DVD by mail leverages the bandwidth of a van full of media, and doesn't cut into your MiFi data cap.
If you actually buy the DVD, my understanding is that comes with a reasonably perpetual license to display the content, unlike streaming services that may go out of business.
For the paranoid out there, it's also slightly harder for the CIA/NSA/FBI/MIB to track when you're watching which film, provided you're watching it on a setup that isn't network connected. (Van Eck attacks are more expensive than waiting for phone-home reports.)
However, I believe you could sell tractors that are a certain shade of green because within that context, green is identified as a functional color.
That depends on the intended use of the tractor, and the color.
If you said "construction tractor" (like a front-loader/backhoe, or a bulldozer), and "yellow", I think you're probably right. (Most of them seem to be a similar shade of "construction yellow".)
Certain shades of green (and orange, and yellow, and red, and blue) are almost certainly protected within the fields of agricultural tractors and landscaping equipment.
If doing something once is OK (acceptable, moral, etc), how is it wrong to do it a million times?
If two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong. (Scale as needed.)
It's really not stalking - stalking is generally targeted at a specific person. This isn't targeted at anyone in particular; it's an attempt to gather general data to learn things. I think we usually call that "science".
It's time that we stop, take our time and really think this stuff through, make new laws that fit the times, strictly enforce these laws, and move on.
This is a reasonable viewpoint.
As we're thinking this through, however, we need to be extremely careful about what parts are actually undesirable. We probably don't want to create a society where it's technically illegal to sit in a park and write poems inspired by people passing by, or to take photos that happen to include a license plate or a person, or to get them published in a magazine.
We need to figure out what the "bad" part is, and restrict only that.
If John was posing an imminent threat to your life, then you might have a justifiable self-defense excuse.
In our society, killing people, in general, is illegal (and immoral, and unacceptable, and unaccepted).
The United States Declaration of Independence specifically lists "life" as an inalienable right, and last I checked, DC was within US jurisdiction. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution already recognizes an intrinsic right to life ("...nor be deprived of life... without due process of law.").
No fundamental change is necessary; it's already in there.
I saw his car in the parking lot yesterday, too, so I'm pretty sure he was here yesterday.
As has been often lamented around here, a crime doesn't automatically become more heinous simply because a computer (or other technology) is involved. (Think... bank robbery by "hacking" instead of walking in with a note.) By the same standard, an acceptable act really doesn't become unacceptable just because it's automated.
If it's OK for me to drive around looking for someone's car, it is similarly OK for you to do the same. If it's OK for me to take pictures (or videos) while on a public street, it's OK for you to do the same. I'm pretty sure that if you or I found something interesting in our travels, we could take out our notebooks and write something about where we where, and when, and what we saw. We don't get to say that it's not OK for another private individual to drive around and take pictures just because they're going to use a computer to review the pictures and possibly highlight features of interest.
You say the subject may be more nuanced than I suggest; I don't think so. If action A is acceptable, and action B is acceptable, and action C is acceptable, how could doing all three together be unacceptable?
You are welcome to observe what goes on in public and report on it.
Thanks.
What I don't want you to do is drive around an automated license plate reader and sell the data.
Explain the difference. In the latter case, I'm using tools to more efficiently observe what is going on in public, and reporting those observations to interested parties.
What's next, singing "Preserve us from the Wheel" in church?
RF doesn't always need line of sight to be effective. Don't need the cars to park at least 3 feet apart to get a good glimpse of the tag from the side as driving by.
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?
I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to privacy in public.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the seismic cloak made of sheep's bladders?
This one, right here.
DVD by mail leverages the bandwidth of a van full of media, and doesn't cut into your MiFi data cap.
If you actually buy the DVD, my understanding is that comes with a reasonably perpetual license to display the content, unlike streaming services that may go out of business.
For the paranoid out there, it's also slightly harder for the CIA/NSA/FBI/MIB to track when you're watching which film, provided you're watching it on a setup that isn't network connected. (Van Eck attacks are more expensive than waiting for phone-home reports.)
Dang, maked me learn something. Thanks.
However, I believe you could sell tractors that are a certain shade of green because within that context, green is identified as a functional color.
That depends on the intended use of the tractor, and the color.
