Give Sony a bit of a break, it's only been a month, and SCE & Sony Music are far enough apart within the overall Sony group for it to not necessarily have filtered all the way to testing the vulnerabilities in Hungary.
The term you're looking for there is the uncanny valley, which usually applies to human characters in graphics but can equally be applied to environments too. When you approach realism, everything seems to get better up until a point, at which the flaws spring out a whole lot more because the baseline is much higher.
The thrust of this article is that we don't have the next generation of consoles to upgrade to, where once-upon-a-time-a-decade-ago we would expect an upgrade to come through around 5 years after the launch of the "previous" generation. Other than the Wii2^H^H^H^H Project Cafe from Nintendo which is more like catching up to the PS3/X360, there's no hint of an upgrade from Sony & Microsoft.
How can you expect someone to follow the law if they don't understand the law?
You have made some interesting points but you really haven't answered the question.
You're misunderstanding my point. I don't expect people to understand the intricacies of the law; I expect that people will be able to follow a simplified explanation provided by experts, but that should not preclude laws which are more complicated, reflecting the complexity of modern life. It's analogous to saying how can people use computers, or cars, or $technology, without understanding how it works?
The fact is that people by and large follow laws without being handed a book detailing all of them is proof that the system as it is, with complex laws and everything, works.
I'm not suggesting that people do not understand basic laws, or laws simplified and explained by experts, but the intricacies of law in the modern context is such that it's not readily available to the common person. That doesn't preclude lawful behaviour; did someone sit you down and explain all the laws in the country when you were 10 years old, at which point you started to be culpable for your actions? at 17, when you could potentially be tried as an adult? About the only circumstance in which that actually happens is road laws.
Case in point: do you understand the difference between battery & assault? Is there one? What constitutes aggravated assault, and what is the limits of self defence? what of the degrees of murder, or the difference between that and manslaughter? without being a lawyer, the best I (or, I suspect, you) can offer is the explanation distilled by the media that you've read somewhere. That doesn't mean you don't understand actions which are illegal without understanding the legal code that forms the basis for prosecution.
You say the tax example as though Australia was amongst the early movers in applying a GST, or that sales taxes are rare enough elsewhere in the world. Hell, NZ had a GST before we did, and it had been proposed nearly 10 years prior by John Hewson. The GST replaced a series of different state sales taxes, harmonising tax arrangements around the country but shifting a huge chunk of power to Canberra through the payment redistribution system that causes such consternation at each COAG meeting.
Furthermore, copyright is bound mostly by international treaties; between the updates to the Bern treaty and our FTA with the US effectively importing the DMCA, our copyright law is no more "inspired" by others than our adherence to the Geneva convention.
We already have far less rights than the Australian population knows. They generally tend to believe that they have the same rights as Americans. We have no Miranda (sp?). We have no right to our homes. Australia has no concept of an illegal search or seizure. Evidence cannot be excluded for these kinds of reasons.
I would have hoped that you declared your self to not be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer myself, but Australian legal rights aren't so far gone as all that. If the police are questioning you with the intent of using the information as evidence in court, they do warn you along the same lines as the Miranda rights. (in any case, Miranda was more about the fact of police having to inform about rights than the rights themselves.) You get two calls - one to family or a friend, and another to a lawyer. I don't know where you get the no-right-to-our-homes, and there's certainly a concept of illegal search, seizure and inadmissable illegally obtained evidence. Where do you get these stories from?
The weakness of our constitution is part of the problem. The 'man in the street' (or man on the couch) wouldn't have to be so active if we had a half decent constitution. This doesn't mean that we can all sit on our collective backsides and do nothing. It means that there would be more opportunity for civil libertarians to challenge stupid laws.
We might not have a Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution, but we have 800 years of common law to draw on, given the courts recognise British court decisions as being relevant to Australian laws. Many of the rights you cry poor over have been ruled on in past legal cases.
Let's face it. Most of us don't really know much about politics and the law. And most of us don't have the will to fight these battles. The purpose of a constitution is to protect the rights of the folks who are less capable of protecting their own.
The purpose of a constitution is to give a framework for laws to hang on; the fact that Americans have enshrined certain laws in their constitution above and beyond the simple amendment of a vote in parliament is admirable, but a fetishistic obsession with a constitution does not make for easily enshrined laws. No-one expects that the ordinary person on the street would be able to understand all the relevant laws - lawyers have jobs for a reason, and to argue that laws should be simple enough to be understood by everyone is disingenuous in this day and age.
Online games are often an used for money laundering, by putting all the ill gotten money into the
OH YAH, I can just imagine some hard looking mafia types trading gold on Runescape, with the FBI monitoring them and hiding as a noob while waiting for the transaction to complete. How totally ridiculous.
I was giving an example where a train route is superior to a flying route; the driving alternative is 450km or thereabouts, and there's no chance you could beat or match the train even if there was a bridge/road tunnel across the Channel.
