Well, the criminal then gets to pay for the damage he caused to the car.
If something was stolen from me I would damn sure want to (preferably) get it back or at least get loss compensated. It does not matter that that something is not worth tens of thousands of dollars - it's still my money and my item.
Now, whether it is worth to the public - yes, most likely. While I would probably be OK with the government buying me an identical car after the cops refuse to recover the stolen one, the number of car thefts would increase. After all, if you steal a car that's cheap enough, the police won't chase you, so you get a free car.
If we don't allow natural car-versus-pedestrian fatalities to punish stupid parents by killing their children, how will they ever learn?
The problem is that the child will dent the car that hit him, causing the driver problems. Even if the driver manage to prove that the child ran out unexpectedly (lets say they have a dashcam video that shows this), there is still going to be a trial costing the driver money and the money needed to straighten out the car. Not to mention the stress and psychological issues for the driver.
In some cases yes. It all depends on the priorities and how much weight one assigns to various parameters. Efficiency is not the only feature of a car.
For example - I am willing to pay extra for fuel (since my car consumes more), to have a car that I can maintain/repair myself (mostly) and that to me looks better.
I have a CRT TV now (because it was cheap (used), shows analog SD content very well and can show 720p), but if I decide to get a newer TV, I will most likely buy a plasma because it has better image (even though the power it uses will cost me more than that of a LCD TV).
I don't know. I guess if the police pulled me over I could explain that either 1) I waited at the light for 10 minutes so it must be broken (hopefully they will check it) or 2) I saw multiple other drivers ignore it so the light is most likely broken or if it;s not, then why I was the only one who was stopped?
Cocaine was seem as a "black" drug, marijuana was "Latino", and opium was "Chinese".
My country is almost completely white. Usually the people with darkest skin around here are Jews (more common) or Muslims (less common). There are a few black people living here, but they are probably less than 1%. If I see a black person I usually think he's a tourist or on a business trip.
So what would be good evidence that at least one machine on a particular ISP subscriber's home network was connected to a swarm?
Well, somebody could produce a torrent app that signs the records and is verified to produce correct records. It that gets the app certified for evidence gathering, the police could use it to, well, gather evidence. It is usually assumed that a police officer would not intentionally alter the records.
If not, what is someone stuck at a red light for half an hour supposed to do?
I do not recall a rule that a red light can be ignored after x minutes, though I suppose it could be used as defense provided the light was actually broken (there should be repair records).
What's the reason for banning drugs in the first place, other than racism?
What racism?
Mind explaining what's on that 18 1/2 minute gap of the Watergate tapes? Now shorten the concept to silencing individual words, and then look at how YouTube Poop artists have perfected the art of sentence mixing.
That was manipulation by a human during or after the recording. There is no way to prevent it. However, the tape recorder itself cannot be so out of cal that it would alter words. Like, say a radar that can show a wrong number.
Then perhaps you aren't aware of "fake smile" or "big eyes" gimmick effects in some modern digital cameras.
Actually, no. I do not have a camera with these functions and I usually do not look for gimmicks in a camera. But if the change is big, I guess the defense could argue that the photo was altered.
But, let's say that I have a dashcam and just filmed somebody speeding. It would most likely not count as evidence since 1) the speedometer on my car (or the dashcam) can be wrong and the recording could have been sped up. If I record him running a red light, OTOH, it would count as evidence unless the defense proves that this was CGI or whatever.
A guy successfully avoided a speeding ticket in court because the calibration on the radar was expired by a couple of days.
I think (IANAL) that a camera does not need to be certified because the camera cannot take a false photo - either the photo is out of focus or otherwise unusable, or it is properly taken and you can see what is in it. The camera cannot change, say, the face of the suspect. Same for a tape (or digital) recorder - it cannot alter the conversation recorded, so if it's understandable, it can be used. Compare that to a police radar - that needs to be certified because it can display a false speed. Or a breathalyzer - it can be inaccurate - that is usually good enough for a home one - even if it says that I am just below the limit I am not going to drive anyway, but I do not want to be fined because the police breathalyzer was out of calibration.
Software can show anything you want. I can make a screenshot of uTorrent showing your IP even with the regular version (and photoshop) or a modified version. Or it can just show your IP anyway. How do we know it's the truth?
