A geek friend of mine who participates in Hash runs all the time came up with a great way to enhance his running experience with mp3.
He wrote a little perl script to measure the bpm of his favorite songs (using spacebar presses during mp3-playback), then he would time-stretch the mp3's to match his running pace and save the mp3's to his minidisc player (though this would work with an ipod too.)
He claims this has really helped him maintain his pace during workouts.
In the last week I've watched the first 2.5 discs, rented from netflix. I'm assuming I'm the first netflix customer to view the discs that I'm watching, firstly because they've only been out a short time, and secondly because the disc surfaces are still visually pristine.
I noticed some strange behavior in the first 2 discs when navigating the menus, it seemed like the video would freeze inter-frame in a way I found highly distracting, but it didn't affect the playback of the episodes. I began watching the 3 disc last evening and it seemed even more glitchy than the first 2. Glitchy to the point of trying it on multiple DVD players (Playstation 2, and a Pioneer) to be able to even WATCH the episodes.
Not being an expert, I can't say what it is exactly that's causing these problems, but I'm inclined to believe it's either:
A) Poor Quality Control in the production of the discs, or
B) Poor Mastering.
or possibly
C) Secret Government Postal Facility Beams
(I'm leaning toward the mastering)
Don't let this stop you from watching a show that by all rights SHOULD still be on the air (and was better than anything else FOX chose to show us instead... when will they ever learn that Friday nights are DEATH for new shows?) I think the show has it all: Good production values, excellent writing, humans in space (but no space monsters, just humans)
I concur that Blockbuster's assertion is utter crap. DVD replacement costs are considerably less than a VHS tape; probably by a factor of 3:1. It's more likely that Blockbuster is experiencing a higher number of defective dvd's over a similar period of time (from user handling... scratches, cracks and the like)
Netflix has this problem too, I've lost count of how many severly damaged dvd's I've received from them. Then again, they're going through the mail... I'm surprised when ANYTHING arrives intact.
I can fully understand why Blockbuster doesn't have dvd burners in the back room. When I worked in the copy shop, we were charging $2 per lettersize color-copy. Shoot, with late-night band flyer copying I must've spent several grand in supplies alone... if Blockbuster copied dvd's, I imagine that would have a dramatic impact on their bottom line. "Hey! Why are we out of blank DVD-R's already?!?"
No, I won't, because I didn't. No consequences? Umm...... There is no such implication in the term "right."
Grab a dictionary, read the definition of the noun right. See the terms Just and Lawful? Perhaps my meaning would be clearer if I'd said "Permitted by law" rather than "no consequences." I'm using the noun Right, with this meaning. You're using Right as a synonym for moral obligation.
Really? What's the difference? I believe I have the right to disobey unjust legislation,
No, you believe you have the moral obligation to disobey an unjust law. I believe this too, I do it myself. Nevertheless, moral obligation is still semantically different than having the legal right. Your belief of rightness or wrongness doesn't alter the statutory definition of the law in question.
On what basis do you assert a moral or philosophical, rather than simply a legal, obligation to obey an unjust law?
Answer: None. One may take any moral or philosophical stand they wish. Whether that stand is recognized by law defines our legal obligation.
Decided to end your post with an ad hominem strawman instead of a red herring this time, I see. Well, at least you're branching out.
Fine, I will graciously admit to the fallacy of the last segment of my post and apologize.
Will you admit to improper use of the term "right?"
Yes it damn well is, if I'm willing to accept the consequences. Small injustices, large injustices: it doesn't matter. I have no moral responsibility to obey an unjust law.
A "Right" implies that there are no consequences to said action, no? Semantically, you are incorrect in saying that you have the Right to pick-and-choose which laws you obey. Having the Right to do something is not the same as having "no moral responsibility" to obey an unjust legislation.
Sure, let's put up cameras on every overpass at a cost of hundereds or thousands of dollars per unit, and monitor every single person on the road 24x7x365, so we can find the one nutjob who's gone on a rampage. This is a temporary problem, and needs a temporary solution.
