Not when I'm doing the speed limit and then I have to slam on the brakes because I come upon some idiot in a Cadillac, who ignores all headlight flashes and horn honks, and I can't pass because everyone coming up behind me is passing, thus cutting me off from getting around and rendering me a hazard to traffic. And this is in vehicles with V-8 engines! So they do have enough power -- the driver is just too stupid to use it. Why don't the cops ever ticket these people for going too slowly? (40 on a highway IS illegal).
All true and I'm not disputing that, but the fact remains that the law still states that you may not exceed the posted speed limit, no matter how it was determined. Having a holier-than-thou attitude is "cool" and all these days, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're doing something illegal. And the police have every right to fine you for it.
I can tell you don't have much experience with GPS devices.
As other posters have said, GPS receivers are just that -- receivers. To replace the maps that come with the device, it must be connected to a computer that uploads new map files into the device either directly via serial or USB link or through putting new data on a removable card of some kind (CF, SD, whatever) that is then inserted into the receiver. All the receiver gets from the satellites is a highly specialized signal which the receiver then uses to calculate the exact time, along with the receiver's exact location (longitude, latitude, and altitude) along with how fast it is moving. This data is then overlaid onto the map data the unit already has stored on its internal memory, and that is used to generate the display you see.
CSI has several times erroneously implied that GPS receivers can upload as well as download. They can't. To make a GPS tracker of any kind that can report its location requires a second "box" connected to the GPS receiver that uses the data dump from the receiver (usually in what's called NMEA format) to transmit data using a totally separate processor and receiver. The transmitter has its own programming and power source.
It seems to me that the system doesn't block you from going faster. It just makes it a bit more difficult so that you're forced to deliberately and knowingly break the law. If you have a legitimate reason to do it, then you still can; you'd just better be prepared to explain why when a cop pulls you over.
H-rated tires are good up to 130. You can get Z-rated tires that are capable of handling much higher speeds. The speed governor can be removed, though -- many aftermarket engine management chip reprogramming firms will do that for you. But in most cases that's not necessary -- how often do you really need to exceed 100mph? I've only had to do it once and that was when some crazy idiot didn't like the fact that I brake-checked him and started chasing me down the highway (if you're reading this, mister, you're a fucktard).
Semi drivers piss me off. They either go too slow or too fast. It's like they're deliberately TRYING to get a bad reputation among all the other drivers on the road. You may be getting paid to drive but that doesn't mean you can be an idiot.
What's stupid is not that you'll have to click an extra time to actually use embedded controls but the fact that instead of, oh, fixing CRITICAL BROWSER SECURITY HOLES, they're fucking around making the user interface even more annoying than it is!
Hey M$: Not that I use your products as it is, but how about you fucking fix your fucking problems instead of wanking off about your supposedly better interface? We can wait to have our interfaces improved, but I'd rather not have to tell people that their browser was uploading personal data behind their back.
If that is the case, then the government needs a generic smack upside the head for not being with reality. If they think kids are still innocent at 18 they're insane.
The problem is that while you may feel you are making the right choices, and you may feel that the government is making the right choices, not everyone agrees with you. If I choose to read a particular book and I feel it's the right book for me to read, for whatever reason, at whatever my age might be, it's MY choice to make and not yours and not the government's. People are up in arms about it because the choice has been taken away from the person who is best fit to make it -- the individual themself -- and put into someone else's hands, someone who doesn't know me or what's fit for me. No one knows you better than yourself.
I'm 30 years old but I was a minor once (we all were) and I was a responsible person and I have never been in trouble with the law. Yet I have played "violent" games before while a minor, such as Doom and Quake and games like them, because they were what I wanted to play and I enjoyed playing them. These games involve shooting things and the use of firearms. I have also watched films that involve a lot of gun battles and the like (Terminator, Terminator 2 etc) and enjoyed them.
Yet my experience with guns so far is limited to safe use, under supervision, on a firing range; I wore safety goggles and followed all gun safety rules and before I consider purchasing a gun (what kind I do not yet know -- a shotgun might be best for home defense) for home defense or concealed carry, I will enroll in a safety course as required by local law and will be sure to wear safety goggles and ear protection during training.
In short, I am a responsible individual who enjoys some things you might ban because you feel they're unsuitable without knowing a thing about me. I know how to be safe and I take steps to ensure that I am.