With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.
It depends - I think there are certainly areas of the US where it can work, and areas where it's unlikely to. A high-volume sector like Boston-New York-Philly-Washington DC could definitely be a target for upgrading to high-speed rail, much as Japan's main Shinkansen line is across the densest part of Honshu, connecting Hiroshima-Kyoto-Osaka/Kobe-Nagoya-Tokyo. A plane might be able to carry 200 passengers, a train 10 times that easily - so there's a pay-off point with speed and capacity of the trains with high-density and high-volume routes.
The best example I can cite with personal experience is the Eurostar from London to Paris. A tube to Kings Cross-St Pancras, onto the Eurostar in about 20 minutes, and a 2.25 hour trip to Paris Gare du Nord is far easier than a onerous trip out to Heathrow (1 hr from central London), a 2 hour check-in buffer, 1 hour flight to CDG and then transport into Paris' centre.
You're talking of your own particular use case, with a reasonable income and assets. Now imagine someone who doesn't have a car, but needs to travel that same journey - a student, or a labourer with a family in Houston and work in Austin; it's a heck of a commute, but cheaper than moving the whole family. High-speed rail offers a quicker alternative to a bus service, one not affected by or contributing to congestion from private transportation.
As others have mentioned, Texas isn't necessarily the best example of where high speed trains would delivery the most benefits, and your case of using a car is also not available to everyone. Public transport provides a public good that isn't necessarily measured in purely economic terms.
Not saying that the posture people are right, but when did you ever see a monkey live to 80? Some of the posture suggestions are sensible, though of course there's no need to be rigid all day.
That's a historical, cultural overhang - I think of height in ft/in, despite being a child of the 80s. No-one is proposing to make people think different, just adjust the units used officially.
Slashdot Mirror
Time is an illusion, after all. Lunchtime doubly so.
In SPACE. Where we are LOOKING FOR THEM.
fondling@home is already available to a wide, wide population... it's what the internet is for, after all.
I think the point is that the iPad's resolution is 1024x768, which is 4:3, not 16:9.
... so you would suspect that shiny only sells once, right?
Give Sony a bit of a break, it's only been a month, and SCE & Sony Music are far enough apart within the overall Sony group for it to not necessarily have filtered all the way to testing the vulnerabilities in Hungary.
The term you're looking for there is the uncanny valley, which usually applies to human characters in graphics but can equally be applied to environments too. When you approach realism, everything seems to get better up until a point, at which the flaws spring out a whole lot more because the baseline is much higher.
The thrust of this article is that we don't have the next generation of consoles to upgrade to, where once-upon-a-time-a-decade-ago we would expect an upgrade to come through around 5 years after the launch of the "previous" generation. Other than the Wii2^H^H^H^H Project Cafe from Nintendo which is more like catching up to the PS3/X360, there's no hint of an upgrade from Sony & Microsoft.
How can you expect someone to follow the law if they don't understand the law?
You have made some interesting points but you really haven't answered the question.
You're misunderstanding my point. I don't expect people to understand the intricacies of the law; I expect that people will be able to follow a simplified explanation provided by experts, but that should not preclude laws which are more complicated, reflecting the complexity of modern life. It's analogous to saying how can people use computers, or cars, or $technology, without understanding how it works?
The fact is that people by and large follow laws without being handed a book detailing all of them is proof that the system as it is, with complex laws and everything, works.
I'm not suggesting that people do not understand basic laws, or laws simplified and explained by experts, but the intricacies of law in the modern context is such that it's not readily available to the common person. That doesn't preclude lawful behaviour; did someone sit you down and explain all the laws in the country when you were 10 years old, at which point you started to be culpable for your actions? at 17, when you could potentially be tried as an adult? About the only circumstance in which that actually happens is road laws.
Case in point: do you understand the difference between battery & assault? Is there one? What constitutes aggravated assault, and what is the limits of self defence? what of the degrees of murder, or the difference between that and manslaughter? without being a lawyer, the best I (or, I suspect, you) can offer is the explanation distilled by the media that you've read somewhere. That doesn't mean you don't understand actions which are illegal without understanding the legal code that forms the basis for prosecution.
You say the tax example as though Australia was amongst the early movers in applying a GST, or that sales taxes are rare enough elsewhere in the world. Hell, NZ had a GST before we did, and it had been proposed nearly 10 years prior by John Hewson. The GST replaced a series of different state sales taxes, harmonising tax arrangements around the country but shifting a huge chunk of power to Canberra through the payment redistribution system that causes such consternation at each COAG meeting.
Furthermore, copyright is bound mostly by international treaties; between the updates to the Bern treaty and our FTA with the US effectively importing the DMCA, our copyright law is no more "inspired" by others than our adherence to the Geneva convention.
