I haven't been arrested for it, but I did once have a cashier refuse to take a two until her manager told her it was ok.
"I don't know what makes for a good wrongful arrest suit. .."
Being wrongfully arrested will do it, especially on the unsubstantiated complaint of an individual. He's got a good case if he really wants to be a prick to Best Buy, and who wouldn't want that?
The police/DA/judge fucked up big time too, as there obviously wasn't suffcient evidence to generate a legitimate warrant on a conterfeiting charge, like, possession of a bill deemed to be counterfeit by an expert and alleged to have been passed by the guy, and since the guy apparently was not apprehended in the act (no, I haven't read the article), a warrant should have been necessary.
If he were apprehended in the act, the converstaion should have gone something like this:
"Officer, he's trying to give me two dollar bills!"
"Yeah. So? What are you, some kind of moron?"
Unless, of course, the officer was some kind of moron.
Of course, thanks to the city of New London, CT the public should be more aware that they are often tested for that before being allowed to join the force (over intelligence is deemed to create job dissatisfaction with the role of police officer, or at least that's how they like to explain it these days. In the old days they were more honest in admiting that they wished police to function as automatons).
Oh, they wouldn't object to the dry sump, per se, as you say they wouldn't even know the difference.
But the system I am envisioning pre-pressurizes the oil system before starting the car, this is where most of the extended engine life would come from (the rule of thumb is that each startup is equal to 500 highway miles), creating an annoying delay between turning the key and having the car start. People really wouldn't put up with it, not even for extended engine life.
The Accusump is a "hybrid" system that adds an external sump to the existing system and stores pressure in it. This pressure can be used to pre-oil the engine on start up as well as offering some of the benefits of a true dry sump system by adding pressurized oil into the engine whenever oil pressure from the wet sump drops. It's probably the 99% solution for street cars.
If you keep driving around for i.e. go to the dealership like you suggest instead of stopping immediately or if you're doing high speeds on a motorway, very likely.
I was speaking sardonically. Yes, the correct procedure when the "Check Oil" light comes on is to stop the car immediately. This will at least minimize the damage.
. ..perhaps your getting confused with the oil pressure light that some cars. ..
Some cars now have this because people got confused about the check oil light, not realizing it was the idiot light that replaced the oil pressure gauge we used to have, so they have added an oil pressure idiot light and changed the "check oil" idiot light to an oil level idiot light, which doesn't work, even for idiots, and can't really work in the first place, only adding to the general confusion about what all the lights mean.
Because of the way a car engine works it isn't really possible to make an oil level gauge that works at any other time than before you turn the engine on. That's why cars never had in dash oil level guages, just oil pressure gauges.
It is very, very important to have some sort of oil pressure warning system. It is meaningless and thus pointless, to have have an oil level warning system while the car is in operation. Where they actually occur they are the same sort of idiot user appeasment device that many computer warning popups are.
There is one, and only one, accurate gauge for oil level. Every car has one, old and new. It's called a "dipstick," who has to shut the motor off, wait several minutes, get out of the car, open the hood. ..
. ..you sound like you work for a main dealer.
I do not work for any sort of dealer (although I have been the general manager for a classic/exotic restoration shop/dealership in the past), and prefer to maintain and fix cars, rather than changing parts. This means I cannot work as a mechanic at all, but I sure as hell do have grease under my fingernails and my workbench is currently covered with the parts of a '72 Fiat 124 Spider engine I'm rebuilding.
I have, however, seen more than one car with what's left of a connecting rod sticking through what's left of its block or its innards reduced to fused junk because the owner always added oil, religiously, every time the "check oil" light came on. I'd hazard a guess that that's a valid time to change the motor without being accused of being a ripper.
If cars were fitted with dry sump oil systems it would likely double the lifespan of engines, but, oddly, noone would be happy with that, least of all the car owners. You can always add an Accusump on your own, or follow Bugatti's recommended start up procedure:
Drain oil from sump. Heat oil on stove. Add oil back to car. Hand crank motor without compression. Start car.
