>>>It's the vendors that built products early not the IEEE that defined the standard late.
That happened during the 90s as well. Companies got tired of waiting for the IEEE, so they just ran-off and created their own 19.2k, 28.8k, 33.6k and 56k modems using proprietary designs. They made these modems flash-based so users could later upgrade the modems to be compliant with the late-released spec. Technology moves faster than the specification groups can keep up.
>>>Haven't we learned anything from Clark Griswold in "Vacation"?;-) I've driven across the continent 18 times so far (~55,000 miles) and never hit anything once. Meanwhile I've had four accidents within 5 miles of my home - once at a stoplight, once at a stop sign, another in a parking lot, and a fourth when I hit a patch of ice and slid through an intersection.
Based on my experiences, I prefer interstates and other divided roads.
I just wanted to let you know that I am an Interactive Entertainment Specialist (game reviewer) for PSXnation and would welcome any publicity, gifts, or checks you would like to send my way. I will give you a fair review of your product.
Right. And then the 1930s-era Supreme Court declared the Tenth Amendment has no meaning, thereby giving Congress a blank check to do virtually anything it wants.
The good news is that more-recent court decisions (1992 and 97) have revived the 10th Amendment as protection against the U.S. forcing states to enact laws the states do not desire to enact. For example the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Another Congressional act required states to take possession of used uranium or radioactive waste.
>>>The odds of an accident are obviously much larger on a cross country car trip than a five mile local trip.
Apples and oranges. You should be comparing a 3000-mile cross country trip versus a 3000-mile airplane trip. Which is safer? I suspect they car is safer. i.e. The "per trip" risk of dying is less if you take your car. ----- And if you compare a 3000-mile trip versus 3000 miles driving in-and-around your local city, I think it's obvious the cross country trip is safer, if only because there's less things to hit when cruising through farm country.
>>>I've never paid more than 30 bucks a month ever for basic cable.
Really? $30? What company do you have, because Comcast charges my brother about $64 a month. (I don't have cable.) I'd have to say you're one of the lucky ones although that's still $30 + tax == almost $400 a year. For me it would still be cheaper to just buy whatever DVDs (Monk, BSG, Doctor Who) that I want to add to my library rather than rent those shows from cable.
>>>since space flight is essential for defence (spy satellites) and interstate commerce (communication satellites)
Second point: Congress *regulates* interstate commerce; it does not participate. Else it would be able to kill-off Ford, Microsoft, and Panasonic, and build cars, computers, and TVs directly. The U.S. has not been granted that power to DO interstate commerce - only to regulate it. ----- First point on defense: Fair enough. But how does that justify sending shuttles up in space to study how plants grow? That is not constitutional. Instead of NASA's toys, we should simply have the Army launching non-manned rockets to position the satellites.
>>>general welfare
That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence. To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Operationally the United States is like the European Union: Most of the power is still held by individual state governments.
You need to repeat this paragraph to the airline industry who claims "only 1 accident per million miles" (or whatever). I'm more interested in knowing what my odds of dying are *per trip* which is not much better than a car.
>>>The US government has to many bean counters who won't risk losing a few beans.
And yet they spend ~2000 billion on bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, and "stimulus" bills without even reading the fucking laws. I thought it was funny when Conyers said, "People keep saying read the bill. Have you seen the bill? It's over 1000 pages long and requires two lawyers sitting by my side to explain what it means! We don't have time to read the bill. We need to get it passed."
So they just vote "aye" and hope for the best. I'm sure if they can spend all that, without even knowing what they are spending it on, they can spare 0.1 billion for NASA each year.
>>>If it's not EXPLICITLY stated in the US Constitution then they don't;
Actually the U.S. Constitution is quite clear - the power to spend money on space launches belongs to the 50 State governments. Just like how the EU is not empowered to do launches, but France, the UK, and so on are.
>>>I've always assumed the drivel that comes out of the NASA execs is intended for public consumption
It's never a good idea to lie to your boss (the people). They might catch you in the lie, and then you've lost their trust. Or worse - they might revolt.
>>>Feynman pointed out that that this was like flying the space shuttle every day for 300 years without an accident.
That's 1 out of 300*365 days. In reality NASA had 2 blowups in 1300 days of flight. So 1 in 650 odds of catastrophic failure. I'd say the engineers doing the estimating are not doing a proper job, but then I've always thought risk analysis was more voodoo than reality (like counting how many angels dance on the head of a pin).
No comments about the European Union? THEY are the ones who will decide if Oracle and Sun merge, not us. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the EU says "no"
The people who write dictionaries are not political scientists. They make an error when they describe a Republic (rule of law) as a Democracy (rule by majority vote), or vice-versa. It's just the same as how a dictionary does not properly distinguish many technical terms like 1 kilobyte of RAM (1024 bytes) and misdefine it as 1000 bytes. Dictionaries are like wikipedia or an encyclopedia - a nice beginning point, but not intended for in-depth analysis or the ultimate answer.
