Finally somebody gets it. For high levels of clearance the non-disclosure is good for 99 years and is punishable by...wait for it....DEATH.
So whistle-blow all you want, morons, but you should have thought about that before signing the paper that says, "I will not whistle blow for the next 99 years by penalty of death" (my paraphrase).
Except for the fact that not just any government official can classify something. This is a typical slashdot rant, and one that most people on slashdot don't understand.
Executive Order 12356:
Sec. 1.2 Classification Authority.
(a) Top Secret. The authority to classify information originally as Top Secret may be exercised only by:
(1) the President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and (3) officials delegated this authority pursuant to Section 1.2(d). (b) Secret. The authority to classify information originally as Secret may be exercised only by: (1) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; (2) officials with original Top Secret classification authority;
If the intent is to get a picture of somebody that is suspected to have stolen the lap top, that's completely different from just taking pictures of people who are lawfully using laptop, but having an image taken of them without their knowledge. The later is spying, the first part is just trying to get stolen property back.
In our current police state (not just the U.S., but most of the western world now) where the police departments have cameras all over the cities and traffic systems, can't they just have 2-3 people sitting at a console, taking snap shots of drivers with their phones to their ears and clicking a mouse button to send them a ticket in the mail?
There are enough violations every day on my commute that I often wish I were a beat cop. I'd write so many tickets, I'd meet my monthly quota the first week. We don't need cameras--we need cops who actually enforce the laws against the violations that happen right in front of them (I've seen people run stop signs and red lights right in front of cops).
I'm an American, but also a racing enthusiast. They've always been kerbs to me, but that's because I don't pretend the Earth ends at the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
This happened to me yesterday. I showed the guy my texting log and when he saw the last text I sent or received was over a week ago, he actually believed me when I told him I rarely text, and I never text while driving.
He wasn't going to ticket me, it was just a warning, but I felt compelled to defend myself anyway, since I'm such an ardent anti-texting while driving person.
They are enforcing the new (one month old) texting and driving ban here in Austin pretty aggressively (as well as the no cell phone in school zones law). I hope they keep it up, because like you said, no enforcement, no deterrent.
I've talked to several people who are opposed to the law (anti-nannystate libertarian types) and they've said they'll just take the ticket and not stop texting. Thus, the fines need to be higher, and they should start affecting their insurance rates (or add the threat of losing driving privs for a few weeks/months).
I too cannot supertask. The rare occasion I do answer my cell while driving leads to the most awkward conversations ever. Me: "uhhh....hang on.....", Other Person: "alskdf mald;fj ajdkf jfaj fj", Me: "Ok.....uhhh....hang on..."
In other words, I ignore the phone and concentrate on the road, which is quite opposite the norm, evidently.
Make it like a DUI. You can't just pull somebody over to check if they are drunk (well, in theory at least), but if they are driving erratically, you should be able to see in the cab to see if they have a cell phone, which gives you probably cause to pull them over.
If you just see them using a phone, but they are driving fine, leave them alone.
"Fatalities per hundred million miles driven" is no indicator of near-misses, fender-benders, serious injury (non-fatal) and general aggravation caused by idiots talking on their phones while driving.
If anything, the first link only proves that vehicle accidents have become more survivable over the years.
Mod second paragraph up as best-albeit-anecdotal-post ever.
My anecdotes about cell phone drivers add to your list of SUV driving homemakers...Jesus fish and multiple "support our troops" stickers increase the probability the driver is also on their phone.
There are plenty of cognitive studies that disprove the safety of "hands free devices". The act of holding a phone and driving is not any more dangerous than holding a coffee and driving.
The problem comes with cognitive function. We can actively process two stimuli with little effort. For example, we can pay attention to the road and listen to the radio without much fanfare (anyone calling for the banning of driving while listening to the radio?).
Add a third stimulus, like "responding" and elevate the "hearing" stimulus to "listening" and you have cognitive overload. The basic theory is the brain is good at doing two things at once, but three or more interferes with cognition.
To compensate, we focus more on two stimuli and less on the third. Those of us who can drive (relatively) safely while using a phone generally are completely tuning out the phone conversation (which defeats the purpose of having a phone, which is also why I've stopped answering my phone while driving).
The real dangerous people are the ones who tune out what's going on the road to tune into their conversation.
I have a simple solution. Since YOU think you can drive and use your cell (doubtful, but most people who deem themselves too important to hold off on a phone call probably rationalize it this way), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My solution is cops can't give cellphone/driving tickets unless the driver is driving in a way that is obviously distracted.
See in my world, all the anecdotal evidence we provide on slashdot about crazy bad driver on a cell phone would be valid, because only the people driving poorly while using their cell phones would be punished. The extremely rare good driver/cell phone user will go unnoticed.
Replace "cell phone" with "make up lady", or "Big Mac guy", or "screaming kids person", etc.
