpower their competitors.
Now, if all of the companies produce at maximum rates, then they might risk flooding the market and killing their margins. But cooperating to keep manufacturing down and prices up is called collusion, which is sort of the point.
I honestly don't know what Gizmodo is thinking. This isn't one of those "Oh, Apple's mean lawyers are hounding a bunch of harmless kids and their rumor sites again" situations. This is a "Gizmodo staffers have just published a public admission of having committed a state and/or federal crime(and not one of those minimally and largely civilly enforced ones, like DMCA violations and DRM circumvention tools)". One or more of them could easily go to prison.
If you RTFA (yeah, I know) you will see that the original person that found the phone waited around to try and return the phone to the owner. The next morning, seeing the phone had been wiped and that it was obviously a prototype, they contacted Apple. They talked to many people, got a ticket number, and were promptly ignored by Apple.
Eventually Gizmodo ended up with it, and realized it was the real thing. So they managed to track down the original guy that lost it, pass along all of their information, and double check that with the guy that someone was going to contact them, all in an effort to get the phone back to Apple.
Of course, just coming out and making libelous comments about Gizmodo is a lot easier than actually reading.
also good, the settings are stored in XML text files. Bad stuff in Windows: an opaque binary database format that is prone to corruption... yuck.)
People really need to stop mentioning "prone to corruption" in regards to the Windows Registry. That was true in the Windows 9x days, but I know I haven't seen a corrupted registry in years. I suspect I haven't seen one since 2000/XP (excluding the 9x based ME).
There are also benefits to a binary format, such as speed. Storing hundreds of thousands of settings in XML isn't exactly ideal. If it were, SQLite would use it. The Windows Registry also allows advanced per-key permissions, only some of which can be worked around using file permissions (although admittedly I've only seen complex permissions used to work around really poorly designed programs in Windows).
Still, there are areas where it falls short. If you're going to make a complex database like system for settings, you might as well abstract it so that a user's registry settings can be accessed from anywhere on the network using something like SQL commands. It would also make sense to use a common storage format. Microsoft has had decades to work on good database designs, and they have some really good ones. But instead of reusing their good designs, they reinvent the wheel every time they want to store a little data. (Mozilla realized this for themselves, and switched from their bizarre in-house-developed Mork to SQLite.)
Still, if you need to fix a bizarre issue without a GUI, it's nice to be able to open an XML file in your editor of choice and poke around for the problem.
I agree. The book was pretty decent. Really should have been cracked into 2 books.
The movie was sub par. Everyone seems to want to make it out as some horrible atrocity. Honestly I have seen *MUCH* worse.
I actually thought the book was two books that had been bound as one. It is a really clean separation between the two parts. I enjoyed both parts, but I was probably 15 when I read them. I don't have any real desire to go reread them, but there were several parts that I thought were exceptionally clever and good ideas (and a few others that were over the top hero+luck).
That's basically how I felt about the movie too. I thought that putting John Travolta in platform shoes was a really poor excuse for the aliens though. And the humans were too much like monkeys, and the whole "use equipment from an ancient airbase" change in the movie was just goofy.
Just, wow.
Wow.
I'd recommend a wired version between the pickup and retransmitter. Why bother with adding an extra bit of wireless that could have potential issues?
You're a real prick.
said the retard...
What are you, 13?
RETARD, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A PERSONAL COMPUTER. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CAR WITH A PERSON INSIDE OF IT.
the standards of implementation are different... just like they are with airplanes THAT ALREADY IMPLEMENT THE FEATURE I'M SUGGESTING.
First, be nice. It's unlikely you were raised by a pack of wolves, so you should have learned that name calling isn't exactly adult behavior.
Second, we aren't talking about the standards of implementation. I'm obviously not suggesting someone use Windows 98 to run a car. I'm attempting to illustrate to you (obviously unsuccessfully) the paradigm of trusted devices.
Third, an airplane with active RADAR adjusting automatically to avoid impacting the ground is completely different than airplanes automatically talking to each other and working out their own flight paths independent of ground control or anyone else.
first, i believe your drivers license should be revoked for mental instability. second, i never said the cars should blindly trust the other signals... i suggested a trusted mesh network... many signals, combined with the cars own sensors, requiring conspiracy to manipulate. third, i never suggested that cars would steer themselves out of their lane... they would just suggest to the other car that it shouldn't be changing lanes and the other car could choose what to do next... perhaps just a signal on the dashboard similar to "door ajar". decreasing the accelerator is something rev limiters already do.
First, I strongly suspect your parents never let you outside, so you never learned to play well with others. You're a real prick.
Second, you're making the same mistake that DRM developers for hardware (such as DVD or Blu-ray players) make; once someone else owns a piece of equipment, you can no longer implicitly trust said equipment. Once someone else owns some hardware/software, there is no way to be 100% sure that the information you are receiving from it is not tampered with. You can only have a trusted mesh when you trust all of the nodes. You can only trust all of the nodes if you own them all and they are all under your control.
Third, you have just announced that you're not talking about fully autonomous cars, which is a bit confusing because THAT IS WHAT TFA IS ABOUT.
But even a car that only prevents you from changing lanes and controls acceleration or deceleration would be dangerous to just trust data from other vehicles. Imagine a vehicle that sends out ghost signals which say you are bounded on all sides by other vehicles. They could prevent you from ever changing lanes, or force you to slow to a stop to avoid hitting the "vehicle" in front of you. And the thing is, who would know? If there are lots of cars on the road, how would you know who was sending out the evil bits? And if you call the police who would show up 10 minutes later, how would they know (out of the thousands of cars that have passed by in the mean time)? And how do you stop some random person from putting a transmitter in the grass by the road which randomly wreaks havoc? And how do you track that person down? Being controlled by an invisible wireless signal from an unknown source is simply not the same as being run into by another car.
I'd love to see cars that spit out information for others to use. Gathering data for analysis, even if you know some of it is bad, is still a good thing. Blindly allowing the actions of your car to be affected by other, potentially compromised, sources is not.
well... obviously the car manufactures should not hire the developers behind windows 98 and IE 5.5 because they do horribly insecure work. there are already 100s of processing units in modern cars trusting 1000s of signals. when the implementation is correct, a correct purpose can be served
You can run Windows 98 by itself and trust the video card not to have malicious intentions for the rest of the computer, which is, as it happens, exactly analogous to one part of a car not having malicious intentions for the rest of the car. But just because you trust your video card is no reason to trust every other computer out there, with who knows what software running on them.
Modding the car software isn't exactly uncommon. Someday, while you're driving down the road in the fast lane, and you're in my way, I'm going to press that secret button under my dash. The one that sends your car a signal to let it know that a car to the right of it is swerving to the left hard. And when you end up in the ditch, I will drive by laughing, because your silly car just trusts everyone else's.