Can you see a source of owner dissatisfaction with a proper startup procedure here?
We now have the technology to do this automatically in a couple of minutes, but people bitch about their computers taking a couple of mintues to boot up, when they're at home and can use that time to go get their cup of coffee, don't they? Imagine what they'd think if they couldn't start their car for a couple of minutes after coming back out of the mall.
No, I don't work for a dealer, but I have been known to design cars. I've got some engine concept drawings right here. I figure the sucker would be good for a half million miles between rebuilds, assuming proper startup procedures and maintainence, and be truely rebuildable to as new.
It'll never be made. It would never sell. And it wouldn't be "economic" anyway, because it's cheaper to trash things and replace them than to fix them. Just like in the old days it was more economic to work a horse to death in three years than maintain it for 15.
I think I'll go back to designing electrics and HPVs. They still let me build those myself if I'm willing to bear the time and expense.
Do you know what "Check Oil" means? Most people don't. Golias, judging from his post doesn't.
It isn't obvious, and does not mean your oil level is low. You actually have to have some understanding of how a car works to know what it really means, nevermind the various ramifications that its meaning could represent.
A car, in case you have missed it somehow, is technology. A rather complicated bit of technology at that. The average person doesn't understand their car any more than they understand their computer.
That's why your mechanic doesn't want to hear what's wrong with your car from you. He knows you're "an idiot," just like you know your users are "idiots." He needs to diagnose it himself.
And the labor rate doubles if you tried to fix it first, and doubles again if you try to help, but hey, you're paying by the hour, so chat all you want.
(By the way, in practical terms the "Check Oil" light coming on means "Yo! You might just as well drive it straight to the dealership from here and have 'em put in a new engine, because it's already too late. Moron.")
I would like to explain in an intelligent and reasoned manner why I think you are complimenting the piece, but since it consists of unmitigated gobbledygook it doesn't even offer a handle to critcise it.
Did he write it with a dictionary and a blender, or what?
Who founded Bloor Research?
Robin Bloor.
"There is no better evidence that my comment was right than quoting Bloor and Butler. They may be "respected technical analysts", but they understand what a data model and the relational model are as well as Williams, namely, zilch. I recall I critiqued at least one DBMS article they wrote in 1992 in which they were proclaiming "the end of RDBMS" at the hands of ODBMS. Now [9 years later] they are claiming the same for Williams' so-called AMD. What fad next?
The industry is chockfull of "respected analysts" who know very little." --Fabian Pascal
". ..but I haven't, outside of the realm of entertainment, found any problem for which they are the solution."
Perhaps I spoke too loosely there, loosely enough that someone is likely to upbraid me for it,so I'll point out that one of the things that led me to play around with compressed gas engines in the first place was that they have certain advantages in highly specialized applications, such as the need to operate a motor within a combustable gas.
Electric engines have the disadvantage of having little power. ..
Beg pardon? Not to mention the fact that their torque curves are the stuff that give drag racers wet dreams.
The only disadvantage electric motors have over combustion engines of any kind is, well, that they run on electricity, which has to come from somewhere.
Which turns out to be rather inconvenient.
The compressed air booster is just one way of finding some sort of dodge around the whole battery issue, and I'm not convinced it's a good one. A true hybrid seems a better solution to me, although it lacks the politically correct advantage of hiding its energy use and emissions from public view.
Bear in mind that I'm actually quite fond of compressed gas engines and have actually built a few small ones, just for my personal enjoyment and edification, but I haven't, outside of the realm of entertainment, found any problem for which they are the solution.
Even though the laws escape legal censure because they are aimed at the flow of money, such monies are overtly those used to purchase access to pulic forums, speech.
In a best case scenario this innately results in a database of who is spending what money on what political issues, whereas the only "correct" interpretation of the First Ammendment is that this is "noone's fucking business."
But, of course, it doesn't stop there, and, as the blurb suggests, in the worst case scenario the laws can be leveraged against speech itself.
