I'll never forget the Nova special on PBS about 10 years ago, "Welcome to Nashville, a city waiting to die."
Seems that area, not California, is the site of the most powerful earthquake in recorded history. And with building codes nothing like California.
It is definitely the strongest recorded earthquake in the Eastern US. The power was estimated between 7.2 and 8.1, and Alaska alone has had five earthquakes that were stronger, most in the late 1950s and early 60 (Jesus...). California is known for its earthquakes, but it's true that the New Madrid quake was stronger than any of them. Well, depending on whether you believe the 7.2 or 8.1 number.:-D
The building codes were nothing like CA, but in 1811, the area was pretty sparsely populated, so not much structural damage occurred. It is notable how much more widely distributed the shaking is in the Missouri quake as opposed to a CA or AK quake, though. The bedrock let the waves travel far, with church bells ringing as far away as Boston and Toronto. Amazing!
All it takes is one cop having a bad day to decide it looks like you were on your phone or maybe you ran that stop sign (maybe a "witness" -- really a family member of the victim who wasn't even present at the time - "saw" you run the sign) and you're facing charges
Whoa! Ok, now we're talking about something completely different, the breaking of the law and reckless driving. Sure, if a cop falsifies or "misremembers" information, you could pretty much be charged with anything under any situation, but I think that's a different discussion from a felony for a non-at-fault accident where the victim was 100% at fault.
And in my experience, a cop needs to have more than "a bad day" to do this, as it would require the officer provide his testimony in court later.
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
Hey! We agree on something, calling the FBI was overkill.
I think your story would carry a little more weight if you could provide proof of that actually happening: while obeying traffic laws, someone ran directly in front of the car and were struck despite the best efforts of the driver, resulting in felony convictions.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
Yes it is. Here is a better, more official link than some random slashdot story: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in... - #7 - Piracy/Intellectual Property Theft
I love Slashdot.
You'll get a lot of incorrect stories/assertions/etc, but keep reading and eventually you'll find someone posting something right. It takes awhile but one can actually come away from this site informed!
As long as you read past the article summaries, that is.
If he's not copying (not even that, if he's not distributing), he's not doing anything wrong. And you or I, FBI or anyone else have no business telling him when to take off his glasses or not. This isn't an army barracks or a prison.
If you point a recording device at the screen but then just say "Oh it wasn't on, you'll get a lot of well-deserved harassment from the police regardless."
..even if the freaking pope walks up and slaps him with a live trout while declaring him to be an ignorant boob.
I wouldn't put it past Francis to do exactly that.
I think the slapping with a trout and shouting would be out of his character! He's more the type to hope people will follow his quiet example rather than saying "You are wrong you are wrong this is bad."
Since that cannot happen, it's a false choice. AOL tried and was destroyed because of it.
You ignore the fact that the danger you fear is utterly unrealistic.
Local ISP monopolies throw a wrench into that, though. Many cities have a monopoly, many more a cable/DSL duopoly. That's not a free market. I am lucky, lucky where I live to have access to an alternate DSL carrier, and I took my business there. That at least is possible over the phone networks in some jurisdictions; that's not an option for cable. They have a lock. And don't even mention wireless or satellite -- those are jokes, not broadband.
I don't think you can have a real free market as long as the line owners are also the ISPs.
Perhaps, but I know a guy called Nigel who will let you borrow his four-terabyte hard drive.
Drive sizes are only going to improve.
The media companies (rightly) do not feel threatened by that sort of a model. As long as that model is moderately inconvenient for the average person, that's what they care about the most.
No, they'll just gouge Netflix for a lot of money that could have been spent on content for us subscribers. The result is that the content cuts we've already started to see at Netflix will likely continue and get even worse.
It's why streaming content on the Internet is still in its "it really sucks" stage. Like that early transition from VHS to DVD when only certain titles were available instead of just about everything.
A natural monopoly isn't granted, it's simply the situation that occurs when economic factors hand such an advantage to incumbents that no other may effectively compete.
Well....
This is sortof what happens when an ISP needs to lay it's own lines. If an ISP has to use someone else's cables, it could be the victim of a franchise monopoly pushing it out. But if it has to run cables to end users (say, FiOS), that's such a huge initial investment only a few can think of starting out.
This story is less than an hour old and has 100+ comments. Below it is a 'tech' story that's nearly six hours old that has under 40.
I don't think that's relevant. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with a more focused site rather than a generalist.
What we're looking at is the website equivalent of Network Decay
, where a site which used to serve a specific purpose tries to get a larger audience by posting topics that have little or nothing to do with the original site's mission. Eventually, the websites all become the same, the original audience becomes disgruntled, and you get complaints like the sort you're responding to.