The best way to handle such things is to ensure that people are educated about the subject material at hand. My parents never restricted me from drinking alcohol (the alcohol is actually kept at floor level in their house and always has been) and never monitored what games I played (admittedly largely flight sims; I'm an aviation geek, but they never nitpicked what I brought home) or the books I read. They trusted me to know what I was doing.
And it worked. To this day I play flight sims, Civilization-type strategy games, read all sorts of sci-fi and science books... and play first-person shooters and watch movies like the Terminator series. I also don't drink much (I don't like the taste of wine or beer, and I keep to stuff like Bailey's and Godiva liqueurs and eggnog-with-brandy).
Now, would you say it was bad for me to be able to access the food, movies, games, and books that I did? Did I turn out to be a bad person? No. Because my family knew I was responsible, a smart person, and unlikely to do anything stupid. They didn't need government nannies to do their job for them. They taught me the wisdom of educating yourself and to do the smart thing.
You have no right to say what is "trash" and "garbage" for anyone other than yourself. If someone not you wants to watch that stuff, that's not your judgment call to make. And if you make it, you just get people angry at you for intruding in on their lives. That's the problem the goverment faces when they start whining about what's on TV (people see a lot more sex elsewhere than they do on TV, and a lot more swearing), when they ban drinking (kids don't wait til 21 to take their first drink, believe me, no matter what you or the government wants to believe) or sex (same).
If the government would relax and try to educate people on how to live safely instead of arbitrarily banning sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. till some magic "wow, they'll be careful after this day but not before it" age (or in the case of drugs, NEVER allow them) they'd probably find that people have a hell of a lot more common sense than they think, and the "it's forbidden, I must defy authority by partaking in it because they have no right to tell me what not to do" protesting would die down. After all, the drinking age is a lot lower in Europe and you don't hear as many insane "drunk college kids" stories from over there...
So why is it legal to block the sale of, say, porn to minors (is it not a free speech issue since magazines and videos etc. are involved that are considered "the press"?) but not video games? Both are forms of media that have a controversial subject matter; one is blocked while the other is not. I honestly don't get it -- after all, people under 18 know as much about sex as older people do (people used to marry at much younger ages than today, for one) and there's no magic line that is crossed that all of a sudden changes everything at 18.
If it violates free speech rights to ban some video game sales to minors, then doesn't it also violate those same rights to ban some magazine and video sales to minors?
I think the article is out of date since it also complains about Firefox being missing a few things that are most definitely in it as of the latest version available.
But they didn't always make "better" cars than Toyota (I don't think they do even now, but they are good enough now that I recommend them to people).
When they first sold cars in the US, they were terrible -- and first impressions are hard to get over. It's only been relatively recently that Hyundai has had a good reputation for long enough that they are now seen in a positive light by enough buyers.
But it wouldn't have the official company's logo, etc. on it, though, now would it? (If it did the guy would be liable for hefty fines). I've never gotten a bill that wasn't very distinct and clearly from who it claimed to be from. The dodgy ones always look dodgy.
Uh huh, and the fact that another customer uses the same PO box shop you do sullies your reputation... ooookay. I'm not following here. If I rent a PO box, how do I know someone selling porn is using the next box over? I don't. What does that have to do with my reputation?
Given how pervasive spam is and how it never seems to stop even after penalties are threatened and carried out, I actually think that it may be necessary to actually start imposing stiff penalties for spamming. Sure, it's not as bad as killing someone, but there's got to be a way to impose harsh punishments on those who do it so that things will improve. (I can hope, can't I?) The only trick is to figure out how to avoid contributing to the prison overcrowding problem that is causing people who are actually dangerous to others to be set free too soon. Any ideas?
Defending one's business is one thing, but threatening to attack other people who point out that your business is based on dishonesty and illegality is another entirely. I'd say he got what he deserved, regardless of whether or not "terrorist" is the right term (I agree that it isn't).
Giving someone a link that they can click on only if they wish (and no, I didn't look, nice troll attempt) is a lot different from pushing the link on them. Pushing it on them is like pushing popups on someone, and guess what? There's a lot of ire about those, too.
AOL may own its servers but it doesn't own my fucking computer and it can keep its fucking corporate hands off. Don't like my opinion? Deal.
Not to worry, let me run that through the GCMS and see what the peaks show. We'll know if that's true or not soon enough.
(I got confused, too. Amusingly, I know all the jargon they use... I'm a science geek, which is why I like the show. Sadly, the GCMS on my campus was run on an old decrepit Windows 3.1 machine. I hope HP/Agilent is using something more up-to-date by now! Can't imagine they're not.)