You make it sound worse than it really is. I suggest to you that IF we had traffic monitoring video or camera systems in a much more pervasive way in our metropolitan areas, THEN we would have more tools to catch the nutjob. Or the hit-and-run driver, or any number or traffic-related incidents that happen on a regular daily basis. The best benefits to such a system would occur over time, possibly years. Maybe we'll never see a dollar-profit or break-even on such a system. What would be the benefit in lives-saved? Do we care?
Are you trolling? The guy was drunk, doing almost triple the speed limit, and you think he would've stopped because of a red light camera? That suggestion is, to be honest with you, utterly absurd.
Not at all. I simply suggest that if people believe cameras will catch them when they speed, extremely reckless behaviour will decrease over time. Maybe not with red-light cameras, but how about speed enforcement cameras?
Red light cameras are not an integral part of the traffic light system. There is agreement that the traffic light system needs to exist, there is no such agreement on red light cameras. These aren't flaws in the system.
Oh, I wish I was more eloquent! What I was trying to say is this: If red-light cameras are introduced into a system, they are done so obstensibly at our (the citizenry) request. If the cameras cause an increase in accidents, THAT is the flaw in the system. Determine why (besides existing) they cause that accident increase. It's probably human behaviour, right? Can't we build slack into a system, maybe a number of warnings per year before the tickets start showing up in the mail? I don't have the answer, but I believe the idea that "It's broken, throw it away" is not the solution.
Let me ask YOU: when compliance with a law is so rare that it is actually considered probable cause of illegal activity in at least than one state, isn't it pretty damn likely that the law is the problem?
Sure. The law is a serious problem in that it can be interpreted in both directions by the authorities. Do you live in Florida? I would suggest you call your representative, or start some grass-roots campaign. Truthfully, I really don't have a problem with raising speed limits or your speed guide suggestion or even if we don't use traffic surveillance at all.
What I disagree with is the air of entitlement that people seem to have with the law. In other words, "If no one catches me when I break the law, it's okay!" or, "Oh, the speed limits are too low. Guess I'll just drive at whatever speed I wish!" If ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to break it, why should the belief of a law's injustice be an excuse?
It's not our right as citizens to pick and choose which laws we obey simply based on our beliefs. If a law is unfair, or a police department corrupt, or what have you, our job is to see that the injustices are remedied.
Oh, but this is/. and anything that even implies that some authority can see what you're doing is WRONG, Police are corrupt, and our rights are constantly stripped away with no recourse. Seriously, It's not as if we live in Iraq and we can't elect lawmakers to change problematic legislation. If you believe that's impossible and you won't bother to try, then I can't sympathize. Sorry.
I won't argue statistics with you. Yes, child abductions are committed most often my members of the immediate family. That doesn't really follow your first statement about putting cameras in peoples homes.
In this case, you inadvertently prove my point: Once someone is missing, where do you begin searching? With the suspects, and their homes. What if they're not at home? You start looking for their car.
Once again, we here on/. carry arguments to their ridiculous extremes. I was merely trying to draw a parallel between California's use of the Amber alert system (or whatever it's called) to inform motorists of suspected vehicles the police are searching for, with the ability of Traffic Video Systems to provide to the police a tool to actively cover more ground than they could with traditional manpower.
For example: Did you know that in Maryland last Friday, they put police on overpasses and bridges to search for the vehicle driven by the suspected sniper? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective if we used a pervasive camera system instead of cops?
Nope, I wasn't aware that accidents and fatal accidents decreased when speed limits increased. Statistics can prove anything, 40% of all people know that. But seriously, I would appreciate a link to the factual data that you quote above.
Your claims of traffic flow rates and red-light camera accidents--if true, I'll assume for now that they are--are at most flaws in a system we agree are necessary in our society. We should address these problems in the system instead of criticising the errors as inherent.
For clarity, are you arguing that because traffic flows faster than the posted limits, we should abolish speed limits entirely? Or instead, increase the limits themselves?
