I'd never heard of the crime(?) "barraty" before--threatening to sue in order to get a reaction, then not following through. Wouldn't something like this be applicable to the Felton case?
Actually there was no "beta" testing in the pure sense of the word. From what I hear, all beta was done by internal testers. Sounds like alpha to me.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 1
No, I have two fundamental disagreements with your argument: 1)you're saying that the end (getting the drunk bastard off the road) justifies the means (tossing out already eroding bedrock civil protections from privacy invasions and police states). 2)That things will go as you've stated in the scenarios you've listed.Outcome 1. Nah, chances are that unless I'm really smashed, I'll get home just fine. I don't know very many people who haven't driven when they shouldn't have at some time or another, but I know exceedingly few that have ever had even the slightest mishap from being a beer over the (shrinking) legal limit.
Assuming that all drivers are potential drunks and should be tested is different from the assumption that all men are potential rapists and should be castrated only in scale of consequence.Outcome 2. If the cop hadn't been in my car where he didn't belong, I probably would have made it home, paid for my crime with a mild hangover, then gone on back to work the next Monday working on that breakthrough vaccine to protect your kids from spacemumps. My life wouldn't be disrupted and I could still afford to keep my poor sainted old mother fed well enough she could stop foraging in dumpsters.Outcome 3. I'll give you this one. If you're white, clean cut, and not in a neighborhood in which you "don't belong." I don't know how it is where you drive, but I don't have to go too far down the road from where I am to find that being black is reason enough to be pulled over, and being pulled over is reason enough to be searched.When I drink, I tend to drink at home. My friends frequently crash at my place rather than driving. Drinking and driving is inarguably a wrong. But from a US Constitutional perspective, it is far, far less of a wrong than this proposed alternative. It ain't just my freedoms I'm trying to protect, buddy. It's also yours those of the other folks who can't look past the emotion of the potential consequences of the crime.The bottom line here is that drunk driving is a social problem--and one I believe is actually getting better--not a technical one to be solved by virtual jack-booted thugs in the steering wheel.
Re:So I will drive with my windows open, NEXT
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The issue isn't whether driving is a privelege, rather whether the proactive search is legal. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This ain't "probable cause," it's an invasion of one's person, and precisely the sort of thing the 4th Amendment is supposed to prohibit.
See me weaving, driving too slowly, chugging a beer behind the wheel, mowing over little old ladies with walkers, or rolling down the window so the drunk sixteen-year-old girl in the passenger seat can toss her cookies: That's probable cause. Driving through town with invisible vapors in my car is not.
(I'd argue that if we go to an electronic system, the order in which the candidates are presented should be randomized on a per-voter basis.)
The problem with that is that it requires a certain amount of literacy to handle the changing layout, and literacy requirements have been found to be unconstitutional. The advantage to paper and predetermined layout is that an illiterate voter can ask a poll worker "which one is FOO and which one is BAR?" while still retaining privacy in his/her vote. Color-coding or other symbols replacing text raise all sort of issues that are not necessarily easy to get rid of. Which color to use for packaging, for example, is a bigtime subject of psychomarketing study. Would that apply here?
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown
While I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions, I can't help but fear that you're playing directly into the hands of the Man. The people that understand and care about the technology--and then vote "their consciences"--are precisely the people whose votes will go into a tiny little column of protest votes to be largely ignored for the next four years no matter whether it's Bush or Gore who wins the big pot.
I'm not thrilled about it, but my vote's going to Gore. I believe he's more likely to put savvier people on the Supreme Bench, I think he's got a better chance of bringing some technogrok into the office of the President, and, frankly, I'd rather have a President who's made it that far on his own shady dealings rather than relying on those of his Daddy.
--Fritz
-----------
Win the war on drugs: Legalize. Regulate. Tax.
"Median" (the midpoint in the sample set) is one of three "averages," the other two being the "mean" (the sum of the sample set divided by the sample count) and the "mode" (the most frequently occurring element(s) in the set). Common parlance usually equates "average" with "mean," but the original post wasn't incorrect. I'd guess from your reply, though, that you're a "mean" person. And "mean" people suck.;-)
Not if you're using a "reputable" online bank. If your online bank is FDIC insured, your personal level of risk is not significantly higher than if you had money in a brick and mortar bank that got robbed. (The RISK is slightly higher simply because it would be more possible to steal all of a bank's money online. IOW, an online robbery could conceivably exceed what the FDIC could readily pay.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd never heard of the crime(?) "barraty" before--threatening to sue in order to get a reaction, then not following through. Wouldn't something like this be applicable to the Felton case?
