GPS is likely to get them close enough to use a tracker to pick up the source of the signal. They might not do that, though, because Tracker is made by a competitor.
There are wiretapping laws in the UK too. But the consumer has to pull a tab to activate the transmitter, which will presumably be deemed consent.
What I'm not clear about is whether the transmitter is as well as the chocolate or instead of. If the latter, Nestle had better hope the bar isn't bought by a diabetic who needs a quick sugar fix because they feel themselves going hypo.
I have to take medicine daily, one stated contraindication of which is "death". The condition for which I take it is non-fatal. I still take the medication (because death is a very rare contraindication, and there are usually enough warning signs to stop taking the medication and get medical attention in time). Does a six-monthly chat with my doctor count as "heavily monitored conditions"?
The definition of "fair" referenced in the article still depends on the presence of moral agents acting willfully on the market. In other words, the concept of fairness doesn't exist in isolation from those moral agents. What is a "fair" market is what people find to be "fair", and although there is a particular legal and economical definition of what is called "fair", that is only what those agents consider fair. Notably, it doesn't take any account of externality, which I would suggest most market participants (including the accountants and lawyers when they are off duty) would consider an essential component of fairness.
By which I mean, one can have a rational discussion about the ethics of this or that business practice without veering into the moral territory of whether you're going to hell because you sell on Sundays.
Indeed you can -- but only if you take a view of economics that is incompatible with it being something that is entirely natural.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the parent poster's message. Not all of those things have to happen, for what it's worth, but as I read the list I was putting really pessimistic probabilities on them (iPad mean time between failure of 10 hours, pilot mean time between spilling coffee on critical documents of 1 hour, and so on) and I was within the aviation target level of safety by a few orders of magnitude before I was half-way down the list. The scenario is way below the noise level. More of a risk is the flight crew missing critical alarms because they're too busy playing Angry Birds.
That's something that would have to be (and presumably has been) subject to a formal safety assessment. I can see basically two scenarios to consider: credibly corrupt information, and loss (including clearly false information). Credibly corrupt information is probably incredibly unlikely, so I would expect loss to be the main issue. And the situation is probably that when the pilot is under air traffic control there's unlikely to be anything in those documents that air traffic control couldn't relay to the pilot. If failures were common it would overload ATC, but the occasional incident in which a controller has to talk a pilot through the appropriate standard approach route would barely register in the risk calculations. More of an issue might be danger areas, minimum safe altitude, and national borders (KAL902, anybody?) in wilderness areas where there might not be an air traffic control service. The risk is still likely to be within tolerable limits, especially if they carry more than one device.
That leaves the issue of interference with other systems, which is probably where all the effort was needed.
Same as when everybody has OD'd on their meds. Oh, wait, most people don't do that. By the way, those markets are "fair and natural" in exactly the same sense as the smallpox virus is and in exactly the same sense as the gut flora that break down carbohydrates are. That is, they're all natural and it's meaningless to apply moral judgments like "fair" to them.
Sometimes medicine has undesirable side-effects. We don't stop using medicine because of that. We don't even stop using the medicine with the undesirable side-effects because of that. We might look for better medicines -- if the payoff looks to be worthwhile.
No, common sense says that a device with these specs would cost more without the ads.
You're not an economist, are you? The price isn't set by the cost of production/distribution etc, it's set at the point expected to maximise revenue, and it's well established that increasing the price of a product can in some circumstances increase sales. Yes, no doubt Amazon expects its profits to be higher with the ads, but that probably has almost nothing at all to do with the price to the consumer.
Only for charging, not for data. And a manufacturer can be compliant by supplying an adaptor, which only has to charge the device, not carry data. Hardly relevant to docking the device.
I can get by in English, French, German, C, C++, C#, Python and Pascal, and have a basic knowledge of Mandarin, Esperanto, Java, OCAML, Ada, Forth, Boo, Smalltalk and Scala.
We didn't ruin the educational system. My daughter is fine at spelling and grammar. If you didn't learn, that's your look out. You can lead a horse to water...
He is wanted for arrest in Sweden, and questioning whilst under arrest. Having a video chat with somebody is hardly a viable substitute for arresting them.
So in the case of murder, no punishment is required because the victim no longer exists to decide retribution or forgiveness. Oh, wait: perhaps the family of the murdered person are also affected? And all of society, by having the killer at large, and by other potential killers knowing that killers go unpunished? Aren't those things true of torture too, and other crimes? Hmm, looks to me as if your approach is too simplistic, and that justice might not simply be a matter of retribution or forgiveness...
Oh yes, as a rational slashdotter I certainly agree with the evidence that some people believe things should be like that (and that some people don't). But science is of little help in deciding whether things should actually be like that. Both positions seem to have much the same epistemological status as religion. (I wasn't actually stating the contrary position because I necessarily hold it, just to show the flaws in the argument for the original position.)
Why would you think that? Because you're vindictive? Because you like it? So what. Why do your preferences have any relevance when you're not the victim?
Er -- perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "clade". Being in a clade of dinosaurs doesn't mean that they are dinosaurs. Humans will be in the clade of some ancient eukaryote, but that doesn't make us eukaryotes.
One of the definitions of "legitimate" is "genuine", so it is just possible that Hamblin meant to distinguish actual rape from false accusations. That is a -- dare I say? -- legitimate distinction. Of course, whether a pregnancy results is a ridiculous way of telling them apart.
Slashdot Mirror
GPS is likely to get them close enough to use a tracker to pick up the source of the signal. They might not do that, though, because Tracker is made by a competitor.
There are wiretapping laws in the UK too. But the consumer has to pull a tab to activate the transmitter, which will presumably be deemed consent.