For further clarification, are you suggesting in your second example that Lockheed-Martin makes $30 per speeding violation per photo-device? I agree that figure appears exhorbitant. If true, it's not unlike the exclusive contracts that phone companies are signing with state and local jails. Companies unduly profiting from law is not okay, I agree. I won't agree that unenforcement of the law is acceptable because of a flawed implementation.
If a camera isn't calibrated properly (or fraudulently) one should have recourse or dropped charges. One can fight speeding tickets in the court of law. If one feels that the system is rigged against you, FIGHT IT! If your public servants are so currupt as to rig your speeding ticketing system to boost revenues, sue the system. Build a better mousetrap. Focus on the solutions.
Incidentially, three teens in my community died this summer when the drunk-driver of the car (travelling 80mph in a 35mph zone) ran a red light, slid under a semi-trailer, and ran into a Bank. I believe that if we had red light cameras in our town for the last five years or so, we may have prevented something like this from happening. Wouldn't people be more careful of getting caught?
I guess I care more that peoples lives are saved than worrying if people have to fight unfair speeding or "menial" traffic violations. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!"
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the idea of videotaping the public en masse. I don't like phone-tapping, e-mail eavesdropping or surveillance in general.
However, I take issue with:
We do NOT need machines [slashdot.org] tracking us or doing the job of the police. If the cop isn't paying attention, or isn't there when I blow by their hiding spot in the middle of the road at 105, tough.
There's NO reason to have feelings against radar jamming (the cops cheat to find out how fast you are going, why shouldn't we cheat and not let them know how fast we are going?), blocking out video taping in public places of people, etc.
Traffic monitoring is one example of surveillance I would vote for tomorrow, if it came up on a ballot initiative.
Traffic fatalities happen when people are reckless, when you "just didn't see" the child crossing the road, or the deer in the dark; or you "didn't have time to swerve" out of the way of a drunk driver, or you lose control in a curve when you hit black ice you don't expect.
Not to mention that traffic signalling systems are designed to work within traffic law. When people cheat, traffic systems break, traffic backs-up, more people cheat, the traffic gets worse (see a pattern here?)
If installing traffic surveillance systems would help enable the 5-0 to stop the sniper attacks on the east coast or child abductors or bank robbers, or any of the above reasons--it's in society's best-interest. Enforcing the law isn't cheating; cheating is robbing the taxpayers of the services for which we spend so very much in taxes each year. Yes, prevention is a service we pay for.
Don't complain to me about people watching over your shoulder, just make sure the public can watch over THEIR SHOULDERS too, and we can all be happy.
Besides, God can always see what you're doing, right?;)
Speaking of radiation. If you use that 802.11x card in a laptop and use said laptop, ahem, on your lap... by all means WEAR YOUR FARADAY UNDERPANTS!
Thank you.
I once had an older Mac Powerbook (520c) that I kinda left, uncased, on the top of my car and drove around for hours before I figured out what happened. Naturally I expected it to be, if found, completely trashed from falling off my car but searching for it returned no results.
So I placed a Lost and Found ad with a Reward, and sure enough a couple days later this kind person calls me to say they found the laptop.
The people who found it said they watched it fall off my car on the highway and stopped to pick it up. The amazing thing was that the only damage to the Powerbook was the floppy drive and a scuffed case (battle scars.)
Unfortunately, the people who rescued my mac weren't mac users. Actually I don't think they were computer users at all as it seemed the only thing they were capable of was changing the names of all the files on the desktop to variations of:aaasjkdfl;jjj, including the hard disk:fhhdks;jasdfjjh. And that's what really would've been nice, a form of nag-ware that ran when powered up saying: to whom it belonged, and how a reward for return would be paid, etc. And maybe an applescript to auto-dial the modem to my home phone. Then at least I'd have a chance of caller-id picking up!
I want sensors like this for my shoes, so when I'm carrying groceries into the house and the cat comes up to greet me the shoes'll throb when the cat's in front (or behind) them.
Or better yet, sensors in my the seat of my pants so I can tell when people are checking out my butt...