For instance, yes, registration is voluntary, and personal speech is still "free," but that does nothing to prevent someone from prosecuting a blogger for being in violation of the law, and said blogger is unlikely to have the financial resources to defend his speech that the Washington Post does.
So the blogger is forced to shut down, or worse, bankrupted, then forced to shut down. His speech is effectively suppressed, although within the bounds of the law as she is writ.
But let us consider the case where, just as a rhetorical example, I feel so strongly about some political issue that I am willing to spend a thousand bucks of my own money to engage in what would legally be considered "electioneering."
Say I print up a bunch of flyers and distribute them myself on the street corner, of my own volition, purely as an expression of my own view that a certain candidate should prevail.
My speech is still protected, but if I do not place my name in the database and open my personal finances to legal inspection I am guilty of a crime for having done nothing but exercise a right.
I find this concept abhorent, and to evade this situation I am perfectly willing to accept the obvious fact that rich people can print up more flyers than I can. A restriction on spending money on speech is still a restriction on my speech spending, even if I don't have that sort of money available to spend on speech. This is a concept that seems a bit too subtle for most, although to me it appears writ in large, flashing neon signs.
The ultimate solution is obvious, for speech to be so inexpensive that anyone can afford to reach the world, at will, at far less expense than any reasonable restriction on "campaign financing" could entail, and thus alleviate the need for such restrictions.
What we really need is something like. ..the Internet. Go figure.
Here on Slashdot alone this political speech that I am engaging in right now might be reaching people numbering in the millions (the lurkers outnumber the registered users), and, prorated against my annual expense for all computer communications activities (ooooooh, say, seven or eight hundred bucks a year), cost less than a penny. Adding a simple web page would increase my annual out of pocket expenses about . ..ooooooh, nothing at all.
Sure, you can spend arbitrarily large amounts on a simple web page (I could, for instance, spend a half million on a stupid logo my mom would do for a pizza), but these expenditures really have nothing to do with the cost of the speech; and regulating the money spent on such has no effect on "reforming" political campaigns.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that in America The People are still entirely responsible for the government they get.
The fact that the people are largely idiots is unregulatable.
Of such are court cases made, although some of these issues have already been addressed by various Supreme Court decisions.
"If blogs aren't "recognized" as a "news medium," wouldn't this mean they could be considered "electioneering communications?" "
And so we must define just what "recognized" and "news medium" is, yes. Notice the caveat about ownership though, and again, personal political speech is already protected, even if you spend money on it. The issue at hand that the bill is seeking to address is monies spent directly in the process of "electioneering." Flying from San Francisco to Boston to support a candidate at a convention would not be "electioneering," merely a protected expression of your politics, at least by the time the case reached a high court (would your legal expenses be considered part of what you spent on "electioneering"? Ah, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to regulate political speech).
Nor does the section you quote actually absolve newspapers from the law, it simply recognizes that certain kinds of speech that they engage in do not fall under the umbrella of "electioneering." Other forms of speech they might engage in just might.
The bill is also voluntary, in the sense that there won't be blog registration police roaming around knocking on the doors of everyone with a blog demanding that they obtain a speech license. You are expected to determine whether you must register yourself and take the steps to do so if you feel the bill applies to you. If you are not being paid to support a candidate it almost certainly doesn't.
And it's San Franciso, so there might also be some other, mitigating bill if you take harmonica lessons or something. They're funny out there.
Of course none of this addresses the core issue, to wit, any election campaign finance reform can only be effective to the extent that we throw out the First Ammendment and institute a speech police force.
To my mind this is a disease far worse than the "cure."
The Supreme court has already dealt with this issue in the case of Steve Forbes. If you are spending your own money, as do newspapers and bloggers, your speech is protected by the First Ammendment. As it should be, even if you are filthy, stinking rich, or even if you are some kid (of any age) posting to the web from your mom's basement.
The extent to which this law might be supportable is highly dependant on the exact legal meaning of the word "electioneering" and only that portion of monies spent on such "electioneering" could be held to count, up until the time you accept payment of at least $100 from some other person to engage in electioneering.
