It would be the same as being in a federal building in Iowa and diving for cover every time a rental truck drove past.
Not the first couple of times, I would call that rational. After a while though, yeah, it'd be silly. But isn't this the first such occurrence since 9/11?
For someone to target some unknown office building in Dallas would be silly.
Quite the contrary, it'd be terrorism at its best (worst?). Targeting completely random structures? An historically unimportant bridge here, a small to medium sized town's town hall there... I'm not saying anything about level or rationality of fear here, but I would imagine that for most people it would make them more worried in the aftermath if the terrorists had chosen a mixture of high/low profile targets.
<tin_foil_hat>What "they" don't want you to know is that the crash in PA was intentional. The terrorists just decided to throw that one out there to spook everyone into thinking anything could be a target.</tin_foil_hat>
adopting safety practices designed narrowly to serve in a near-exact repeat of the same circumstances without adequate consideration of the expected outcomes of those practices in vastly more common situations would not be wise.
Now I'm not saying such events are common, but to say parachutes would only be useful for a 9/11-repeat is just wrong. Surely there must be other scenarios where people are trapped on the roof and cannot get down by conventional means?
There's no reason to worry specifically that any random jet is going to crash in to your building.
You are correct that there is no reason to worry day-in and day-out that a jet is going to randomly crash into your building. But when a jet is flying at an altitude and location where they normally don't, and you happen to be in an office building nearby?
A 747 has flown low across downtown Manhattan ten thousand and three (once now, twice on 9/11, and ten thousand before that) times now? Citation needed.
So what you're saying is that if you saw a bear in the middle of the city, well outside where you know the zoo to be located, you'd laugh at all the people running for their lives and would go about your business, because you see bears all the time in the city zoo?
Maybe they did. Maybe they're sending email to dospam@gmail.com, do@gmail.com, and whatever your address is with dospam completely removed. Like it really costs them anything extra.
Ah, thanks.
I didn't think you actually thought it was a "Gnome version of cat", but couldn't tell if you were still being serious about not knowing what it was.
Can I put all of your friends on trial for treason too?
You seem to be trying to use that as a counter-point. But if we threaten liberty, then sure, why not? You'd have to prove it though. But if we are only threatening some imagined "liberty" that is specific to only you, then we're not really threatening liberty, now are we?
I agree with you in spirit, but for all we know, GP sat in the very back of the theater with no one to either side, so no one would have even noticed (unless it had some ridiculous brightness setting). Or he had a coat pulled up so that no light from the PDA escaped to ruin the movie for anyone around him (but that might get the ushers to come by thinking he was recording the movie).
Exactly. Does anything else even come close to having the same capacities as an iPod Classic? At least back when I was first shopping for a portable music player there wasn't.
Some people buy trucks because they're remodeling their house and can't fit lumber and sheetrock in their geo prizm.
This makes a good analogy for digital music players. Trucks vs cars both have their trade offs. A truck can do more, but typically gets worse performance than a car (MPG comes to mind). Likewise, an iPod can hold more content, but you lack, say, the ability to change out the battery yourself.
In the trucking example that you provided, it might be better to rent a truck than own one as a primary mode of transportation. Unfortunately I cannot think of a similar situation for digital music players, maybe something to do with how often one needs to drag all of ones digital content around?
A bit off topic, but it'd be interesting to see how often one would need to do truck-only activities in order for it to make more financial sense to own a truck than it would to own a car and only rent a truck as needed. Though for all I know it could be a low as 1 hour a month.
Of course you can. Information I choose not to share with anyone will remain forever my secret, unless someone else generates the same information at least.
You misunderstand, see my last sentence, which I will repeat here.
"BTW, we're just talking straight-up information, not the latest Britney Spears album, right?"
For the purposes of this discussion, "information" that you generate falls into the same bucket as Britney Spears latest album. I apologize for comparing anything you might create with anything Britney Spears might expel out her mouth.
You are correct in saying that "information does not want to be free" in the same way that you or I want to be free. But that does not mean that information isn't free, free to be discovered by anyone curious enough to go looking.
You can't "lock up" information the same way you "lock up" your family jewels. Saying that "information wants to be free" is just a much shorter way of saying it.
BTW, we're just talking straight-up information, not the latest Britney Spears album, right?
So... the set of integers contains some non-natural numbers (for lack of a proper term), and the set of natural numbers contains only integers, but they are the same size?
Sarcasm aside, the beauty (and curse) of this country of ours is that (in theory) we can change the laws however the fuck we want. If we wanted to re-introduce slavery and send the women back to the kitchen and revert ourselves to 18th century living, we could. Anything which would seem to explicitly state that we could not, can be worked around. Thus, the only solution to our crap laws is to stop electing crap politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, the only stories I've ever seen that were red have been BSD-related.
...
I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere, but it's too damn early for me to find it.
I must admit, at first glance, I was concerned since I only knew about recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com, but beckermanlegal.com is in TFS, so I would imagine it too is genuine Ray Beckerman.
It would be the same as being in a federal building in Iowa and diving for cover every time a rental truck drove past.
Not the first couple of times, I would call that rational. After a while though, yeah, it'd be silly. But isn't this the first such occurrence since 9/11?
For someone to target some unknown office building in Dallas would be silly.