In America, we have historically reacted to things in exactly the same manner, for issues equally silly. Take "switchblade" knives for example. They were banned in the mid-50's because of greaser flicks, not because they truly represented a danger to the greater community. Electronic devices such as the ones seized in the raid of Ramsey are only the most recent symptom of a general craziness in this country.
Someone here mentioned the cities involved in the gun manufacturer lawsuits, and related that issue to the automobile. Perhaps there's another group of companies at risk who are a little more near and dear to our hearts?!?
What about Linux distro outfits? For example, Red Hat sells it's distro to China, and China in turn makes a big ol' beowolf cluster to design long-range warheads or something. (China isn't really a likely example, but India and Pakistan are two other countries the US really would rather didn't conduct this kind of work) What about PGP? This is rather similar to the electronics kits sold by Ramsey is it not? In and of itself, it's not a malicious device. In the hands of an evildoer, it very well could be!
My point is that in America, we love to regulate things which we feel are too dangerous for "the Public" to have access. Alcohol, guns, drugs, electronics, the list goes on. But what of these products (except maybe Alcohol and Drugs) are dangerous in and of themselves? Do we in this country wish to see our judicial system punishing the act? or the potential act? I feel that the framers of the constitution MUST have known better than that! And until the day this country wakes up from it's collective psychotic episode and sees that we don't need a big brother or a caring government to make these kinds of decisions for us, our rights will be stripped away slowly, almost imperceptibly. Until the day you're woken up by the Feds breaking down your door and saying "You're under arrest, for knowledge of how to compromise computer security systems."
If I sound like a flaming libertarian, it's 'cause I am!
It's important to make a point about public support with regard to the so-called techno-war. In World War II, it was pretty easy to convince the American public that going to war in Europe was in the national best interest. The allies had smart leaders, smart politicians and luckily, both sides of the conflict agreed to fight a conventional war. (That is until the Japanese became involved.) We viewed WWII as both a mission of humanitarianism, and of reigning in a dictator bent on "world domination." This is something that the "public" was able to grasp and support.
The war in Korea was the same in that it remained conventional, the war effort had public support (more support than WWII at least at first) and the US goals in Korea were straightforward. The media as we know it today was taking its first baby-steps in war coverage and was able to feed the pentagon what it needed to keep support back home.
Vietnam was the first time that the US was missing the key ingredients for a successful war. Very little public support (at any time during the conflict and less so towards the end, of course.) We had military leaders on our side who, while knowledgeable in conventional war, couldn't keep up with the VC because the VC didn't play by the rules of conventional warfare. Our politicians back home were missing the last key ingredient...salesmanship. They could not sell the war to the American People because what we were fighting for was lost in translation (or was never clear to the US in the first place) and every day on National TV we could see our sons dying in the rice paddies.
With the event of the Gulf War, the leaders in Washington tried to learn from the mistakes of Vietnam and instead of trying to teach us why it was important to stop Saddam Hussein, told us that "We don't need public opinion to start fighting, because we can show the American People that US lives are not at stake." The new weapons capabilities, the bright flashing lights and pretty colors on our TV's convinced the People of that.
But we again suffered from a lack of clear objectives (beyond the liberation of Kuwait and protection of our allies in the region.)
In the balkans, we've got almost the same problems as we did in Vietnam and in the Gulf war. The public doesn't understand the humanitarian conflict (and hasn't been told if this is reason enough to war against the Serbs.) It doesn't know where the conflict is taking place, and the leaders in Washington and Nato can't tell us what are objectives are. It's not like the US and Nato gets involved every time one ethnic group tries to wipe out another one. Just look at Rawanda, the only reason that we don't look pathetic as a result of that conflict was that the American people didn't see the bodies of dead Rawandans on national TV every night.
Nato and the US have relied on the the Air/Techno war as the first action to take in conflict. They almost seem to say "We don't know what we're up against, how long we can expect to fight, or for what outcome we're fighting. But its important to get the ball rolling, (or bomb dropping) just so we appear to be in control."