A) This is supposedly about health *insurance*. Insurance is for contingent, unlikely, but potentially costly events. Contraception is none of those, being completely knowable, 100% predictable, and inexpensive.
I think part of the problem is that two related things are being conflated. They often meld, and it's difficult telling where one begins and the other ends.
Those two things are "health insurance" and "health care."
How do you know that you're talking to a far-right winger? They'll often use a phrase like "your God and personal Savior Obama." Democrats don't talk that way. Leftists don't talk that way. Moderates who voted for Obama sure as hell don't see Obama in that light. Only the far right does, as a caricature, a straw-man that doesn't exist.
Given that they typically have such wood for freedom? And is it a coincidence that once they gave the vote to non-land owners (i.e. women and minorities) and those not into freedom so much but instead more into forcing people against their will to behave in ways they think will benefit them, that the country started going down the crapper?
Oral contraceptives don't kill babies. They prevent conception.
Ah, but from the religious standpoint, they allow for sex without procreation, a sin in their eyes, as the one and only one valid purpose of sex is to have children.
We can gripe where the "magic cutoff is", but both of us are Under -1Mil in our ID, you're ahead of me, I'm guessing July 2002 or something when you joined.
I regularly post views that the groupthink finds unpleasant, and I find the moderation system works pretty well. Getting modded "-1 I disagree" happens here, but most moderation is not of that sort.
I'd agree here, and I love seeing the "slashdot is a total hivemind" followed by "wait, I thought Opinion X was the groupthink, but Opinion Y was modded up. Are slashdotters inconsistent?"
The answer is "no, claims of a groupthink/hivemind are way overblown."
This is only at +3, but really should be modded up to +2 billion or so. Many such as me have been signed up with Google+ and then had everything they ever touched with Google linked together. Sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Carl Sagan had an gift for conveying immensity in ways the non-scientific audience could understand.
I'll never forget the Nova special on PBS about 10 years ago, "Welcome to Nashville, a city waiting to die."
Seems that area, not California, is the site of the most powerful earthquake in recorded history. And with building codes nothing like California.
It is definitely the strongest recorded earthquake in the Eastern US. The power was estimated between 7.2 and 8.1, and Alaska alone has had five earthquakes that were stronger, most in the late 1950s and early 60 (Jesus...). California is known for its earthquakes, but it's true that the New Madrid quake was stronger than any of them. Well, depending on whether you believe the 7.2 or 8.1 number. :-D
The building codes were nothing like CA, but in 1811, the area was pretty sparsely populated, so not much structural damage occurred. It is notable how much more widely distributed the shaking is in the Missouri quake as opposed to a CA or AK quake, though. The bedrock let the waves travel far, with church bells ringing as far away as Boston and Toronto. Amazing!
All it takes is one cop having a bad day to decide it looks like you were on your phone or maybe you ran that stop sign (maybe a "witness" -- really a family member of the victim who wasn't even present at the time - "saw" you run the sign) and you're facing charges
Whoa! Ok, now we're talking about something completely different, the breaking of the law and reckless driving. Sure, if a cop falsifies or "misremembers" information, you could pretty much be charged with anything under any situation, but I think that's a different discussion from a felony for a non-at-fault accident where the victim was 100% at fault.
And in my experience, a cop needs to have more than "a bad day" to do this, as it would require the officer provide his testimony in court later.
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
Hey! We agree on something, calling the FBI was overkill.
I think your story would carry a little more weight if you could provide proof of that actually happening: while obeying traffic laws, someone ran directly in front of the car and were struck despite the best efforts of the driver, resulting in felony convictions.
Google Glass doesn't have to record anything.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
Yes it is. Here is a better, more official link than some random slashdot story:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/in... - #7 - Piracy/Intellectual Property Theft
I love Slashdot.
You'll get a lot of incorrect stories/assertions/etc, but keep reading and eventually you'll find someone posting something right. It takes awhile but one can actually come away from this site informed!
As long as you read past the article summaries, that is.
Google Glass has multiple functions, and they had no proof he was recording anything. This whole situation is ridiculous.
Google Glass is a recording device. Expect people wearing it to face all the same hurdles that someone holding a video camera all the time would face.
If he's not copying (not even that, if he's not distributing), he's not doing anything wrong. And you or I, FBI or anyone else have no business telling him when to take off his glasses or not. This isn't an army barracks or a prison.
If you point a recording device at the screen but then just say "Oh it wasn't on, you'll get a lot of well-deserved harassment from the police regardless."
..even if the freaking pope walks up and slaps him with a live trout while declaring him to be an ignorant boob.