And did any copyright owner decide to follow up on this dismissal by modifying one of the free software BitTorrent clients to get it "certified as an evidence gathering tool"?
No. The tracker is still operational and given how publicized the initial trial was (the anti-piracy agency wanted to make an example) if it succeeded, it would be even more publicized. Also, IIRC another point against the anti-piracy group was that you have to accept the EULA only when installing Windows - downloading it you do not see nor need to accept any agreement forbidding you from downloading or uploading the software.
And recently the loudest anti-piracy person (the manager of the agency) was caught with illegal drugs (so, I guess drugs are okay, but movies aren't in his opinion).
But I didn't pay $20k to keep my current car from now on, so if it breaks down without the possibility of repair I still can buy some other used car and save money.
Now, safety features are important, but from what I have seen, modern cars are too soft - hitting another car at 40-50km/h can completely destroy your car, but when I hit some other car at around 40km/h, my car could be straightened out (though it needed a new headlamp, radiator and bonnet). Though the soft modern cars most likely are safer at very high speeds. But driving even a 2005 car (not very new obviously) on a gravel road leaves it full of dents (I guess driving it a few times on that road will cause it to start using less fuel).
Also, my current car does not have software in it (really, the car was made in 1982 and all controls are mechanical), so it is easier to repair (that and everything is easier to access - I do not need to remove a wheel to replace a lightbulb). So this may be worth to me the higher cost of fuel (then again, LPG is not that expensive compared to gasoline).
But we were talking about the fuel efficiency and how more efficient car saves money for everyone. Just like having your own solar power - while the power may be free from now on, I may have to pay enough money for the panels, installation etc to keep using grid power for 20 years. And the solar power will need periodic battery replacements, so the power is not completely free after installing.
If every car looks this way, the argument of "ugly" is nonexistent.
Well, I already slightly dislike the look of every modern car, one of the reasons I love old cars - the manufacturers tried to make a car that looks good, they were not focusing all their effort to make the car as efficient as possible.
It's not whether you drive a lot or not, it's just a flat benefit.
Let's say the new car costs $20k and uses half the fuel that my current car uses. For $20k I could buy a lot of fuel for my current car, let's say it will be enough to go 100000km. So, my old car costs $0.2/km to drive. The new car would be $0.1/km, so it saves me $0.1 every km I drive it. I have to drive it 200000km for it to save me enough money to cover the cost of the car. If I do not drive a lot, chances are that the car will break down (in a way that cannot be repaired) or be smashed in a crash (and be not repairable), because it may take me many years to drive 200000km.
So, I may be better off with a car that uses more fuel but costs less up front. Or just keeping my current car which I like and which looks nice (not completely aerodynamic).
Because it looks ugly. Also, the laws in my country limit the maximum speed to 130km/h, so I don't care that denting the car will make it faster - I can break the law already if I want (my not very aerodynamic car made in 1982 with 80kW gasoline engine running on LPG can go at around 165km/h (and going 35km/h over the limit would result in a huge fine)), I do not really need a faster car). Also, saving 11% money on fuel but having to buy a new car would not pay off unless you drive a lot.
But for SD or HD, I can keep the files in playable format.
Besides, if you produced video, you may want to archive the source footage in its original format and a non-destructive edit decision list.
That and a format that can be played immediately. I do not want to re-edit the file every time I want to watch it:).
But does it have anticircumvention legislation (DMCA, EUCD, etc.)?
Most likely (it is part of the EU), not that anybody cares to enforce any of this. Microsoft tried to sue some users (or rather, told the police about them) of our local BitTorrent tracker for downloading Windows - they got nothing (because the proof - a screenshot from uTorrent was dismissed since uTorrent is not certified as an evidence gathering tool - like, say, a police radar).
If you are archiving a video that you produced, what's the big advantage of H.264 over VP8?
Being able to play it on more devices.
Transcoding isn't fun or fast. I'd rather have my files in such a format that I can actually use instead of some format that I would need to convert before being able to play.
After all, my archived analog media does not need any conversion - I can just grab and play a VHS tape or a record.
Also, my country does not have software patents, so h.264 is (legally) free to me.
Depends on where you live. I get 500mbps* symmetric connection today, for about the same price I used to get a 4mbps/768kbps connection 4 years ago and a 1mbps/128kbps connection 8 years ago.