I wish that it was easier for US citizens to get real information on the conflict before we start dropping bombs on people. Of course that's fanciful thinking... it's way easier to turn on the TV and let someone else tell us what to think.
So if you consider/. a news site (which it is) why bother putting in your $.02? Are your opinions less valid than his?
Don't pretend that what we're doing here is pure news. Or indeed that "pure news" is free from a writer's prospective before you get a chance to see it.
Katz's work on this site IS on topic and it DOES relate to this site. If what he writes here has any low-level political biases, good. Maybe that way the reader can get some perspective on his writing. Rather than a regurgitated AP press release. (It's not like he's Jerry Falwell and you could guess from what subtext his missives arrive!)
I would encourage Mr. Katz to continue doing what he's doing. Maybe an article about "Geek Cinema" is not that different from the myriad "Star Wars Prequel" Articles that some readers seem to really enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, by that logic, we'd still be living with:
Fastlane, Freakylinks, Fortune Hunter & Flying Blind... to name a few.
I'm just sayin'...
He wrote a little perl script to measure the bpm of his favorite songs (using spacebar presses during mp3-playback), then he would time-stretch the mp3's to match his running pace and save the mp3's to his minidisc player (though this would work with an ipod too.)
He claims this has really helped him maintain his pace during workouts.
I'd try it, but I'm no runner.
For Example, I know someone who went to school with "Marijuana Pepsi Jackson"
Don't know if her parents were hippies...
I noticed some strange behavior in the first 2 discs when navigating the menus, it seemed like the video would freeze inter-frame in a way I found highly distracting, but it didn't affect the playback of the episodes. I began watching the 3 disc last evening and it seemed even more glitchy than the first 2. Glitchy to the point of trying it on multiple DVD players (Playstation 2, and a Pioneer) to be able to even WATCH the episodes.
Not being an expert, I can't say what it is exactly that's causing these problems, but I'm inclined to believe it's either:
B) Poor Mastering.
or possibly
C) Secret Government Postal Facility Beams
(I'm leaning toward the mastering)
Don't let this stop you from watching a show that by all rights SHOULD still be on the air (and was better than anything else FOX chose to show us instead... when will they ever learn that Friday nights are DEATH for new shows?) I think the show has it all: Good production values, excellent writing, humans in space (but no space monsters, just humans)
GREAT!
I always wanted to mount a bat one one arm of a chair and a trackball to the other.
Netflix has this problem too, I've lost count of how many severly damaged dvd's I've received from them. Then again, they're going through the mail... I'm surprised when ANYTHING arrives intact.
I can fully understand why Blockbuster doesn't have dvd burners in the back room. When I worked in the copy shop, we were charging $2 per lettersize color-copy. Shoot, with late-night band flyer copying I must've spent several grand in supplies alone... if Blockbuster copied dvd's, I imagine that would have a dramatic impact on their bottom line.
"Hey! Why are we out of blank DVD-R's already?!?"
I recommend the excellent Haxial product, Netfone. Mac/Win, encryption (of some form), multiparty, and more. Not free, but inexpensive.
Now it is an exercise for the reader to determine if your claim of moral rightness is morally legitimate.
Grab a dictionary, read the definition of the noun right. See the terms Just and Lawful? Perhaps my meaning would be clearer if I'd said "Permitted by law" rather than "no consequences." I'm using the noun Right, with this meaning. You're using Right as a synonym for moral obligation.
Really? What's the difference? I believe I have the right to disobey unjust legislation,
No, you believe you have the moral obligation to disobey an unjust law. I believe this too, I do it myself. Nevertheless, moral obligation is still semantically different than having the legal right. Your belief of rightness or wrongness doesn't alter the statutory definition of the law in question.
On what basis do you assert a moral or philosophical, rather than simply a legal, obligation to obey an unjust law?
Answer: None. One may take any moral or philosophical stand they wish. Whether that stand is recognized by law defines our legal obligation.
Fine, I will graciously admit to the fallacy of the last segment of my post and apologize.
Will you admit to improper use of the term "right?"