The people who founded the U.S. said during the Constitutional Convention, "Our true disease is democracy" and after the convention Franklin announced, "We have a Republic." They considered democracy a bad form of government, and a Republic the preferred form. If they recognized the distinction, and if political scientists recognize the distinction, then so should we.
>>>My point is that the time and money invested in the bird is not trivial.
Do you think the time and money invested in digging-up the ground, hiring men, laying cable, and then connecting it with the required headends/servers is trivial either? I suspect training the pigeon would actually be LESS time consuming.
>>>>> They need to be held accountable for when they beat-up citizens
>>Just citizens? Why not when they beat-up anybody?
Stop searching for offenses where none was intended. I just used the word "citizens" because it was the first one that popped into my head. Replace it with "people" if it makes you feel more comfortable.
Then rewrite the law to set the speed to 99% average speed (typically 75mph), so only the worst offenders (top 1%) are getting ticketed. That seems reasonable to me.
The alternative, nonenforcement of the laws, is not acceptable. It weakens the whole legal system to have laws on the books that are not enforced.
>>>What if you drive 56 mph in a zone with a 55 mph limit, say for 2 seconds?
Simple. Rewrite the laws so that, rather then being ticketed, you just get a $0 warning for the first 9 MPH over the limit. We effectively have that kind of law now, where cops don't handout tickets until you high 65.
>>>You're talking about cameras, not Robocop
Robocop was just a camera with legs. So yes cameras are essentially robocops - an electronic device enforcing the hard letter of the law. If you don't like the law being strictly enforced, then rather than ignore the law (which weakens the system as a whole), rewrite the law to be more fair.
Also I'd rather just Mr. robocop on a post (camera) rather than trust than Mr. "I'm pissed because my wife won't give me any sex" Human cop who is just itching to punish drivers with undeserved tickets. The camera follows cold logic; the human lies, distorts, or inveigles to make you look guilty in court, even if you're innocent.
Except the humans lie, and cops being human..... well I don't trust them at all. I'd rather trust the cold logic of a camera, than a guy in uniform who is an angry mood because his wife hasn't given him any since last month, and therefore he's going to ticket me as a way to get revenge on the world.
You can ask for records of maintenance to see if the camera was neglected (and therefore not reliable). Also I think you forget that human witnesses are LESS reliable than cameras. I've worked with retail store security guards who freely admit they lie in court: "No I didn't see the man take the jeans, but I told the court I did, so he was found guilty." That's how innocent people end-up in jail.
Cameras may be out of adjustment but they always tell the "truth" of what they saw. Human witnesses don't. They lie; they forget; they embellish or get confused. Humans are extremely unreliable. I'd rather rely on a camera which I can invalidate as "not maintained and unreliable", rather then a human who can flatout lie and there's no way for me to prove they are lying.
Really? Wow it must suck to live in your state. In Maryland they have camera operators that review the photos, and ascertain if an offense happened (and mail out the ticket), or if the driver did nothing wrong (and destroy the photo). The most-obvious example is the EXPASS lanes, where if you drive through without paying you'll get captured by the camera. However the operators will crosscheck the photo with their records, and if you don't have an account you get fined, but if you Do have an account then you don't.
>>>you're not the type that understands tech
Yeah I know. My two Bachelors degrees and one Masters degree in Electrical Engineering were just given to me because I'm was a cute sorority girl. (rolls eyes)
>>>The real officer wouldn't have cited him in the first place.
So naive. I've seen many cases where real officers have ticketed people even though they did nothing wrong, so really there's no difference in accuracy between the real v. the electronic cop. .
>>>your answer is to gather enough money up to sue the city
Yes that's what the courts are for. And you can get an organization like the ACLU or the AAA to back you, as they did when they sued Washington D.C. on behalf of other false-ticketed drivers. And then the cameras were fixed, so the problem no longer exists but the enforcement of the red-light laws is still there to catch the violators.
In contrast YOUR answer if to have red lights that are not monitored (either by real cops or electronic cops), and thus people are ripping through red lights and endangering other drivers. This is definitely Not a solution. Non-enforcement of the laws is never a good idea.
Any officer who has been found by the courts to be guilty of violating either U.S. or State Constitutional law (example: entering Professor Gates' home without warrant) should be immediately placed on unpaid leave. Repeat offenders should be fired.
As it stands now, with no punishment, there's no reason for a cop to obey the Bill of Rights. He knows he can ignore those laws.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>It's the vendors that built products early not the IEEE that defined the standard late.
That happened during the 90s as well. Companies got tired of waiting for the IEEE, so they just ran-off and created their own 19.2k, 28.8k, 33.6k and 56k modems using proprietary designs. They made these modems flash-based so users could later upgrade the modems to be compliant with the late-released spec. Technology moves faster than the specification groups can keep up.