*They throttle to down to 80-90mbps a few hours per day (during peak), but I get full 500mbps in other times, with no cap whatsoever, the average bandwidth is about 300mbps, which is good enough for me.
Or, I may buy another old car and convert it to electric, so that it would have almost no software (the only software would be charging and motor control though maybe motor control could be done without software using analog electronics, with everything else being mechanical).
So, it would be an electric car that looks good (not like the modern aerodynamic cars) and has no internet connection, no touchscreens, no operating system inside and one that does not need any software updates.
Just wait until the cars are connected either to the internet or to a local mesh network. Someday there will be a remote vulnerability that will allow arbitrary commands to be passed on the main bus...
And add new problems - long refill time, limited battery life (the gas tank in my car is as old as the car - will the batteries in an electric car last 30 years?), huge cost. Now, all new cars also are built very weak (just drive on a gravel road a few times and the car will be full of dents), not to mention that they use aluminium for the chassis (good luck straightening that out if it gets bent driving over potholes). Also, all new cars (electric or gasoline) look bad - the manufacturers put too much effort into making the car aerodynamically efficient that now almost all new cars look exactly the same no matter what manufacturer. Again, I do not care that much about fuel cost that I would sacrifice everything else just to get that fuel consumption down 1%.
More to the point, you argue from your specific case - someone who drives a very old car and does his own repairs
Well, yes, I arguing from my point of view. I repair my own car (mostly) or my radio or tape deck. As such, I appreciate when I can find the schematics for it and if the hardware in question is not overly complex. You know, kinda like a lot of open source advocates here or on other forums, who say that closed source is bad because only the company that created the software can modify it etc. This is the same, except for hardware. While I may never need to patch a PC operating system myself (or be able to do it anyway), I know that my car or other mechanical devices can and will fail over time and I will need to repair them. No matter how good something was built, it will wear out and need repairs over time.
As for reliability - I have noticed that other cars (newer ones especially) are very reliable, but if something fails (and you are away from home) then you're stuck. With my car, something could be not working right more often (then again, I repair that and it will be working right for the next 10 years or so) but complete failures (I cannot go home) happen much less often and are usually the result of some oxidized connection somewhere - that can be fixed by a piece of wire bypassing the affected system (maybe the car won't run as well but it will get me home where I can repair the problem properly).
No matter how full of computers a car is, it will still have the same mechanical components - valves, pistons, camshaft, throttle, steering, suspension. In some cases, with modern cars the system might actually have more mechanical parts than my car. Just because the throttle is controlled by a computer does not mean that there are no mechanical parts - actually there are more - the electric actuator that moves the throttle on command and the sensor at the pedal.
Fuel efficiency is not my only concern (though my car is modified to use LPG which costs about half what gasoline costs and the car only uses slightly more of it). I can do most of the repairs on my car myself, I can understand how it works (try that with a car that has 20million lines of code in it). Everything is accessible - replacing a burned out bulb takes a few minutes and does not require removing of a wheel or bumper. No repair whatsoever requires me to go to a dealer so that he can reset the warning lights (since that is DRM protected).
I prefer manual transmission over automatic - more reliable and I can push start the car if needed. I have two working hands and legs, I can shift gears without any problem (and is discourages me from talking on my cell phone without hands-free device - it is extremely inconvenient to shift gears while holding a cellphone).
You can also add that I am wasting fuel because I am not retuning the carburetor and changing the air filter every day or at least once a week:)
126 is a good car, though a bit too complicated for my tastes. And if I had one I probably would swap the transmission to manual (if there were 126s made with it so I can get an original).
In my experience, VW, Audi and Nissan cars that I rode in had very stiff suspension - not fun when the streets are full of potholes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a "2.0" system - no need for a subwoofer if the main speakers can shake the floor.
Pretty much all music I listen to is either in mono or stereo and the system is primarily for music. Stereo for movies is good enough too (for me).
I don't care for 3D TV unless they start producing real 3D (a picture that looks different when looked at from different angles).
Well, the criminal then gets to pay for the damage he caused to the car.
If something was stolen from me I would damn sure want to (preferably) get it back or at least get loss compensated. It does not matter that that something is not worth tens of thousands of dollars - it's still my money and my item.