I wouldn't put it past Francis to do exactly that.
I think the slapping with a trout and shouting would be out of his character! He's more the type to hope people will follow his quiet example rather than saying "You are wrong you are wrong this is bad."
Since that cannot happen, it's a false choice. AOL tried and was destroyed because of it.
You ignore the fact that the danger you fear is utterly unrealistic.
Local ISP monopolies throw a wrench into that, though. Many cities have a monopoly, many more a cable/DSL duopoly. That's not a free market. I am lucky, lucky where I live to have access to an alternate DSL carrier, and I took my business there. That at least is possible over the phone networks in some jurisdictions; that's not an option for cable. They have a lock. And don't even mention wireless or satellite -- those are jokes, not broadband.
I don't think you can have a real free market as long as the line owners are also the ISPs.
" Torrenting will be destroyed."
Perhaps, but I know a guy called Nigel who will let you borrow his four-terabyte hard drive.
Drive sizes are only going to improve.
The media companies (rightly) do not feel threatened by that sort of a model. As long as that model is moderately inconvenient for the average person, that's what they care about the most.
You know, Netflix as a DVD-by-mail service is still perfectly healthy. I certainly favor it over online streaming.
No, they'll just gouge Netflix for a lot of money that could have been spent on content for us subscribers. The result is that the content cuts we've already started to see at Netflix will likely continue and get even worse.
It's why streaming content on the Internet is still in its "it really sucks" stage. Like that early transition from VHS to DVD when only certain titles were available instead of just about everything.
A natural monopoly isn't granted, it's simply the situation that occurs when economic factors hand such an advantage to incumbents that no other may effectively compete.
Well....
This is sortof what happens when an ISP needs to lay it's own lines. If an ISP has to use someone else's cables, it could be the victim of a franchise monopoly pushing it out. But if it has to run cables to end users (say, FiOS), that's such a huge initial investment only a few can think of starting out.
This story is less than an hour old and has 100+ comments. Below it is a 'tech' story that's nearly six hours old that has under 40.
I don't think that's relevant. There is nothing, NOTHING wrong with a more focused site rather than a generalist.
What we're looking at is the website equivalent of Network Decay
, where a site which used to serve a specific purpose tries to get a larger audience by posting topics that have little or nothing to do with the original site's mission. Eventually, the websites all become the same, the original audience becomes disgruntled, and you get complaints like the sort you're responding to.
A) This is supposedly about health *insurance*. Insurance is for contingent, unlikely, but potentially costly events. Contraception is none of those, being completely knowable, 100% predictable, and inexpensive.
I think part of the problem is that two related things are being conflated. They often meld, and it's difficult telling where one begins and the other ends.
Those two things are "health insurance" and "health care."
How do you know that you're talking to a far-right winger? They'll often use a phrase like "your God and personal Savior Obama." Democrats don't talk that way. Leftists don't talk that way. Moderates who voted for Obama sure as hell don't see Obama in that light. Only the far right does, as a caricature, a straw-man that doesn't exist.
Given that they typically have such wood for freedom? And is it a coincidence that once they gave the vote to non-land owners (i.e. women and minorities) and those not into freedom so much but instead more into forcing people against their will to behave in ways they think will benefit them, that the country started going down the crapper?
Yeah, those slave owners sure did love freedom!
mod fail.
the ac here is expressing the opinion that if the government controls it,
then it will not be private. i think this is a fair and on topic opinion.
It may be a fair point, but he expressed it in a particularly idiotic and condescending manner.
Oral contraceptives don't kill babies. They prevent conception.
Ah, but from the religious standpoint, they allow for sex without procreation, a sin in their eyes, as the one and only one valid purpose of sex is to have children.
California's reliance on Arizona has more to do with the water it needs than the power it needs.
Power can be upgraded, if it really had to. It doesn't because.. at the moment it can get away without doing it.
We can gripe where the "magic cutoff is", but both of us are Under -1Mil in our ID, you're ahead of me, I'm guessing July 2002 or something when you joined.
Haha, and you just barely made it! :D
I regularly post views that the groupthink finds unpleasant, and I find the moderation system works pretty well. Getting modded "-1 I disagree" happens here, but most moderation is not of that sort.
I'd agree here, and I love seeing the "slashdot is a total hivemind" followed by "wait, I thought Opinion X was the groupthink, but Opinion Y was modded up. Are slashdotters inconsistent?"
The answer is "no, claims of a groupthink/hivemind are way overblown."
This is only at +3, but really should be modded up to +2 billion or so.
Many such as me have been signed up with Google+ and then had everything they ever touched with Google linked together. Sucks.