>>>Haven't we learned anything from Clark Griswold in "Vacation"? ;-) I've driven across the continent 18 times so far (~55,000 miles) and never hit anything once. Meanwhile I've had four accidents within 5 miles of my home - once at a stoplight, once at a stop sign, another in a parking lot, and a fourth when I hit a patch of ice and slid through an intersection.
Based on my experiences, I prefer interstates and other divided roads.
Dear EA:
I just wanted to let you know that I am an Interactive Entertainment Specialist (game reviewer) for PSXnation and would welcome any publicity, gifts, or checks you would like to send my way. I will give you a fair review of your product.
How about illegal? I thought Payola and other bribes to get favorable reviews was against the law.
Right. And then the 1930s-era Supreme Court declared the Tenth Amendment has no meaning, thereby giving Congress a blank check to do virtually anything it wants.
The good news is that more-recent court decisions (1992 and 97) have revived the 10th Amendment as protection against the U.S. forcing states to enact laws the states do not desire to enact. For example the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Another Congressional act required states to take possession of used uranium or radioactive waste.
Both were unconstitutional.
>>>The odds of an accident are obviously much larger on a cross country car trip than a five mile local trip.
Apples and oranges. You should be comparing a 3000-mile cross country trip versus a 3000-mile airplane trip. Which is safer? I suspect they car is safer. i.e. The "per trip" risk of dying is less if you take your car. ----- And if you compare a 3000-mile trip versus 3000 miles driving in-and-around your local city, I think it's obvious the cross country trip is safer, if only because there's less things to hit when cruising through farm country.
>>>I've never paid more than 30 bucks a month ever for basic cable.
Really? $30? What company do you have, because Comcast charges my brother about $64 a month. (I don't have cable.) I'd have to say you're one of the lucky ones although that's still $30 + tax == almost $400 a year. For me it would still be cheaper to just buy whatever DVDs (Monk, BSG, Doctor Who) that I want to add to my library rather than rent those shows from cable.
>>>Wow, you really are dumb
Wow, how juvenile of you. Well whatever.
>>>since space flight is essential for defence (spy satellites) and interstate commerce (communication satellites)
Second point: Congress *regulates* interstate commerce; it does not participate. Else it would be able to kill-off Ford, Microsoft, and Panasonic, and build cars, computers, and TVs directly. The U.S. has not been granted that power to DO interstate commerce - only to regulate it. ----- First point on defense: Fair enough. But how does that justify sending shuttles up in space to study how plants grow? That is not constitutional. Instead of NASA's toys, we should simply have the Army launching non-manned rockets to position the satellites.
>>>general welfare
That's only the first half of the sentence. You need to read the WHOLE sentence. To quote the Author of the Constitution James Madison - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41)
He further clarifies: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Operationally the United States is like the European Union:
Most of the power is still held by individual state governments.
You need to repeat this paragraph to the airline industry who claims "only 1 accident per million miles" (or whatever). I'm more interested in knowing what my odds of dying are *per trip* which is not much better than a car.
>>>The US government has to many bean counters who won't risk losing a few beans.
And yet they spend ~2000 billion on bank bailouts, corporate bailouts, and "stimulus" bills without even reading the fucking laws. I thought it was funny when Conyers said, "People keep saying read the bill. Have you seen the bill? It's over 1000 pages long and requires two lawyers sitting by my side to explain what it means! We don't have time to read the bill. We need to get it passed."
So they just vote "aye" and hope for the best. I'm sure if they can spend all that, without even knowing what they are spending it on, they can spare 0.1 billion for NASA each year.
>>>If it's not EXPLICITLY stated in the US Constitution then they don't;
Actually the U.S. Constitution is quite clear - the power to spend money on space launches belongs to the 50 State governments. Just like how the EU is not empowered to do launches, but France, the UK, and so on are.
>>>I've always assumed the drivel that comes out of the NASA execs is intended for public consumption
It's never a good idea to lie to your boss (the people). They might catch you in the lie, and then you've lost their trust. Or worse - they might revolt.
>>>Feynman pointed out that that this was like flying the space shuttle every day for 300 years without an accident.
That's 1 out of 300*365 days. In reality NASA had 2 blowups in 1300 days of flight. So 1 in 650 odds of catastrophic failure. I'd say the engineers doing the estimating are not doing a proper job, but then I've always thought risk analysis was more voodoo than reality (like counting how many angels dance on the head of a pin).