Yes it damn well is, if I'm willing to accept the consequences. Small injustices, large injustices: it doesn't matter. I have no moral responsibility to obey an unjust law.
A "Right" implies that there are no consequences to said action, no? Semantically, you are incorrect in saying that you have the Right to pick-and-choose which laws you obey. Having the Right to do something is not the same as having "no moral responsibility" to obey an unjust legislation.
You make it sound worse than it really is. I suggest to you that IF we had traffic monitoring video or camera systems in a much more pervasive way in our metropolitan areas, THEN we would have more tools to catch the nutjob. Or the hit-and-run driver, or any number or traffic-related incidents that happen on a regular daily basis. The best benefits to such a system would occur over time, possibly years. Maybe we'll never see a dollar-profit or break-even on such a system. What would be the benefit in lives-saved? Do we care?
Not at all. I simply suggest that if people believe cameras will catch them when they speed, extremely reckless behaviour will decrease over time. Maybe not with red-light cameras, but how about speed enforcement cameras?
Red light cameras are not an integral part of the traffic light system. There is agreement that the traffic light system needs to exist, there is no such agreement on red light cameras. These aren't flaws in the system.
Oh, I wish I was more eloquent! What I was trying to say is this: If red-light cameras are introduced into a system, they are done so obstensibly at our (the citizenry) request. If the cameras cause an increase in accidents, THAT is the flaw in the system. Determine why (besides existing) they cause that accident increase. It's probably human behaviour, right? Can't we build slack into a system, maybe a number of warnings per year before the tickets start showing up in the mail? I don't have the answer, but I believe the idea that "It's broken, throw it away" is not the solution.
Let me ask YOU: when compliance with a law is so rare that it is actually considered probable cause of illegal activity in at least than one state, isn't it pretty damn likely that the law is the problem?
Sure. The law is a serious problem in that it can be interpreted in both directions by the authorities. Do you live in Florida? I would suggest you call your representative, or start some grass-roots campaign. Truthfully, I really don't have a problem with raising speed limits or your speed guide suggestion or even if we don't use traffic surveillance at all.
What I disagree with is the air of entitlement that people seem to have with the law. In other words, "If no one catches me when I break the law, it's okay!" or, "Oh, the speed limits are too low. Guess I'll just drive at whatever speed I wish!" If ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to break it, why should the belief of a law's injustice be an excuse?
It's not our right as citizens to pick and choose which laws we obey simply based on our beliefs. If a law is unfair, or a police department corrupt, or what have you, our job is to see that the injustices are remedied.
Oh, but this is /. and anything that even implies that some authority can see what you're doing is WRONG, Police are corrupt, and our rights are constantly stripped away with no recourse. Seriously, It's not as if we live in Iraq and we can't elect lawmakers to change problematic legislation. If you believe that's impossible and you won't bother to try, then I can't sympathize. Sorry.
In this case, you inadvertently prove my point: Once someone is missing, where do you begin searching? With the suspects, and their homes. What if they're not at home? You start looking for their car.
Once again, we here on /. carry arguments to their ridiculous extremes. I was merely trying to draw a parallel between California's use of the Amber alert system (or whatever it's called) to inform motorists of suspected vehicles the police are searching for, with the ability of Traffic Video Systems to provide to the police a tool to actively cover more ground than they could with traditional manpower.
For example: Did you know that in Maryland last Friday, they put police on overpasses and bridges to search for the vehicle driven by the suspected sniper? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective if we used a pervasive camera system instead of cops?
Your claims of traffic flow rates and red-light camera accidents--if true, I'll assume for now that they are--are at most flaws in a system we agree are necessary in our society. We should address these problems in the system instead of criticising the errors as inherent.
For clarity, are you arguing that because traffic flows faster than the posted limits, we should abolish speed limits entirely? Or instead, increase the limits themselves?
For further clarification, are you suggesting in your second example that Lockheed-Martin makes $30 per speeding violation per photo-device? I agree that figure appears exhorbitant. If true, it's not unlike the exclusive contracts that phone companies are signing with state and local jails. Companies unduly profiting from law is not okay, I agree. I won't agree that unenforcement of the law is acceptable because of a flawed implementation.