Actually there was no "beta" testing in the pure sense of the word. From what I hear, all beta was done by internal testers. Sounds like alpha to me.
No, I have two fundamental disagreements with your argument:
1)you're saying that the end (getting the drunk bastard off the road) justifies the means (tossing out already eroding bedrock civil protections from privacy invasions and police states).
2)That things will go as you've stated in the scenarios you've listed.Outcome 1. Nah, chances are that unless I'm really smashed, I'll get home just fine. I don't know very many people who haven't driven when they shouldn't have at some time or another, but I know exceedingly few that have ever had even the slightest mishap from being a beer over the (shrinking) legal limit.
Assuming that all drivers are potential drunks and should be tested is different from the assumption that all men are potential rapists and should be castrated only in scale of consequence.Outcome 2. If the cop hadn't been in my car where he didn't belong, I probably would have made it home, paid for my crime with a mild hangover, then gone on back to work the next Monday working on that breakthrough vaccine to protect your kids from spacemumps. My life wouldn't be disrupted and I could still afford to keep my poor sainted old mother fed well enough she could stop foraging in dumpsters.Outcome 3. I'll give you this one. If you're white, clean cut, and not in a neighborhood in which you "don't belong." I don't know how it is where you drive, but I don't have to go too far down the road from where I am to find that being black is reason enough to be pulled over, and being pulled over is reason enough to be searched.When I drink, I tend to drink at home. My friends frequently crash at my place rather than driving. Drinking and driving is inarguably a wrong. But from a US Constitutional perspective, it is far, far less of a wrong than this proposed alternative. It ain't just my freedoms I'm trying to protect, buddy. It's also yours those of the other folks who can't look past the emotion of the potential consequences of the crime.The bottom line here is that drunk driving is a social problem--and one I believe is actually getting better--not a technical one to be solved by virtual jack-booted thugs in the steering wheel.
The issue isn't whether driving is a privelege, rather whether the proactive search is legal. The 4th Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This ain't "probable cause," it's an invasion of one's person, and precisely the sort of thing the 4th Amendment is supposed to prohibit.
See me weaving, driving too slowly, chugging a beer behind the wheel, mowing over little old ladies with walkers, or rolling down the window so the drunk sixteen-year-old girl in the passenger seat can toss her cookies: That's probable cause. Driving through town with invisible vapors in my car is not.
(I'd argue that if we go to an electronic system, the order in which the candidates are presented should be randomized on a per-voter basis.) The problem with that is that it requires a certain amount of literacy to handle the changing layout, and literacy requirements have been found to be unconstitutional. The advantage to paper and predetermined layout is that an illiterate voter can ask a poll worker "which one is FOO and which one is BAR?" while still retaining privacy in his/her vote. Color-coding or other symbols replacing text raise all sort of issues that are not necessarily easy to get rid of. Which color to use for packaging, for example, is a bigtime subject of psychomarketing study. Would that apply here?
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown While I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions, I can't help but fear that you're playing directly into the hands of the Man. The people that understand and care about the technology--and then vote "their consciences"--are precisely the people whose votes will go into a tiny little column of protest votes to be largely ignored for the next four years no matter whether it's Bush or Gore who wins the big pot. I'm not thrilled about it, but my vote's going to Gore. I believe he's more likely to put savvier people on the Supreme Bench, I think he's got a better chance of bringing some technogrok into the office of the President, and, frankly, I'd rather have a President who's made it that far on his own shady dealings rather than relying on those of his Daddy. --Fritz -----------
Win the war on drugs: Legalize. Regulate. Tax.
"Median" (the midpoint in the sample set) is one of three "averages," the other two being the "mean" (the sum of the sample set divided by the sample count) and the "mode" (the most frequently occurring element(s) in the set). Common parlance usually equates "average" with "mean," but the original post wasn't incorrect. I'd guess from your reply, though, that you're a "mean" person. And "mean" people suck. ;-)
Does this mean that you are now cross-posting?
The only problem with this is that if your wife is savvy, she might think to ask why you have sextracker.com listed at all...
Not if you're using a "reputable" online bank. If your online bank is FDIC insured, your personal level of risk is not significantly higher than if you had money in a brick and mortar bank that got robbed. (The RISK is slightly higher simply because it would be more possible to steal all of a bank's money online. IOW, an online robbery could conceivably exceed what the FDIC could readily pay.)