But yes, the bill does not dicriminate (I've, like, actually read it and stuff). It is not aimed at bloggers and applies to any "Electioneering Communication" that is "distributed," "including, but not limited to" Cable, satellite, Internet, flyers, doorhangers, etc, etc, etc.
For the makers that is easy to answer, because they wish to sell it. They don't give a damn about whether it's an advancement or not. They care about transfering your money from your pocket to theirs. For some reason companies think we're going to go all ga-ga over voice control. We never do. We never will. It sucks. It will continue to suck. Mostly because it means you have to talk just to do some simple, quiet little thing. It doesn't matter how well it understands you and responds, it's the sheer act of having to vocalize a command that is the innate source of the suckitude.
In this case the application isn't even correct. As poster below suggests the correct way to impliment TV voice control would be to build it into the TV, so you don't even need to have a remote, but you couldn't sell remotes that way, now could you? You could, perhaps, sell set top boxes though, then at least it would be functional for those who need an access device (I need voice control because my arms don't work, so all I have to do is pick up this voice control remote and. ..).
Why Slashdot might present it as an advancement, let alone present it at all, particularly given the standard response of "Noooooooo!" that rings out every time some such device comes up, is beyond me.
To maintain the Slashdot tradition of technical excellence in scientific units, such as the Library of Congress, the Olympic sized swimming pool and the telephone booth, I have managed to come up with a single unit which can be used to describe both the cost and the weight of a space faring vessel; and I bestow upon this revolutionary new satellite the honor of being the unit measure:
It is hearby declared to be one Anna Nicole Smith.
Please forgive me, but in my precoffee fog I started channeling Dijkstra, but in my precoffee fog could not convey his eloquence.
However, I will continue and point out that there is no particular value in relying on hardware, OSs and APIs that themselves have little to no regard for CompSci theory beyond the minimal practical value of "working," for sufficiently small values of working.
The issue of design practices cannot be evaded by dropping to a lower level, because things are still "designed" by the commericial entities at that level, and for purely commercial purposes.
Witness the kludgeball that constitutes the Windows APIs, complete with system level patches to "fix" bugs in applications.
"Behave as x, unless you are running game foo, in which case behave as y, unless bar is also running, in which case, screw it and hang. It serves the user right for trying that."
The sad truth, however, is that it's happening in ALL fields.
I am nominally a physicist/engineer, not a CompSci guy. A few weeks ago I had to spend a considerable amount of time explaining the basics of Newton's Laws of Motion to an "experienced" mechanical "engineer." It was a bit saddening, but common enough now that I have ceased to be shocked by it anymore.
I've already posted how my locomotive building SO will no longer ride on Amtrack rolling stock of certain vintages, she now knows too much about how they are designed and constructed.
I know to much about how my car is designed and constructed. I prefer bicycles of my own construction these days; and I'm learning shoemaking.
I'm becoming a "Luddite" through being too well versed in the technology, rather than through any objection to it.
This was done by bicycle, http://www.microship.com/, 20 years ago (complete with a binary "keyboard" on the handlebars so that the rider could type while riding and satellite uplink) and my aunt gave up her house 10 years ago to go RVing and says she doesn't understand anymore why anyone would want to own a house in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't been arrested for it, but I did once have a cashier refuse to take a two until her manager told her it was ok.
."
"I don't know what makes for a good wrongful arrest suit. .
Being wrongfully arrested will do it, especially on the unsubstantiated complaint of an individual. He's got a good case if he really wants to be a prick to Best Buy, and who wouldn't want that?
The police/DA/judge fucked up big time too, as there obviously wasn't suffcient evidence to generate a legitimate warrant on a conterfeiting charge, like, possession of a bill deemed to be counterfeit by an expert and alleged to have been passed by the guy, and since the guy apparently was not apprehended in the act (no, I haven't read the article), a warrant should have been necessary.
If he were apprehended in the act, the converstaion should have gone something like this:
"Officer, he's trying to give me two dollar bills!"
"Yeah. So? What are you, some kind of moron?"