Sharepoint is not an approved document repository at my company (granted we are CMMI Level 5, not ISO9001). We use ClearCase because it is a certifiable repository. We'd LIKE to use Sharepoint, since it is easier to use for the non-developers and would cut down on mistakes and time lost in managing documents, but we are slaves to the process.
You can't kill a journalist (on purpose mind you, but he can be killed if he's mingling with terrorists and gets in the way of a few rounds), even if he does share the same ideology as the terrorists. Sharing an ideology and acting upon said ideology are two different things.
The jawawhatever blog linked earlier posts the investigation reports that claim to have found RPG rounds (and there are pictures of the AK47s and RPG as well).
I've played nearly every racing sim on PC and PS3 ever made, and some of them do a good job at force feedback. Most, however, just throw in some rumbling. When done well (even without force feedback) racing sims give you enough feedback to simulate (hence the term racing sim) what it is like to control a real race car.
Force Feedback is really nice on games like GT5 that actually provide cues to how much traction you are getting or by transmitting the "feel" of the road (off camber causing the steering to go light, for example). They still haven't quite gotten the impending brake lockup input thing down yet, though. It's always a guessing game (or lots of game practice) to know exactly how much braking you can use (audio clues are good but not enough). Maybe somebody will make a force feeback brake pedal that modulates based on on traction?
You keep the 2-3 strategic people, at all costs. Pay them enough so that they don't want a career change. Otherwise, you mentor a couple up-and-comers to take over if they leave.
Microsoft has a product line business model (whereas my company is contract driven). They have to make stuff and then hope people buy it, whereas my company doesn't make anything until somebody pays us to do so. Therefore, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to continue to push new functionality that aren't necessary. Vista was a bad effort, but Win7 is really nice. Forcing people to upgrade is a bit dramatic. I can still use XP if I want, for example. However, I hate XP so much that I've used OSX instead. Now with Win7, I actually went out and bought a PC. Microsoft actually enticed me to buy their product...they didn't force me to do anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally somebody gets it. For high levels of clearance the non-disclosure is good for 99 years and is punishable by...wait for it....DEATH.
So whistle-blow all you want, morons, but you should have thought about that before signing the paper that says, "I will not whistle blow for the next 99 years by penalty of death" (my paraphrase).
Except for the fact that not just any government official can classify something. This is a typical slashdot rant, and one that most people on slashdot don't understand.
Executive Order 12356:
Sec. 1.2 Classification Authority.
(a) Top Secret. The authority to classify information originally as
Top Secret may be exercised only by:
(1) the President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the
President in the Federal Register; and (3) officials delegated this
authority pursuant to Section 1.2(d). (b) Secret. The authority to
classify information originally as Secret may be exercised only by: (1)
agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal
Register; (2) officials with original Top Secret classification
authority;
If the intent is to get a picture of somebody that is suspected to have stolen the lap top, that's completely different from just taking pictures of people who are lawfully using laptop, but having an image taken of them without their knowledge. The later is spying, the first part is just trying to get stolen property back.
In our current police state (not just the U.S., but most of the western world now) where the police departments have cameras all over the cities and traffic systems, can't they just have 2-3 people sitting at a console, taking snap shots of drivers with their phones to their ears and clicking a mouse button to send them a ticket in the mail?
There are enough violations every day on my commute that I often wish I were a beat cop. I'd write so many tickets, I'd meet my monthly quota the first week. We don't need cameras--we need cops who actually enforce the laws against the violations that happen right in front of them (I've seen people run stop signs and red lights right in front of cops).
I'm an American, but also a racing enthusiast. They've always been kerbs to me, but that's because I don't pretend the Earth ends at the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
That's why real drivers call them kerbs.
This happened to me yesterday. I showed the guy my texting log and when he saw the last text I sent or received was over a week ago, he actually believed me when I told him I rarely text, and I never text while driving.
He wasn't going to ticket me, it was just a warning, but I felt compelled to defend myself anyway, since I'm such an ardent anti-texting while driving person.
They are enforcing the new (one month old) texting and driving ban here in Austin pretty aggressively (as well as the no cell phone in school zones law). I hope they keep it up, because like you said, no enforcement, no deterrent.
I've talked to several people who are opposed to the law (anti-nannystate libertarian types) and they've said they'll just take the ticket and not stop texting. Thus, the fines need to be higher, and they should start affecting their insurance rates (or add the threat of losing driving privs for a few weeks/months).
I too cannot supertask. The rare occasion I do answer my cell while driving leads to the most awkward conversations ever. Me: "uhhh....hang on.....", Other Person: "alskdf mald;fj ajdkf jfaj fj", Me: "Ok.....uhhh....hang on..."
In other words, I ignore the phone and concentrate on the road, which is quite opposite the norm, evidently.