If a camera isn't calibrated properly (or fraudulently) one should have recourse or dropped charges. One can fight speeding tickets in the court of law. If one feels that the system is rigged against you, FIGHT IT! If your public servants are so currupt as to rig your speeding ticketing system to boost revenues, sue the system. Build a better mousetrap. Focus on the solutions.
Incidentially, three teens in my community died this summer when the drunk-driver of the car (travelling 80mph in a 35mph zone) ran a red light, slid under a semi-trailer, and ran into a Bank. I believe that if we had red light cameras in our town for the last five years or so, we may have prevented something like this from happening. Wouldn't people be more careful of getting caught?
I guess I care more that peoples lives are saved than worrying if people have to fight unfair speeding or "menial" traffic violations. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!"
However, I take issue with:
- We do NOT need machines [slashdot.org] tracking us or doing the job of the police. If the cop isn't paying attention, or isn't there when I blow by their hiding spot in the middle of the road at 105, tough.
Traffic monitoring is one example of surveillance I would vote for tomorrow, if it came up on a ballot initiative. Traffic fatalities happen when people are reckless, when you "just didn't see" the child crossing the road, or the deer in the dark; or you "didn't have time to swerve" out of the way of a drunk driver, or you lose control in a curve when you hit black ice you don't expect.There's NO reason to have feelings against radar jamming (the cops cheat to find out how fast you are going, why shouldn't we cheat and not let them know how fast we are going?), blocking out video taping in public places of people, etc.
Not to mention that traffic signalling systems are designed to work within traffic law. When people cheat, traffic systems break, traffic backs-up, more people cheat, the traffic gets worse (see a pattern here?)
If installing traffic surveillance systems would help enable the 5-0 to stop the sniper attacks on the east coast or child abductors or bank robbers, or any of the above reasons--it's in society's best-interest. Enforcing the law isn't cheating; cheating is robbing the taxpayers of the services for which we spend so very much in taxes each year. Yes, prevention is a service we pay for.
Don't complain to me about people watching over your shoulder, just make sure the public can watch over THEIR SHOULDERS too, and we can all be happy.
Besides, God can always see what you're doing, right? ;)
Speaking of radiation. If you use that 802.11x card in a laptop and use said laptop, ahem, on your lap... by all means WEAR YOUR FARADAY UNDERPANTS! Thank you.
So I placed a Lost and Found ad with a Reward, and sure enough a couple days later this kind person calls me to say they found the laptop.
The people who found it said they watched it fall off my car on the highway and stopped to pick it up. The amazing thing was that the only damage to the Powerbook was the floppy drive and a scuffed case (battle scars.)
Unfortunately, the people who rescued my mac weren't mac users. Actually I don't think they were computer users at all as it seemed the only thing they were capable of was changing the names of all the files on the desktop to variations of :aaasjkdfl;jjj, including the hard disk:fhhdks;jasdfjjh. And that's what really would've been nice, a form of nag-ware that ran when powered up saying: to whom it belonged, and how a reward for return would be paid, etc. And maybe an applescript to auto-dial the modem to my home phone. Then at least I'd have a chance of caller-id picking up!
-
Or better yet, sensors in my the seat of my pants so I can tell when people are checking out my butt...
Someone here mentioned the cities involved in the gun manufacturer lawsuits, and related that issue to the automobile. Perhaps there's another group of companies at risk who are a little more near and dear to our hearts?!?
What about Linux distro outfits? For example, Red Hat sells it's distro to China, and China in turn makes a big ol' beowolf cluster to design long-range warheads or something. (China isn't really a likely example, but India and Pakistan are two other countries the US really would rather didn't conduct this kind of work) What about PGP? This is rather similar to the electronics kits sold by Ramsey is it not? In and of itself, it's not a malicious device. In the hands of an evildoer, it very well could be!