We already have far less rights than the Australian population knows. They generally tend to believe that they have the same rights as Americans. We have no Miranda (sp?). We have no right to our homes. Australia has no concept of an illegal search or seizure. Evidence cannot be excluded for these kinds of reasons.
I would have hoped that you declared your self to not be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer myself, but Australian legal rights aren't so far gone as all that. If the police are questioning you with the intent of using the information as evidence in court, they do warn you along the same lines as the Miranda rights. (in any case, Miranda was more about the fact of police having to inform about rights than the rights themselves.) You get two calls - one to family or a friend, and another to a lawyer. I don't know where you get the no-right-to-our-homes, and there's certainly a concept of illegal search, seizure and inadmissable illegally obtained evidence. Where do you get these stories from?
The weakness of our constitution is part of the problem. The 'man in the street' (or man on the couch) wouldn't have to be so active if we had a half decent constitution. This doesn't mean that we can all sit on our collective backsides and do nothing. It means that there would be more opportunity for civil libertarians to challenge stupid laws.
We might not have a Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution, but we have 800 years of common law to draw on, given the courts recognise British court decisions as being relevant to Australian laws. Many of the rights you cry poor over have been ruled on in past legal cases.
Let's face it. Most of us don't really know much about politics and the law. And most of us don't have the will to fight these battles. The purpose of a constitution is to protect the rights of the folks who are less capable of protecting their own.
The purpose of a constitution is to give a framework for laws to hang on; the fact that Americans have enshrined certain laws in their constitution above and beyond the simple amendment of a vote in parliament is admirable, but a fetishistic obsession with a constitution does not make for easily enshrined laws. No-one expects that the ordinary person on the street would be able to understand all the relevant laws - lawyers have jobs for a reason, and to argue that laws should be simple enough to be understood by everyone is disingenuous in this day and age.
But tell me it wasn't without a perverse sense of satisfaction when you did manage to get it all working.
(We had a pizza guy notice our set up, abandoned the rest of his route just to watch over shoulders. Those were the days...)
Executing ip gave me the following line -
BusyBox v1.18.3 (2011-05-14 13:22:58 CEST) multi-call binary.
so yeah, BusyBox. Pretty amazing implementation though.
Online games are often an used for money laundering, by putting all the ill gotten money into the
OH YAH, I can just imagine some hard looking mafia types trading gold on Runescape, with the FBI monitoring them and hiding as a noob while waiting for the transaction to complete. How totally ridiculous.
Actually, that's not as utterly ridiculous as you make it out to be: http://www.policeone.com/police-technology/articles/3115040-Online-games-are-new-choice-for-money-laundering/
I was giving an example where a train route is superior to a flying route; the driving alternative is 450km or thereabouts, and there's no chance you could beat or match the train even if there was a bridge/road tunnel across the Channel.
With all of that being said, it will probably NEVER work in the US.
It depends - I think there are certainly areas of the US where it can work, and areas where it's unlikely to. A high-volume sector like Boston-New York-Philly-Washington DC could definitely be a target for upgrading to high-speed rail, much as Japan's main Shinkansen line is across the densest part of Honshu, connecting Hiroshima-Kyoto-Osaka/Kobe-Nagoya-Tokyo. A plane might be able to carry 200 passengers, a train 10 times that easily - so there's a pay-off point with speed and capacity of the trains with high-density and high-volume routes.
The best example I can cite with personal experience is the Eurostar from London to Paris. A tube to Kings Cross-St Pancras, onto the Eurostar in about 20 minutes, and a 2.25 hour trip to Paris Gare du Nord is far easier than a onerous trip out to Heathrow (1 hr from central London), a 2 hour check-in buffer, 1 hour flight to CDG and then transport into Paris' centre.
You're talking of your own particular use case, with a reasonable income and assets. Now imagine someone who doesn't have a car, but needs to travel that same journey - a student, or a labourer with a family in Houston and work in Austin; it's a heck of a commute, but cheaper than moving the whole family. High-speed rail offers a quicker alternative to a bus service, one not affected by or contributing to congestion from private transportation.
As others have mentioned, Texas isn't necessarily the best example of where high speed trains would delivery the most benefits, and your case of using a car is also not available to everyone. Public transport provides a public good that isn't necessarily measured in purely economic terms.
The little guy was always fucked over. You're just hearing about it these days because they don't worry about hiding it.
Not saying that the posture people are right, but when did you ever see a monkey live to 80? Some of the posture suggestions are sensible, though of course there's no need to be rigid all day.
India & China already use metric, 240v 50Hz, and most other common units. What's your point?
On a global economic, geopolitic and demographic scale? yeah, those countries don't. The only hold out by any measure of relevance is the US.
So... why wasn't it a problem for the other 95% of the world's population?
That's a historical, cultural overhang - I think of height in ft/in, despite being a child of the 80s. No-one is proposing to make people think different, just adjust the units used officially.
Still doesn't help if the guy next to you has a 20cm one.