Unless, of course, the officer was some kind of moron.
Of course, thanks to the city of New London, CT the public should be more aware that they are often tested for that before being allowed to join the force (over intelligence is deemed to create job dissatisfaction with the role of police officer, or at least that's how they like to explain it these days. In the old days they were more honest in admiting that they wished police to function as automatons).
KFG
Whatever. All I know is that I can't wait to see if I can get it to run on my Phantom gaming console.
Shit, if that works out I figure I'll go whole hog and create the worlds first vapor super cluster.
It certainly won't take up much space.
KFG
Oh, they wouldn't object to the dry sump, per se, as you say they wouldn't even know the difference.
But the system I am envisioning pre-pressurizes the oil system before starting the car, this is where most of the extended engine life would come from (the rule of thumb is that each startup is equal to 500 highway miles), creating an annoying delay between turning the key and having the car start. People really wouldn't put up with it, not even for extended engine life.
The Accusump is a "hybrid" system that adds an external sump to the existing system and stores pressure in it. This pressure can be used to pre-oil the engine on start up as well as offering some of the benefits of a true dry sump system by adding pressurized oil into the engine whenever oil pressure from the wet sump drops. It's probably the 99% solution for street cars.
KFG
I ride a bicycle these days anyway...
Ditto. The sheer elegance of the device is unsurpassed.
KFG
If you keep driving around for i.e. go to the dealership like you suggest instead of stopping immediately or if you're doing high speeds on a motorway, very likely.
.perhaps your getting confused with the oil pressure light that some cars. . .
.
.you sound like you work for a main dealer.
I was speaking sardonically. Yes, the correct procedure when the "Check Oil" light comes on is to stop the car immediately. This will at least minimize the damage.
. .
Some cars now have this because people got confused about the check oil light, not realizing it was the idiot light that replaced the oil pressure gauge we used to have, so they have added an oil pressure idiot light and changed the "check oil" idiot light to an oil level idiot light, which doesn't work, even for idiots, and can't really work in the first place, only adding to the general confusion about what all the lights mean.
Because of the way a car engine works it isn't really possible to make an oil level gauge that works at any other time than before you turn the engine on. That's why cars never had in dash oil level guages, just oil pressure gauges.
It is very, very important to have some sort of oil pressure warning system. It is meaningless and thus pointless, to have have an oil level warning system while the car is in operation. Where they actually occur they are the same sort of idiot user appeasment device that many computer warning popups are.
There is one, and only one, accurate gauge for oil level. Every car has one, old and new. It's called a "dipstick," who has to shut the motor off, wait several minutes, get out of the car, open the hood. .
. .
I do not work for any sort of dealer (although I have been the general manager for a classic/exotic restoration shop/dealership in the past), and prefer to maintain and fix cars, rather than changing parts. This means I cannot work as a mechanic at all, but I sure as hell do have grease under my fingernails and my workbench is currently covered with the parts of a '72 Fiat 124 Spider engine I'm rebuilding.
I have, however, seen more than one car with what's left of a connecting rod sticking through what's left of its block or its innards reduced to fused junk because the owner always added oil, religiously, every time the "check oil" light came on. I'd hazard a guess that that's a valid time to change the motor without being accused of being a ripper.
If cars were fitted with dry sump oil systems it would likely double the lifespan of engines, but, oddly, noone would be happy with that, least of all the car owners. You can always add an Accusump on your own, or follow Bugatti's recommended start up procedure:
Drain oil from sump. Heat oil on stove. Add oil back to car. Hand crank motor without compression. Start car.
Can you see a source of owner dissatisfaction with a proper startup procedure here?
We now have the technology to do this automatically in a couple of minutes, but people bitch about their computers taking a couple of mintues to boot up, when they're at home and can use that time to go get their cup of coffee, don't they? Imagine what they'd think if they couldn't start their car for a couple of minutes after coming back out of the mall.
No, I don't work for a dealer, but I have been known to design cars. I've got some engine concept drawings right here. I figure the sucker would be good for a half million miles between rebuilds, assuming proper startup procedures and maintainence, and be truely rebuildable to as new.