Now, whether it is worth to the public - yes, most likely. While I would probably be OK with the government buying me an identical car after the cops refuse to recover the stolen one, the number of car thefts would increase. After all, if you steal a car that's cheap enough, the police won't chase you, so you get a free car.
If we don't allow natural car-versus-pedestrian fatalities to punish stupid parents by killing their children, how will they ever learn?
The problem is that the child will dent the car that hit him, causing the driver problems. Even if the driver manage to prove that the child ran out unexpectedly (lets say they have a dashcam video that shows this), there is still going to be a trial costing the driver money and the money needed to straighten out the car. Not to mention the stress and psychological issues for the driver.
In some cases yes. It all depends on the priorities and how much weight one assigns to various parameters. Efficiency is not the only feature of a car.
For example - I am willing to pay extra for fuel (since my car consumes more), to have a car that I can maintain/repair myself (mostly) and that to me looks better.
I have a CRT TV now (because it was cheap (used), shows analog SD content very well and can show 720p), but if I decide to get a newer TV, I will most likely buy a plasma because it has better image (even though the power it uses will cost me more than that of a LCD TV).
I don't know. I guess if the police pulled me over I could explain that either 1) I waited at the light for 10 minutes so it must be broken (hopefully they will check it) or 2) I saw multiple other drivers ignore it so the light is most likely broken or if it;s not, then why I was the only one who was stopped?
Cocaine was seem as a "black" drug, marijuana was "Latino", and opium was "Chinese".
My country is almost completely white. Usually the people with darkest skin around here are Jews (more common) or Muslims (less common). There are a few black people living here, but they are probably less than 1%. If I see a black person I usually think he's a tourist or on a business trip.
So what would be good evidence that at least one machine on a particular ISP subscriber's home network was connected to a swarm?
Well, somebody could produce a torrent app that signs the records and is verified to produce correct records. It that gets the app certified for evidence gathering, the police could use it to, well, gather evidence. It is usually assumed that a police officer would not intentionally alter the records.
If not, what is someone stuck at a red light for half an hour supposed to do?
I do not recall a rule that a red light can be ignored after x minutes, though I suppose it could be used as defense provided the light was actually broken (there should be repair records).
What's the reason for banning drugs in the first place, other than racism?
What racism?
Mind explaining what's on that 18 1/2 minute gap of the Watergate tapes? Now shorten the concept to silencing individual words, and then look at how YouTube Poop artists have perfected the art of sentence mixing.
That was manipulation by a human during or after the recording. There is no way to prevent it. However, the tape recorder itself cannot be so out of cal that it would alter words. Like, say a radar that can show a wrong number.
Then perhaps you aren't aware of "fake smile" or "big eyes" gimmick effects in some modern digital cameras.
Actually, no. I do not have a camera with these functions and I usually do not look for gimmicks in a camera. But if the change is big, I guess the defense could argue that the photo was altered.
But, let's say that I have a dashcam and just filmed somebody speeding. It would most likely not count as evidence since 1) the speedometer on my car (or the dashcam) can be wrong and the recording could have been sped up. If I record him running a red light, OTOH, it would count as evidence unless the defense proves that this was CGI or whatever.
A guy successfully avoided a speeding ticket in court because the calibration on the radar was expired by a couple of days.
I think (IANAL) that a camera does not need to be certified because the camera cannot take a false photo - either the photo is out of focus or otherwise unusable, or it is properly taken and you can see what is in it. The camera cannot change, say, the face of the suspect. Same for a tape (or digital) recorder - it cannot alter the conversation recorded, so if it's understandable, it can be used. Compare that to a police radar - that needs to be certified because it can display a false speed. Or a breathalyzer - it can be inaccurate - that is usually good enough for a home one - even if it says that I am just below the limit I am not going to drive anyway, but I do not want to be fined because the police breathalyzer was out of calibration.
Software can show anything you want. I can make a screenshot of uTorrent showing your IP even with the regular version (and photoshop) or a modified version. Or it can just show your IP anyway. How do we know it's the truth?
And did any copyright owner decide to follow up on this dismissal by modifying one of the free software BitTorrent clients to get it "certified as an evidence gathering tool"?