Now, now...be fair. He's merely an "agent of the Handicapper General".
Make it like a DUI. You can't just pull somebody over to check if they are drunk (well, in theory at least), but if they are driving erratically, you should be able to see in the cab to see if they have a cell phone, which gives you probably cause to pull them over.
If you just see them using a phone, but they are driving fine, leave them alone.
Radios are a passive device...i.e. you only listen to it. Therefore it doesn't overload the cognitive workload.
And yes, IAACS.
"Fatalities per hundred million miles driven" is no indicator of near-misses, fender-benders, serious injury (non-fatal) and general aggravation caused by idiots talking on their phones while driving.
If anything, the first link only proves that vehicle accidents have become more survivable over the years.
Mod second paragraph up as best-albeit-anecdotal-post ever.
My anecdotes about cell phone drivers add to your list of SUV driving homemakers...Jesus fish and multiple "support our troops" stickers increase the probability the driver is also on their phone.
There are plenty of cognitive studies that disprove the safety of "hands free devices". The act of holding a phone and driving is not any more dangerous than holding a coffee and driving.
The problem comes with cognitive function. We can actively process two stimuli with little effort. For example, we can pay attention to the road and listen to the radio without much fanfare (anyone calling for the banning of driving while listening to the radio?).
Add a third stimulus, like "responding" and elevate the "hearing" stimulus to "listening" and you have cognitive overload. The basic theory is the brain is good at doing two things at once, but three or more interferes with cognition.
To compensate, we focus more on two stimuli and less on the third. Those of us who can drive (relatively) safely while using a phone generally are completely tuning out the phone conversation (which defeats the purpose of having a phone, which is also why I've stopped answering my phone while driving).
The real dangerous people are the ones who tune out what's going on the road to tune into their conversation.
I have a simple solution. Since YOU think you can drive and use your cell (doubtful, but most people who deem themselves too important to hold off on a phone call probably rationalize it this way), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My solution is cops can't give cellphone/driving tickets unless the driver is driving in a way that is obviously distracted.
See in my world, all the anecdotal evidence we provide on slashdot about crazy bad driver on a cell phone would be valid, because only the people driving poorly while using their cell phones would be punished. The extremely rare good driver/cell phone user will go unnoticed.
Replace "cell phone" with "make up lady", or "Big Mac guy", or "screaming kids person", etc.
Mass transit won't work in the US because there's no way to get to the office from the last train/bus stop.
Did I miss something and get whooshed? What correlation does buying HD tvs have with the quoted bit?
Insightful? Huh?
Sharepoint is not an approved document repository at my company (granted we are CMMI Level 5, not ISO9001). We use ClearCase because it is a certifiable repository. We'd LIKE to use Sharepoint, since it is easier to use for the non-developers and would cut down on mistakes and time lost in managing documents, but we are slaves to the process.
You can't kill a journalist (on purpose mind you, but he can be killed if he's mingling with terrorists and gets in the way of a few rounds), even if he does share the same ideology as the terrorists. Sharing an ideology and acting upon said ideology are two different things.
The jawawhatever blog linked earlier posts the investigation reports that claim to have found RPG rounds (and there are pictures of the AK47s and RPG as well).
So, they had pictures of a Humvee, they had RPGs, and they had the perfect place from which to attack. Why then did they never attack?
Because they had .30 caliber holes in their bodies?
And I counter with, using stereotypes to illustrate a point about ignorance is itself ignorant.
I've played nearly every racing sim on PC and PS3 ever made, and some of them do a good job at force feedback. Most, however, just throw in some rumbling. When done well (even without force feedback) racing sims give you enough feedback to simulate (hence the term racing sim) what it is like to control a real race car.
Force Feedback is really nice on games like GT5 that actually provide cues to how much traction you are getting or by transmitting the "feel" of the road (off camber causing the steering to go light, for example). They still haven't quite gotten the impending brake lockup input thing down yet, though. It's always a guessing game (or lots of game practice) to know exactly how much braking you can use (audio clues are good but not enough). Maybe somebody will make a force feeback brake pedal that modulates based on on traction?
You keep the 2-3 strategic people, at all costs. Pay them enough so that they don't want a career change. Otherwise, you mentor a couple up-and-comers to take over if they leave.
Microsoft has a product line business model (whereas my company is contract driven). They have to make stuff and then hope people buy it, whereas my company doesn't make anything until somebody pays us to do so. Therefore, it would be in Microsoft's best interest to continue to push new functionality that aren't necessary. Vista was a bad effort, but Win7 is really nice. Forcing people to upgrade is a bit dramatic. I can still use XP if I want, for example. However, I hate XP so much that I've used OSX instead. Now with Win7, I actually went out and bought a PC. Microsoft actually enticed me to buy their product...they didn't force me to do anything.