No comments about the European Union? THEY are the ones who will decide if Oracle and Sun merge, not us. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the EU says "no"
The people who write dictionaries are not political scientists. They make an error when they describe a Republic (rule of law) as a Democracy (rule by majority vote), or vice-versa. It's just the same as how a dictionary does not properly distinguish many technical terms like 1 kilobyte of RAM (1024 bytes) and misdefine it as 1000 bytes. Dictionaries are like wikipedia or an encyclopedia - a nice beginning point, but not intended for in-depth analysis or the ultimate answer.
The people who founded the U.S. said during the Constitutional Convention, "Our true disease is democracy" and after the convention Franklin announced, "We have a Republic." They considered democracy a bad form of government, and a Republic the preferred form. If they recognized the distinction, and if political scientists recognize the distinction, then so should we.
>>>My point is that the time and money invested in the bird is not trivial.
Do you think the time and money invested in digging-up the ground, hiring men, laying cable, and then connecting it with the required headends/servers is trivial either? I suspect training the pigeon would actually be LESS time consuming.
>>>>> They need to be held accountable for when they beat-up citizens
>>Just citizens? Why not when they beat-up anybody?
Stop searching for offenses where none was intended. I just used the word "citizens" because it was the first one that popped into my head. Replace it with "people" if it makes you feel more comfortable.
Then rewrite the law to set the speed to 99% average speed (typically 75mph), so only the worst offenders (top 1%) are getting ticketed. That seems reasonable to me.
The alternative, nonenforcement of the laws, is not acceptable. It weakens the whole legal system to have laws on the books that are not enforced.
>>>What if you drive 56 mph in a zone with a 55 mph limit, say for 2 seconds?
Simple. Rewrite the laws so that, rather then being ticketed, you just get a $0 warning for the first 9 MPH over the limit. We effectively have that kind of law now, where cops don't handout tickets until you high 65.
>>>You're talking about cameras, not Robocop
Robocop was just a camera with legs. So yes cameras are essentially robocops - an electronic device enforcing the hard letter of the law. If you don't like the law being strictly enforced, then rather than ignore the law (which weakens the system as a whole), rewrite the law to be more fair.
Also I'd rather just Mr. robocop on a post (camera) rather than trust than Mr. "I'm pissed because my wife won't give me any sex" Human cop who is just itching to punish drivers with undeserved tickets. The camera follows cold logic; the human lies, distorts, or inveigles to make you look guilty in court, even if you're innocent.
Except the humans lie, and cops being human..... well I don't trust them at all. I'd rather trust the cold logic of a camera, than a guy in uniform who is an angry mood because his wife hasn't given him any since last month, and therefore he's going to ticket me as a way to get revenge on the world.
You can ask for records of maintenance to see if the camera was neglected (and therefore not reliable). Also I think you forget that human witnesses are LESS reliable than cameras. I've worked with retail store security guards who freely admit they lie in court: "No I didn't see the man take the jeans, but I told the court I did, so he was found guilty." That's how innocent people end-up in jail.
Cameras may be out of adjustment but they always tell the "truth" of what they saw. Human witnesses don't. They lie; they forget; they embellish or get confused. Humans are extremely unreliable. I'd rather rely on a camera which I can invalidate as "not maintained and unreliable", rather then a human who can flatout lie and there's no way for me to prove they are lying.
>>>The camera does not have an operator.
Really? Wow it must suck to live in your state. In Maryland they have camera operators that review the photos, and ascertain if an offense happened (and mail out the ticket), or if the driver did nothing wrong (and destroy the photo). The most-obvious example is the EXPASS lanes, where if you drive through without paying you'll get captured by the camera. However the operators will crosscheck the photo with their records, and if you don't have an account you get fined, but if you Do have an account then you don't.
>>>you're not the type that understands tech
Yeah I know. My two Bachelors degrees and one Masters degree in Electrical Engineering were just given to me because I'm was a cute sorority girl. (rolls eyes)
>>>The real officer wouldn't have cited him in the first place.
So naive. I've seen many cases where real officers have ticketed people even though they did nothing wrong, so really there's no difference in accuracy between the real v. the electronic cop.
.
>>>your answer is to gather enough money up to sue the city
Yes that's what the courts are for. And you can get an organization like the ACLU or the AAA to back you, as they did when they sued Washington D.C. on behalf of other false-ticketed drivers. And then the cameras were fixed, so the problem no longer exists but the enforcement of the red-light laws is still there to catch the violators.
In contrast YOUR answer if to have red lights that are not monitored (either by real cops or electronic cops), and thus people are ripping through red lights and endangering other drivers. This is definitely Not a solution. Non-enforcement of the laws is never a good idea.
>>>Prove it.
Here let me google that for you - http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22destruction+of+evidence%22
Any officer who has been found by the courts to be guilty of violating either U.S. or State Constitutional law (example: entering Professor Gates' home without warrant) should be immediately placed on unpaid leave. Repeat offenders should be fired.
As it stands now, with no punishment, there's no reason for a cop to obey the Bill of Rights. He knows he can ignore those laws.