No. The tracker is still operational and given how publicized the initial trial was (the anti-piracy agency wanted to make an example) if it succeeded, it would be even more publicized. Also, IIRC another point against the anti-piracy group was that you have to accept the EULA only when installing Windows - downloading it you do not see nor need to accept any agreement forbidding you from downloading or uploading the software.
And recently the loudest anti-piracy person (the manager of the agency) was caught with illegal drugs (so, I guess drugs are okay, but movies aren't in his opinion).
But I didn't pay $20k to keep my current car from now on, so if it breaks down without the possibility of repair I still can buy some other used car and save money.
Now, safety features are important, but from what I have seen, modern cars are too soft - hitting another car at 40-50km/h can completely destroy your car, but when I hit some other car at around 40km/h, my car could be straightened out (though it needed a new headlamp, radiator and bonnet). Though the soft modern cars most likely are safer at very high speeds. But driving even a 2005 car (not very new obviously) on a gravel road leaves it full of dents (I guess driving it a few times on that road will cause it to start using less fuel).
Also, my current car does not have software in it (really, the car was made in 1982 and all controls are mechanical), so it is easier to repair (that and everything is easier to access - I do not need to remove a wheel to replace a lightbulb). So this may be worth to me the higher cost of fuel (then again, LPG is not that expensive compared to gasoline).
But we were talking about the fuel efficiency and how more efficient car saves money for everyone. Just like having your own solar power - while the power may be free from now on, I may have to pay enough money for the panels, installation etc to keep using grid power for 20 years. And the solar power will need periodic battery replacements, so the power is not completely free after installing.
If every car looks this way, the argument of "ugly" is nonexistent.
Well, I already slightly dislike the look of every modern car, one of the reasons I love old cars - the manufacturers tried to make a car that looks good, they were not focusing all their effort to make the car as efficient as possible.
It's not whether you drive a lot or not, it's just a flat benefit.
Let's say the new car costs $20k and uses half the fuel that my current car uses.
For $20k I could buy a lot of fuel for my current car, let's say it will be enough to go 100000km.
So, my old car costs $0.2/km to drive. The new car would be $0.1/km, so it saves me $0.1 every km I drive it. I have to drive it 200000km for it to save me enough money to cover the cost of the car. If I do not drive a lot, chances are that the car will break down (in a way that cannot be repaired) or be smashed in a crash (and be not repairable), because it may take me many years to drive 200000km.
So, I may be better off with a car that uses more fuel but costs less up front. Or just keeping my current car which I like and which looks nice (not completely aerodynamic).
Just because kids like the music they like does not mean that I do too.
Because it looks ugly. Also, the laws in my country limit the maximum speed to 130km/h, so I don't care that denting the car will make it faster - I can break the law already if I want (my not very aerodynamic car made in 1982 with 80kW gasoline engine running on LPG can go at around 165km/h (and going 35km/h over the limit would result in a huge fine)), I do not really need a faster car). Also, saving 11% money on fuel but having to buy a new car would not pay off unless you drive a lot.
I use Classic Theme Restorer and Status-4-Evar. That makes it almost like the old Firefox, I just need to customize the toolbar and I'm done.
If you archive a 4K video
But for SD or HD, I can keep the files in playable format.
Besides, if you produced video, you may want to archive the source footage in its original format and a non-destructive edit decision list.
That and a format that can be played immediately. I do not want to re-edit the file every time I want to watch it :).
But does it have anticircumvention legislation (DMCA, EUCD, etc.)?
Most likely (it is part of the EU), not that anybody cares to enforce any of this. Microsoft tried to sue some users (or rather, told the police about them) of our local BitTorrent tracker for downloading Windows - they got nothing (because the proof - a screenshot from uTorrent was dismissed since uTorrent is not certified as an evidence gathering tool - like, say, a police radar).
Unlike Chrome, you can get the normal UI of Firefox. I have customized it such that My Firefox 31 looks almost exactly like Firefox 3.6.
If you are archiving a video that you produced, what's the big advantage of H.264 over VP8?
Being able to play it on more devices.
Transcoding isn't fun or fast. I'd rather have my files in such a format that I can actually use instead of some format that I would need to convert before being able to play.
After all, my archived analog media does not need any conversion - I can just grab and play a VHS tape or a record.
Also, my country does not have software patents, so h.264 is (legally) free to me.
Long haul yes, last mile no.