The small IRC server I'm on (private, just has friends and friends-of-friends on it and such) has an Infobot that can do things like roll dice (someone was using it for RPGing once, apparently), look up words in the dictionary, do DNS lookups (I've used it before when my ISP's server craps out), and so on. It's supposed to have more functions than it actually does but I think whoever set it up screwed it up a bit. It also remembers definitions ("bot, this is that") and is supposed to recite them on cue ("bot, [item]?") but it isn't too smart at figuring out when it's actually being addressed and will randomly print "Remembered that" messages in the middle of conversation, and will spit out saved definitions at other random times.
Occasionally it will randomly recite a definition of some swear word or something like that that causes the conversation to stop while everyone falls over laughing, but overall it's more of an annoyance than a help.
Bots shouldn't speak unless spoken to, but they also shouldn't be added to your contact list (in an IM client) unless you ask for them. (IRC bots just add one name to the list of available users, because they count to the client like another in-channel user).
Ah - but it is my software that interacts with the list, and changing that list makes my software do something I did not request it to (and whoever typed the commands to make the changes knew that full well), which equates to screwing with the user's software. That's a line that many people don't want crossed, me included, and there's a difference between legally wrong and ethically wrong. I'm not sure yet on the legally wrong, but I KNOW this is ethically wrong to a lot of people, and I am one of them.
You don't have to object to it if you don't want to, but I object, and I will continue objecting, and you will just have to deal with it, because interacting with other people means that at some point they will disagree with you. I disagree on this, very strongly.
The big deal is that you ask first before intruding on people. It's just plain rude, and of course people are bitching about it.
Or would you not mind if I barge into your house, eat your pizza and drink all your soda, and say "If you don't want me to be here, just ask me to leave!"?
Seems like you miss the distinction between using a service and agreeing with everything the operator does and using a service but thinking the fucktard that runs it needs to go back to ethics class and take it til they pass.
That's not the point. The point is that you ask permission first. Respect peoples' property (and their computers and software ARE their property). All you have to do is send the system message with "If you would like to use these services reply with (blah), thank you for reading".
Slashdot Mirror
Not when I'm doing the speed limit and then I have to slam on the brakes because I come upon some idiot in a Cadillac, who ignores all headlight flashes and horn honks, and I can't pass because everyone coming up behind me is passing, thus cutting me off from getting around and rendering me a hazard to traffic. And this is in vehicles with V-8 engines! So they do have enough power -- the driver is just too stupid to use it. Why don't the cops ever ticket these people for going too slowly? (40 on a highway IS illegal).
All true and I'm not disputing that, but the fact remains that the law still states that you may not exceed the posted speed limit, no matter how it was determined. Having a holier-than-thou attitude is "cool" and all these days, but it still doesn't change the fact that you're doing something illegal. And the police have every right to fine you for it.
I can tell you don't have much experience with GPS devices.
As other posters have said, GPS receivers are just that -- receivers. To replace the maps that come with the device, it must be connected to a computer that uploads new map files into the device either directly via serial or USB link or through putting new data on a removable card of some kind (CF, SD, whatever) that is then inserted into the receiver. All the receiver gets from the satellites is a highly specialized signal which the receiver then uses to calculate the exact time, along with the receiver's exact location (longitude, latitude, and altitude) along with how fast it is moving. This data is then overlaid onto the map data the unit already has stored on its internal memory, and that is used to generate the display you see.
CSI has several times erroneously implied that GPS receivers can upload as well as download. They can't. To make a GPS tracker of any kind that can report its location requires a second "box" connected to the GPS receiver that uses the data dump from the receiver (usually in what's called NMEA format) to transmit data using a totally separate processor and receiver. The transmitter has its own programming and power source.
It seems to me that the system doesn't block you from going faster. It just makes it a bit more difficult so that you're forced to deliberately and knowingly break the law. If you have a legitimate reason to do it, then you still can; you'd just better be prepared to explain why when a cop pulls you over.
H-rated tires are good up to 130. You can get Z-rated tires that are capable of handling much higher speeds. The speed governor can be removed, though -- many aftermarket engine management chip reprogramming firms will do that for you. But in most cases that's not necessary -- how often do you really need to exceed 100mph? I've only had to do it once and that was when some crazy idiot didn't like the fact that I brake-checked him and started chasing me down the highway (if you're reading this, mister, you're a fucktard).