Quite the contrary, it'd be terrorism at its best (worst?). Targeting completely random structures? An historically unimportant bridge here, a small to medium sized town's town hall there... I'm not saying anything about level or rationality of fear here, but I would imagine that for most people it would make them more worried in the aftermath if the terrorists had chosen a mixture of high/low profile targets.
<tin_foil_hat>What "they" don't want you to know is that the crash in PA was intentional. The terrorists just decided to throw that one out there to spook everyone into thinking anything could be a target.</tin_foil_hat>
The only thing I wouldn't like would be the lack of sunlight.
You... like the sun? And you post on /.? :o
adopting safety practices designed narrowly to serve in a near-exact repeat of the same circumstances without adequate consideration of the expected outcomes of those practices in vastly more common situations would not be wise.
Now I'm not saying such events are common, but to say parachutes would only be useful for a 9/11-repeat is just wrong. Surely there must be other scenarios where people are trapped on the roof and cannot get down by conventional means?
There's no reason to worry specifically that any random jet is going to crash in to your building.
You are correct that there is no reason to worry day-in and day-out that a jet is going to randomly crash into your building. But when a jet is flying at an altitude and location where they normally don't, and you happen to be in an office building nearby?
A 747 has flown low across downtown Manhattan ten thousand and three (once now, twice on 9/11, and ten thousand before that) times now? Citation needed.
If they were going to die, it would have already struck them or the building next to them.
Because we all know it's impossible to turn an airplane around...
So what you're saying is that if you saw a bear in the middle of the city, well outside where you know the zoo to be located, you'd laugh at all the people running for their lives and would go about your business, because you see bears all the time in the city zoo?
Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive?
Are you trying to tell me that the government funds "Girls Gone Wild"? :o
Maybe they did. Maybe they're sending email to dospam@gmail.com, do@gmail.com, and whatever your address is with dospam completely removed. Like it really costs them anything extra.
Ah, thanks.
I didn't think you actually thought it was a "Gnome version of cat", but couldn't tell if you were still being serious about not knowing what it was.
Now they have a cushy new job in the DOJ they have a different paymaster
Never heard of bribery?
... because mono-cultures are SO much better than diversity ...
To the farmer they are, yes, because automating the tending of a crop that is all identical is much easier.
At least until this happens and then we have no more of whatever that crop was.
It's DNA.
Guanine
Cytosine
Adenine
Thymine
I feel as if you threaten my liberty.
Can I put all of your friends on trial for treason too?
You seem to be trying to use that as a counter-point. But if we threaten liberty, then sure, why not? You'd have to prove it though. But if we are only threatening some imagined "liberty" that is specific to only you, then we're not really threatening liberty, now are we?
I agree with you in spirit, but for all we know, GP sat in the very back of the theater with no one to either side, so no one would have even noticed (unless it had some ridiculous brightness setting). Or he had a coat pulled up so that no light from the PDA escaped to ruin the movie for anyone around him (but that might get the ushers to come by thinking he was recording the movie).
Some people buy trucks because they're remodeling their house and can't fit lumber and sheetrock in their geo prizm.
This makes a good analogy for digital music players. Trucks vs cars both have their trade offs. A truck can do more, but typically gets worse performance than a car (MPG comes to mind). Likewise, an iPod can hold more content, but you lack, say, the ability to change out the battery yourself.
In the trucking example that you provided, it might be better to rent a truck than own one as a primary mode of transportation. Unfortunately I cannot think of a similar situation for digital music players, maybe something to do with how often one needs to drag all of ones digital content around?
A bit off topic, but it'd be interesting to see how often one would need to do truck-only activities in order for it to make more financial sense to own a truck than it would to own a car and only rent a truck as needed. Though for all I know it could be a low as 1 hour a month.
Of course you can. Information I choose not to share with anyone will remain forever my secret, unless someone else generates the same information at least.
You misunderstand, see my last sentence, which I will repeat here.
"BTW, we're just talking straight-up information, not the latest Britney Spears album, right?"
For the purposes of this discussion, "information" that you generate falls into the same bucket as Britney Spears latest album. I apologize for comparing anything you might create with anything Britney Spears might expel out her mouth.
Google is only free if your privacy is worth nothing.
Which, well, it is.
Said the Anonymous Coward.
:P
You are correct in saying that "information does not want to be free" in the same way that you or I want to be free. But that does not mean that information isn't free, free to be discovered by anyone curious enough to go looking.
You can't "lock up" information the same way you "lock up" your family jewels. Saying that "information wants to be free" is just a much shorter way of saying it.
BTW, we're just talking straight-up information, not the latest Britney Spears album, right?
So they've basically re-designed the iron lung?
So... the set of integers contains some non-natural numbers (for lack of a proper term), and the set of natural numbers contains only integers, but they are the same size?
*head explodes*
Maybe we should make it a Constitutional amendment instead.
Yeah, that would totally fix the problem of our congresscritters immediately repealing the law, because it's not like you can repeal an amendment.
Sarcasm aside, the beauty (and curse) of this country of ours is that (in theory) we can change the laws however the fuck we want. If we wanted to re-introduce slavery and send the women back to the kitchen and revert ourselves to 18th century living, we could. Anything which would seem to explicitly state that we could not, can be worked around. Thus, the only solution to our crap laws is to stop electing crap politicians.