What I'm not clear about is whether the transmitter is as well as the chocolate or instead of. If the latter, Nestle had better hope the bar isn't bought by a diabetic who needs a quick sugar fix because they feel themselves going hypo.
This is a trademark, not a patent. Is prior art relevant? "McDonalds" is a trademark, but the name existed for centuries before the fast-food chain.
I have to take medicine daily, one stated contraindication of which is "death". The condition for which I take it is non-fatal. I still take the medication (because death is a very rare contraindication, and there are usually enough warning signs to stop taking the medication and get medical attention in time). Does a six-monthly chat with my doctor count as "heavily monitored conditions"?
The definition of "fair" referenced in the article still depends on the presence of moral agents acting willfully on the market. In other words, the concept of fairness doesn't exist in isolation from those moral agents. What is a "fair" market is what people find to be "fair", and although there is a particular legal and economical definition of what is called "fair", that is only what those agents consider fair. Notably, it doesn't take any account of externality, which I would suggest most market participants (including the accountants and lawyers when they are off duty) would consider an essential component of fairness.
By which I mean, one can have a rational discussion about the ethics of this or that business practice without veering into the moral territory of whether you're going to hell because you sell on Sundays.
Indeed you can -- but only if you take a view of economics that is incompatible with it being something that is entirely natural.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the parent poster's message. Not all of those things have to happen, for what it's worth, but as I read the list I was putting really pessimistic probabilities on them (iPad mean time between failure of 10 hours, pilot mean time between spilling coffee on critical documents of 1 hour, and so on) and I was within the aviation target level of safety by a few orders of magnitude before I was half-way down the list. The scenario is way below the noise level. More of a risk is the flight crew missing critical alarms because they're too busy playing Angry Birds.
That's something that would have to be (and presumably has been) subject to a formal safety assessment. I can see basically two scenarios to consider: credibly corrupt information, and loss (including clearly false information). Credibly corrupt information is probably incredibly unlikely, so I would expect loss to be the main issue. And the situation is probably that when the pilot is under air traffic control there's unlikely to be anything in those documents that air traffic control couldn't relay to the pilot. If failures were common it would overload ATC, but the occasional incident in which a controller has to talk a pilot through the appropriate standard approach route would barely register in the risk calculations. More of an issue might be danger areas, minimum safe altitude, and national borders (KAL902, anybody?) in wilderness areas where there might not be an air traffic control service. The risk is still likely to be within tolerable limits, especially if they carry more than one device.
That leaves the issue of interference with other systems, which is probably where all the effort was needed.
Same as when everybody has OD'd on their meds. Oh, wait, most people don't do that. By the way, those markets are "fair and natural" in exactly the same sense as the smallpox virus is and in exactly the same sense as the gut flora that break down carbohydrates are. That is, they're all natural and it's meaningless to apply moral judgments like "fair" to them.
Uhhh...regulation isn't the human leveraging of another aspect of social interchange against certain social practices?
Sometimes medicine has undesirable side-effects. We don't stop using medicine because of that. We don't even stop using the medicine with the undesirable side-effects because of that. We might look for better medicines -- if the payoff looks to be worthwhile.
Capitalism is to economics as natural selection is to Darwinism.
And regulation is to capitalism as medicine is to natural selection.
Would you contend that people should do something un-natural?
Use medicine to prolong life? Absolutely.
No, common sense says that a device with these specs would cost more without the ads.
You're not an economist, are you? The price isn't set by the cost of production/distribution etc, it's set at the point expected to maximise revenue, and it's well established that increasing the price of a product can in some circumstances increase sales. Yes, no doubt Amazon expects its profits to be higher with the ads, but that probably has almost nothing at all to do with the price to the consumer.
There is a standard and it is very much like usb.
Only for charging, not for data. And a manufacturer can be compliant by supplying an adaptor, which only has to charge the device, not carry data. Hardly relevant to docking the device.
I can get by in English, French, German, C, C++, C#, Python and Pascal, and have a basic knowledge of Mandarin, Esperanto, Java, OCAML, Ada, Forth, Boo, Smalltalk and Scala.
We didn't ruin the educational system. My daughter is fine at spelling and grammar. If you didn't learn, that's your look out. You can lead a horse to water...
He is wanted for arrest in Sweden, and questioning whilst under arrest. Having a video chat with somebody is hardly a viable substitute for arresting them.
Well, not to Americans. I'm a Brit, and we like to keep what competitive advantage we can. ;)
The Boomers was really a short sited generation.
But at least we learned spelling and grammar. :)
So in the case of murder, no punishment is required because the victim no longer exists to decide retribution or forgiveness. Oh, wait: perhaps the family of the murdered person are also affected? And all of society, by having the killer at large, and by other potential killers knowing that killers go unpunished? Aren't those things true of torture too, and other crimes? Hmm, looks to me as if your approach is too simplistic, and that justice might not simply be a matter of retribution or forgiveness...
Oh yes, as a rational slashdotter I certainly agree with the evidence that some people believe things should be like that (and that some people don't). But science is of little help in deciding whether things should actually be like that. Both positions seem to have much the same epistemological status as religion. (I wasn't actually stating the contrary position because I necessarily hold it, just to show the flaws in the argument for the original position.)
Why would you think that? Because you're vindictive? Because you like it? So what. Why do your preferences have any relevance when you're not the victim?
Er -- perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "clade". Being in a clade of dinosaurs doesn't mean that they are dinosaurs. Humans will be in the clade of some ancient eukaryote, but that doesn't make us eukaryotes.
So what you're saying is that they've discovered the Gene-spot.
One of the definitions of "legitimate" is "genuine", so it is just possible that Hamblin meant to distinguish actual rape from false accusations. That is a -- dare I say? -- legitimate distinction. Of course, whether a pregnancy results is a ridiculous way of telling them apart.