If you said "construction tractor" (like a front-loader/backhoe, or a bulldozer), and "yellow", I think you're probably right. (Most of them seem to be a similar shade of "construction yellow".)
Certain shades of green (and orange, and yellow, and red, and blue) are almost certainly protected within the fields of agricultural tractors and landscaping equipment.
The confusion in this method of picking Pi Day clearly comes from trying to assign an irrational number to a day on the Gregorian calenda
Julian it is, then. Either November 9 or November 10, depending on leap years.
Suck it, Tau day proponents.
Imagine the bandwidth savings world wide!
Using your post as an example, 1/646... or approximately one and one half tenths of a percent bandwidth savings.
I can feel the latencies dropping already.
If you need more than about 32 digits for your calculations, you grossly misunderstand something.
Second, that's not a factorial.
Wouldn't Pi Day be when, if you see the year as a circle (which many do), you have passed the diameter's length of it? I.e. April 26th?
This is possibly the most interesting idea so far.
It should really be July 21st, but very very late in the day.
I was under the impression that 900 years ago was "history", rather than "news".
Currency doesn't need to be a long term value store; currency needs to be a vehicle for short term value exchange.
Although maybe the latter will work in the not so distant future when there is only one journalist left.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
If doing something once is OK (acceptable, moral, etc), how is it wrong to do it a million times?
If two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong. (Scale as needed.)
It's really not stalking - stalking is generally targeted at a specific person. This isn't targeted at anyone in particular; it's an attempt to gather general data to learn things. I think we usually call that "science".
It's time that we stop, take our time and really think this stuff through, make new laws that fit the times, strictly enforce these laws, and move on.
This is a reasonable viewpoint.
As we're thinking this through, however, we need to be extremely careful about what parts are actually undesirable. We probably don't want to create a society where it's technically illegal to sit in a park and write poems inspired by people passing by, or to take photos that happen to include a license plate or a person, or to get them published in a magazine.
We need to figure out what the "bad" part is, and restrict only that.
That depends on the circumstances.
If John was posing an imminent threat to your life, then you might have a justifiable self-defense excuse.
In our society, killing people, in general, is illegal (and immoral, and unacceptable, and unaccepted).
The United States Declaration of Independence specifically lists "life" as an inalienable right, and last I checked, DC was within US jurisdiction. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution already recognizes an intrinsic right to life ("...nor be deprived of life... without due process of law.").
No fundamental change is necessary; it's already in there.
I saw his car in the parking lot yesterday, too, so I'm pretty sure he was here yesterday.
As has been often lamented around here, a crime doesn't automatically become more heinous simply because a computer (or other technology) is involved. (Think... bank robbery by "hacking" instead of walking in with a note.) By the same standard, an acceptable act really doesn't become unacceptable just because it's automated.
If it's OK for me to drive around looking for someone's car, it is similarly OK for you to do the same. If it's OK for me to take pictures (or videos) while on a public street, it's OK for you to do the same. I'm pretty sure that if you or I found something interesting in our travels, we could take out our notebooks and write something about where we where, and when, and what we saw. We don't get to say that it's not OK for another private individual to drive around and take pictures just because they're going to use a computer to review the pictures and possibly highlight features of interest.
You say the subject may be more nuanced than I suggest; I don't think so. If action A is acceptable, and action B is acceptable, and action C is acceptable, how could doing all three together be unacceptable?
The reference
You are welcome to observe what goes on in public and report on it.
Thanks.
What I don't want you to do is drive around an automated license plate reader and sell the data.
Explain the difference. In the latter case, I'm using tools to more efficiently observe what is going on in public, and reporting those observations to interested parties.
What's next, singing "Preserve us from the Wheel" in church?
Around here, corporations are private citizens.
RF doesn't always need line of sight to be effective. Don't need the cars to park at least 3 feet apart to get a good glimpse of the tag from the side as driving by.
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?
I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to privacy in public.
At that vintage, Wordstar is more likely.
What I don't get is why someone would shit in a barrel and then bury it.
I, for one, try not to keep barrels of shit in the living room.
Subterranean storage seems like a good idea. Since I don't have a cave to put barrels in, burying them seems reasonable.
Will they discover what electric sheep dream of?
Engraving on a removable panel sort of defeats the purpose...