It'll never be made. It would never sell. And it wouldn't be "economic" anyway, because it's cheaper to trash things and replace them than to fix them. Just like in the old days it was more economic to work a horse to death in three years than maintain it for 15.
I think I'll go back to designing electrics and HPVs. They still let me build those myself if I'm willing to bear the time and expense.
KFG
"Everyones a winner!"
Indeed. It's your treat.
Think about it.
KFG
Do you know what "Check Oil" means? Most people don't. Golias, judging from his post doesn't.
It isn't obvious, and does not mean your oil level is low. You actually have to have some understanding of how a car works to know what it really means, nevermind the various ramifications that its meaning could represent.
A car, in case you have missed it somehow, is technology. A rather complicated bit of technology at that. The average person doesn't understand their car any more than they understand their computer.
That's why your mechanic doesn't want to hear what's wrong with your car from you. He knows you're "an idiot," just like you know your users are "idiots." He needs to diagnose it himself.
And the labor rate doubles if you tried to fix it first, and doubles again if you try to help, but hey, you're paying by the hour, so chat all you want.
(By the way, in practical terms the "Check Oil" light coming on means "Yo! You might just as well drive it straight to the dealership from here and have 'em put in a new engine, because it's already too late. Moron.")
KFG
This is a really bad piece.
No, I'm afraid it's not quite that good.
I would like to explain in an intelligent and reasoned manner why I think you are complimenting the piece, but since it consists of unmitigated gobbledygook it doesn't even offer a handle to critcise it.
Did he write it with a dictionary and a blender, or what?
Who founded Bloor Research?
Robin Bloor.
"There is no better evidence that my comment was right than quoting Bloor and Butler. They may be "respected technical analysts", but they understand what a data model and the relational model are as well as Williams, namely, zilch. I recall I critiqued at least one DBMS article they wrote in 1992 in which they were proclaiming "the end of RDBMS" at the hands of ODBMS. Now [9 years later] they are claiming the same for Williams' so-called AMD. What fad next?
The industry is chockfull of "respected analysts" who know very little." --Fabian Pascal
KFG
Unless you can think of a way to validate that people are supporting a view of their own free will without having a record of their finances.
I can't think of a reason to care. I agree or disagree with their view equally either way. YMMV.
KFG
Have you ever seen a black hole?
I wasted my Saturday night in one.
KFG
http://ceenews.com/mag/electric_american_supercond uctor_demonstrates/
How much power do you want?
KFG
True, that will be a problem for the short term, but remember, the audio cloud is only the first step along the road to developing the brain cloud.
KFG
". . .but I haven't, outside of the realm of entertainment, found any problem for which they are the solution."
Perhaps I spoke too loosely there, loosely enough that someone is likely to upbraid me for it,so I'll point out that one of the things that led me to play around with compressed gas engines in the first place was that they have certain advantages in highly specialized applications, such as the need to operate a motor within a combustable gas.
KFG
Electric engines have the disadvantage of having little power. . .
Beg pardon? Not to mention the fact that their torque curves are the stuff that give drag racers wet dreams.
The only disadvantage electric motors have over combustion engines of any kind is, well, that they run on electricity, which has to come from somewhere.
Which turns out to be rather inconvenient.
The compressed air booster is just one way of finding some sort of dodge around the whole battery issue, and I'm not convinced it's a good one. A true hybrid seems a better solution to me, although it lacks the politically correct advantage of hiding its energy use and emissions from public view.
Bear in mind that I'm actually quite fond of compressed gas engines and have actually built a few small ones, just for my personal enjoyment and edification, but I haven't, outside of the realm of entertainment, found any problem for which they are the solution.
KFG
That's correct.
.the Internet. Go figure.
.ooooooh, nothing at all.
Even though the laws escape legal censure because they are aimed at the flow of money, such monies are overtly those used to purchase access to pulic forums, speech.
In a best case scenario this innately results in a database of who is spending what money on what political issues, whereas the only "correct" interpretation of the First Ammendment is that this is "noone's fucking business."