Depends on where you live. I get 500mbps* symmetric connection today, for about the same price I used to get a 4mbps/768kbps connection 4 years ago and a 1mbps/128kbps connection 8 years ago.
*They throttle to down to 80-90mbps a few hours per day (during peak), but I get full 500mbps in other times, with no cap whatsoever, the average bandwidth is about 300mbps, which is good enough for me.
Or, I may buy another old car and convert it to electric, so that it would have almost no software (the only software would be charging and motor control though maybe motor control could be done without software using analog electronics, with everything else being mechanical).
So, it would be an electric car that looks good (not like the modern aerodynamic cars) and has no internet connection, no touchscreens, no operating system inside and one that does not need any software updates.
I'm seeding a couple of torrents and they use up my 500mbps connection quite well (current upload speed 52MB/s).
Just wait until the cars are connected either to the internet or to a local mesh network. Someday there will be a remote vulnerability that will allow arbitrary commands to be passed on the main bus...
Electric cars eliminate most of those things.
And add new problems - long refill time, limited battery life (the gas tank in my car is as old as the car - will the batteries in an electric car last 30 years?), huge cost. Now, all new cars also are built very weak (just drive on a gravel road a few times and the car will be full of dents), not to mention that they use aluminium for the chassis (good luck straightening that out if it gets bent driving over potholes). Also, all new cars (electric or gasoline) look bad - the manufacturers put too much effort into making the car aerodynamically efficient that now almost all new cars look exactly the same no matter what manufacturer. Again, I do not care that much about fuel cost that I would sacrifice everything else just to get that fuel consumption down 1%.
More to the point, you argue from your specific case - someone who drives a very old car and does his own repairs
Well, yes, I arguing from my point of view. I repair my own car (mostly) or my radio or tape deck. As such, I appreciate when I can find the schematics for it and if the hardware in question is not overly complex. You know, kinda like a lot of open source advocates here or on other forums, who say that closed source is bad because only the company that created the software can modify it etc. This is the same, except for hardware. While I may never need to patch a PC operating system myself (or be able to do it anyway), I know that my car or other mechanical devices can and will fail over time and I will need to repair them. No matter how good something was built, it will wear out and need repairs over time.
As for reliability - I have noticed that other cars (newer ones especially) are very reliable, but if something fails (and you are away from home) then you're stuck. With my car, something could be not working right more often (then again, I repair that and it will be working right for the next 10 years or so) but complete failures (I cannot go home) happen much less often and are usually the result of some oxidized connection somewhere - that can be fixed by a piece of wire bypassing the affected system (maybe the car won't run as well but it will get me home where I can repair the problem properly).
They made the 2L (80kW) version from 1979 to 1985.
Depends on the speed I guess. If I see a large pothole I will slow down (do not want to puncture the tires).
You can actually pull-start automatic Mercedes of the era, even the diesels.
Nice, I never knew that.
No matter how full of computers a car is, it will still have the same mechanical components - valves, pistons, camshaft, throttle, steering, suspension. In some cases, with modern cars the system might actually have more mechanical parts than my car. Just because the throttle is controlled by a computer does not mean that there are no mechanical parts - actually there are more - the electric actuator that moves the throttle on command and the sensor at the pedal.
Fuel efficiency is not my only concern (though my car is modified to use LPG which costs about half what gasoline costs and the car only uses slightly more of it). I can do most of the repairs on my car myself, I can understand how it works (try that with a car that has 20million lines of code in it). Everything is accessible - replacing a burned out bulb takes a few minutes and does not require removing of a wheel or bumper. No repair whatsoever requires me to go to a dealer so that he can reset the warning lights (since that is DRM protected).
I prefer manual transmission over automatic - more reliable and I can push start the car if needed. I have two working hands and legs, I can shift gears without any problem (and is discourages me from talking on my cell phone without hands-free device - it is extremely inconvenient to shift gears while holding a cellphone).
You can also add that I am wasting fuel because I am not retuning the carburetor and changing the air filter every day or at least once a week :)
126 is a good car, though a bit too complicated for my tastes. And if I had one I probably would swap the transmission to manual (if there were 126s made with it so I can get an original).
In my experience, VW, Audi and Nissan cars that I rode in had very stiff suspension - not fun when the streets are full of potholes.