Semi drivers piss me off. They either go too slow or too fast. It's like they're deliberately TRYING to get a bad reputation among all the other drivers on the road. You may be getting paid to drive but that doesn't mean you can be an idiot.
What's stupid is not that you'll have to click an extra time to actually use embedded controls but the fact that instead of, oh, fixing CRITICAL BROWSER SECURITY HOLES, they're fucking around making the user interface even more annoying than it is!
Hey M$: Not that I use your products as it is, but how about you fucking fix your fucking problems instead of wanking off about your supposedly better interface? We can wait to have our interfaces improved, but I'd rather not have to tell people that their browser was uploading personal data behind their back.
And what, pray tell, is wrong with photos of fighter aircraft? I'm 30 and I still love good ones. But at least I can spell...
If that is the case, then the government needs a generic smack upside the head for not being with reality. If they think kids are still innocent at 18 they're insane.
The problem is that while you may feel you are making the right choices, and you may feel that the government is making the right choices, not everyone agrees with you. If I choose to read a particular book and I feel it's the right book for me to read, for whatever reason, at whatever my age might be, it's MY choice to make and not yours and not the government's. People are up in arms about it because the choice has been taken away from the person who is best fit to make it -- the individual themself -- and put into someone else's hands, someone who doesn't know me or what's fit for me. No one knows you better than yourself.
... and play first-person shooters and watch movies like the Terminator series. I also don't drink much (I don't like the taste of wine or beer, and I keep to stuff like Bailey's and Godiva liqueurs and eggnog-with-brandy).
...
I'm 30 years old but I was a minor once (we all were) and I was a responsible person and I have never been in trouble with the law. Yet I have played "violent" games before while a minor, such as Doom and Quake and games like them, because they were what I wanted to play and I enjoyed playing them. These games involve shooting things and the use of firearms. I have also watched films that involve a lot of gun battles and the like (Terminator, Terminator 2 etc) and enjoyed them.
Yet my experience with guns so far is limited to safe use, under supervision, on a firing range; I wore safety goggles and followed all gun safety rules and before I consider purchasing a gun (what kind I do not yet know -- a shotgun might be best for home defense) for home defense or concealed carry, I will enroll in a safety course as required by local law and will be sure to wear safety goggles and ear protection during training.
In short, I am a responsible individual who enjoys some things you might ban because you feel they're unsuitable without knowing a thing about me. I know how to be safe and I take steps to ensure that I am.
The best way to handle such things is to ensure that people are educated about the subject material at hand. My parents never restricted me from drinking alcohol (the alcohol is actually kept at floor level in their house and always has been) and never monitored what games I played (admittedly largely flight sims; I'm an aviation geek, but they never nitpicked what I brought home) or the books I read. They trusted me to know what I was doing.
And it worked. To this day I play flight sims, Civilization-type strategy games, read all sorts of sci-fi and science books
Now, would you say it was bad for me to be able to access the food, movies, games, and books that I did? Did I turn out to be a bad person? No. Because my family knew I was responsible, a smart person, and unlikely to do anything stupid. They didn't need government nannies to do their job for them. They taught me the wisdom of educating yourself and to do the smart thing.
You have no right to say what is "trash" and "garbage" for anyone other than yourself. If someone not you wants to watch that stuff, that's not your judgment call to make. And if you make it, you just get people angry at you for intruding in on their lives. That's the problem the goverment faces when they start whining about what's on TV (people see a lot more sex elsewhere than they do on TV, and a lot more swearing), when they ban drinking (kids don't wait til 21 to take their first drink, believe me, no matter what you or the government wants to believe) or sex (same).
If the government would relax and try to educate people on how to live safely instead of arbitrarily banning sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. till some magic "wow, they'll be careful after this day but not before it" age (or in the case of drugs, NEVER allow them) they'd probably find that people have a hell of a lot more common sense than they think, and the "it's forbidden, I must defy authority by partaking in it because they have no right to tell me what not to do" protesting would die down. After all, the drinking age is a lot lower in Europe and you don't hear as many insane "drunk college kids" stories from over there
So why is it legal to block the sale of, say, porn to minors (is it not a free speech issue since magazines and videos etc. are involved that are considered "the press"?) but not video games? Both are forms of media that have a controversial subject matter; one is blocked while the other is not. I honestly don't get it -- after all, people under 18 know as much about sex as older people do (people used to marry at much younger ages than today, for one) and there's no magic line that is crossed that all of a sudden changes everything at 18.
If it violates free speech rights to ban some video game sales to minors, then doesn't it also violate those same rights to ban some magazine and video sales to minors?