But, of course, it doesn't stop there, and, as the blurb suggests, in the worst case scenario the laws can be leveraged against speech itself.
For instance, yes, registration is voluntary, and personal speech is still "free," but that does nothing to prevent someone from prosecuting a blogger for being in violation of the law, and said blogger is unlikely to have the financial resources to defend his speech that the Washington Post does.
So the blogger is forced to shut down, or worse, bankrupted, then forced to shut down. His speech is effectively suppressed, although within the bounds of the law as she is writ.
But let us consider the case where, just as a rhetorical example, I feel so strongly about some political issue that I am willing to spend a thousand bucks of my own money to engage in what would legally be considered "electioneering."
Say I print up a bunch of flyers and distribute them myself on the street corner, of my own volition, purely as an expression of my own view that a certain candidate should prevail.
My speech is still protected, but if I do not place my name in the database and open my personal finances to legal inspection I am guilty of a crime for having done nothing but exercise a right.
I find this concept abhorent, and to evade this situation I am perfectly willing to accept the obvious fact that rich people can print up more flyers than I can. A restriction on spending money on speech is still a restriction on my speech spending, even if I don't have that sort of money available to spend on speech. This is a concept that seems a bit too subtle for most, although to me it appears writ in large, flashing neon signs.
The ultimate solution is obvious, for speech to be so inexpensive that anyone can afford to reach the world, at will, at far less expense than any reasonable restriction on "campaign financing" could entail, and thus alleviate the need for such restrictions.
What we really need is something like. .
Here on Slashdot alone this political speech that I am engaging in right now might be reaching people numbering in the millions (the lurkers outnumber the registered users), and, prorated against my annual expense for all computer communications activities (ooooooh, say, seven or eight hundred bucks a year), cost less than a penny. Adding a simple web page would increase my annual out of pocket expenses about . .
Sure, you can spend arbitrarily large amounts on a simple web page (I could, for instance, spend a half million on a stupid logo my mom would do for a pizza), but these expenditures really have nothing to do with the cost of the speech; and regulating the money spent on such has no effect on "reforming" political campaigns.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that in America The People are still entirely responsible for the government they get.
The fact that the people are largely idiots is unregulatable.
KFG
". . . the wording is pretty vague."
Of such are court cases made, although some of these issues have already been addressed by various Supreme Court decisions.
"If blogs aren't "recognized" as a "news medium," wouldn't this mean they could be considered "electioneering communications?" "
And so we must define just what "recognized" and "news medium" is, yes. Notice the caveat about ownership though, and again, personal political speech is already protected, even if you spend money on it. The issue at hand that the bill is seeking to address is monies spent directly in the process of "electioneering." Flying from San Francisco to Boston to support a candidate at a convention would not be "electioneering," merely a protected expression of your politics, at least by the time the case reached a high court (would your legal expenses be considered part of what you spent on "electioneering"? Ah, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to regulate political speech).
Nor does the section you quote actually absolve newspapers from the law, it simply recognizes that certain kinds of speech that they engage in do not fall under the umbrella of "electioneering." Other forms of speech they might engage in just might.
The bill is also voluntary, in the sense that there won't be blog registration police roaming around knocking on the doors of everyone with a blog demanding that they obtain a speech license. You are expected to determine whether you must register yourself and take the steps to do so if you feel the bill applies to you. If you are not being paid to support a candidate it almost certainly doesn't.
And it's San Franciso, so there might also be some other, mitigating bill if you take harmonica lessons or something. They're funny out there.
Of course none of this addresses the core issue, to wit, any election campaign finance reform can only be effective to the extent that we throw out the First Ammendment and institute a speech police force.
To my mind this is a disease far worse than the "cure."
KFG
The Supreme court has already dealt with this issue in the case of Steve Forbes. If you are spending your own money, as do newspapers and bloggers, your speech is protected by the First Ammendment. As it should be, even if you are filthy, stinking rich, or even if you are some kid (of any age) posting to the web from your mom's basement.