My point is that in America, we love to regulate things which we feel are too dangerous for "the Public" to have access. Alcohol, guns, drugs, electronics, the list goes on. But what of these products (except maybe Alcohol and Drugs) are dangerous in and of themselves? Do we in this country wish to see our judicial system punishing the act? or the potential act? I feel that the framers of the constitution MUST have known better than that! And until the day this country wakes up from it's collective psychotic episode and sees that we don't need a big brother or a caring government to make these kinds of decisions for us, our rights will be stripped away slowly, almost imperceptibly. Until the day you're woken up by the Feds breaking down your door and saying "You're under arrest, for knowledge of how to compromise computer security systems."
If I sound like a flaming libertarian, it's 'cause I am!
RANT MODE: Off
-Beware gun-toting vegetarians!
It's important to make a point about public support with regard to the so-called techno-war. In World War II, it was pretty easy to convince the American public that going to war in Europe was in the national best interest. The allies had smart leaders, smart politicians and luckily, both sides of the conflict agreed to fight a conventional war. (That is until the Japanese became involved.) We viewed WWII as both a mission of humanitarianism, and of reigning in a dictator bent on "world domination." This is something that the "public" was able to grasp and support.
The war in Korea was the same in that it remained conventional, the war effort had public support (more support than WWII at least at first) and the US goals in Korea were straightforward. The media as we know it today was taking its first baby-steps in war coverage and was able to feed the pentagon what it needed to keep support back home.
Vietnam was the first time that the US was missing the key ingredients for a successful war. Very little public support (at any time during the conflict and less so towards the end, of course.) We had military leaders on our side who, while knowledgeable in conventional war, couldn't keep up with the VC because the VC didn't play by the rules of conventional warfare. Our politicians back home were missing the last key ingredient...salesmanship. They could not sell the war to the American People because what we were fighting for was lost in translation (or was never clear to the US in the first place) and every day on National TV we could see our sons dying in the rice paddies.
With the event of the Gulf War, the leaders in Washington tried to learn from the mistakes of Vietnam and instead of trying to teach us why it was important to stop Saddam Hussein, told us that "We don't need public opinion to start fighting, because we can show the American People that US lives are not at stake." The new weapons capabilities, the bright flashing lights and pretty colors on our TV's convinced the People of that.
But we again suffered from a lack of clear objectives (beyond the liberation of Kuwait and protection of our allies in the region.)
In the balkans, we've got almost the same problems as we did in Vietnam and in the Gulf war. The public doesn't understand the humanitarian conflict (and hasn't been told if this is reason enough to war against the Serbs.) It doesn't know where the conflict is taking place, and the leaders in Washington and Nato can't tell us what are objectives are. It's not like the US and Nato gets involved every time one ethnic group tries to wipe out another one. Just look at Rawanda, the only reason that we don't look pathetic as a result of that conflict was that the American people didn't see the bodies of dead Rawandans on national TV every night.
Nato and the US have relied on the the Air/Techno war as the first action to take in conflict. They almost seem to say "We don't know what we're up against, how long we can expect to fight, or for what outcome we're fighting. But its important to get the ball rolling, (or bomb dropping) just so we appear to be in control."
I wish that it was easier for US citizens to get real information on the conflict before we start dropping bombs on people. Of course that's fanciful thinking... it's way easier to turn on the TV and let someone else tell us what to think.
---
ps. I like Jon Katz.
So if you consider /. a news site (which it is) why bother putting in your $.02? Are your opinions less valid than his?
Don't pretend that what we're doing here is pure news. Or indeed that "pure news" is free from a writer's prospective before you get a chance to see it.
Katz's work on this site IS on topic and it DOES relate to this site. If what he writes here has any low-level political biases, good. Maybe that way the reader can get some perspective on his writing. Rather than a regurgitated AP press release. (It's not like he's Jerry Falwell and you could guess from what subtext his missives arrive!)
I would encourage Mr. Katz to continue doing what he's doing. Maybe an article about "Geek Cinema" is not that different from the myriad "Star Wars Prequel" Articles that some readers seem to really enjoy.