I think the article is out of date since it also complains about Firefox being missing a few things that are most definitely in it as of the latest version available.
But they didn't always make "better" cars than Toyota (I don't think they do even now, but they are good enough now that I recommend them to people).
When they first sold cars in the US, they were terrible -- and first impressions are hard to get over. It's only been relatively recently that Hyundai has had a good reputation for long enough that they are now seen in a positive light by enough buyers.
But it wouldn't have the official company's logo, etc. on it, though, now would it? (If it did the guy would be liable for hefty fines). I've never gotten a bill that wasn't very distinct and clearly from who it claimed to be from. The dodgy ones always look dodgy.
And that link has the email address to complain to (megabotfeedback@aol.com). I'm complaining.
Uh huh, and the fact that another customer uses the same PO box shop you do sullies your reputation ... ooookay. I'm not following here. If I rent a PO box, how do I know someone selling porn is using the next box over? I don't. What does that have to do with my reputation?
Given how pervasive spam is and how it never seems to stop even after penalties are threatened and carried out, I actually think that it may be necessary to actually start imposing stiff penalties for spamming. Sure, it's not as bad as killing someone, but there's got to be a way to impose harsh punishments on those who do it so that things will improve. (I can hope, can't I?) The only trick is to figure out how to avoid contributing to the prison overcrowding problem that is causing people who are actually dangerous to others to be set free too soon. Any ideas?
Defending one's business is one thing, but threatening to attack other people who point out that your business is based on dishonesty and illegality is another entirely. I'd say he got what he deserved, regardless of whether or not "terrorist" is the right term (I agree that it isn't).
Giving someone a link that they can click on only if they wish (and no, I didn't look, nice troll attempt) is a lot different from pushing the link on them. Pushing it on them is like pushing popups on someone, and guess what? There's a lot of ire about those, too.
AOL may own its servers but it doesn't own my fucking computer and it can keep its fucking corporate hands off. Don't like my opinion? Deal.
Not to worry, let me run that through the GCMS and see what the peaks show. We'll know if that's true or not soon enough.
(I got confused, too. Amusingly, I know all the jargon they use... I'm a science geek, which is why I like the show. Sadly, the GCMS on my campus was run on an old decrepit Windows 3.1 machine. I hope HP/Agilent is using something more up-to-date by now! Can't imagine they're not.)
The small IRC server I'm on (private, just has friends and friends-of-friends on it and such) has an Infobot that can do things like roll dice (someone was using it for RPGing once, apparently), look up words in the dictionary, do DNS lookups (I've used it before when my ISP's server craps out), and so on. It's supposed to have more functions than it actually does but I think whoever set it up screwed it up a bit. It also remembers definitions ("bot, this is that") and is supposed to recite them on cue ("bot, [item]?") but it isn't too smart at figuring out when it's actually being addressed and will randomly print "Remembered that" messages in the middle of conversation, and will spit out saved definitions at other random times.
Occasionally it will randomly recite a definition of some swear word or something like that that causes the conversation to stop while everyone falls over laughing, but overall it's more of an annoyance than a help.
Bots shouldn't speak unless spoken to, but they also shouldn't be added to your contact list (in an IM client) unless you ask for them. (IRC bots just add one name to the list of available users, because they count to the client like another in-channel user).
Ah - but it is my software that interacts with the list, and changing that list makes my software do something I did not request it to (and whoever typed the commands to make the changes knew that full well), which equates to screwing with the user's software. That's a line that many people don't want crossed, me included, and there's a difference between legally wrong and ethically wrong. I'm not sure yet on the legally wrong, but I KNOW this is ethically wrong to a lot of people, and I am one of them.
You don't have to object to it if you don't want to, but I object, and I will continue objecting, and you will just have to deal with it, because interacting with other people means that at some point they will disagree with you. I disagree on this, very strongly.
The big deal is that you ask first before intruding on people. It's just plain rude, and of course people are bitching about it.
Or would you not mind if I barge into your house, eat your pizza and drink all your soda, and say "If you don't want me to be here, just ask me to leave!"?
Seems like you miss the distinction between using a service and agreeing with everything the operator does and using a service but thinking the fucktard that runs it needs to go back to ethics class and take it til they pass.
That's not the point. The point is that you ask permission first. Respect peoples' property (and their computers and software ARE their property). All you have to do is send the system message with "If you would like to use these services reply with (blah), thank you for reading".
Lack of respect is what bothers me.