The extent to which this law might be supportable is highly dependant on the exact legal meaning of the word "electioneering" and only that portion of monies spent on such "electioneering" could be held to count, up until the time you accept payment of at least $100 from some other person to engage in electioneering.
But yes, the bill does not dicriminate (I've, like, actually read it and stuff). It is not aimed at bloggers and applies to any "Electioneering Communication" that is "distributed," "including, but not limited to" Cable, satellite, Internet, flyers, doorhangers, etc, etc, etc.
KFG
For the makers that is easy to answer, because they wish to sell it. They don't give a damn about whether it's an advancement or not. They care about transfering your money from your pocket to theirs. For some reason companies think we're going to go all ga-ga over voice control. We never do. We never will. It sucks. It will continue to suck. Mostly because it means you have to talk just to do some simple, quiet little thing. It doesn't matter how well it understands you and responds, it's the sheer act of having to vocalize a command that is the innate source of the suckitude.
.).
In this case the application isn't even correct. As poster below suggests the correct way to impliment TV voice control would be to build it into the TV, so you don't even need to have a remote, but you couldn't sell remotes that way, now could you? You could, perhaps, sell set top boxes though, then at least it would be functional for those who need an access device (I need voice control because my arms don't work, so all I have to do is pick up this voice control remote and. .
Why Slashdot might present it as an advancement, let alone present it at all, particularly given the standard response of "Noooooooo!" that rings out every time some such device comes up, is beyond me.
KFG
Makes we wonder if NASA is just helping the Pentagon to build new SDI technology.
Ya think?
KFG
To maintain the Slashdot tradition of technical excellence in scientific units, such as the Library of Congress, the Olympic sized swimming pool and the telephone booth, I have managed to come up with a single unit which can be used to describe both the cost and the weight of a space faring vessel; and I bestow upon this revolutionary new satellite the honor of being the unit measure:
It is hearby declared to be one Anna Nicole Smith.
KFG
. . .it will perform tasks on your behalf without being instructed to..
Whether you want it to or not. Yeah, this is going to be big, for about as long as talking cars were.
KFG
My living room is a Packard-Bell. I'm not inclined to brag about it. How come something that never worked right in the first place refuses to die?
KFG
Please forgive me, but in my precoffee fog I started channeling Dijkstra, but in my precoffee fog could not convey his eloquence.
However, I will continue and point out that there is no particular value in relying on hardware, OSs and APIs that themselves have little to no regard for CompSci theory beyond the minimal practical value of "working," for sufficiently small values of working.
The issue of design practices cannot be evaded by dropping to a lower level, because things are still "designed" by the commericial entities at that level, and for purely commercial purposes.
Witness the kludgeball that constitutes the Windows APIs, complete with system level patches to "fix" bugs in applications.
"Behave as x, unless you are running game foo, in which case behave as y, unless bar is also running, in which case, screw it and hang. It serves the user right for trying that."
The sad truth, however, is that it's happening in ALL fields.
I am nominally a physicist/engineer, not a CompSci guy. A few weeks ago I had to spend a considerable amount of time explaining the basics of Newton's Laws of Motion to an "experienced" mechanical "engineer." It was a bit saddening, but common enough now that I have ceased to be shocked by it anymore.
I've already posted how my locomotive building SO will no longer ride on Amtrack rolling stock of certain vintages, she now knows too much about how they are designed and constructed.
I know to much about how my car is designed and constructed. I prefer bicycles of my own construction these days; and I'm learning shoemaking.
I'm becoming a "Luddite" through being too well versed in the technology, rather than through any objection to it.
KFG
This was done by bicycle, http://www.microship.com/, 20 years ago (complete with a binary "keyboard" on the handlebars so that the rider could type while riding and satellite uplink) and my aunt gave up her house 10 years ago to go RVing and says she doesn't understand anymore why anyone would want to own a house in the first place.
Slashdot breaking news story: Sam's Club!
KFG
Duke Nukem Forever running on Debian Sarge HURD?
KFG