It is a good chance that the fix was to limit the degree to which the autopilot can dive the plane. Now wait till there is an accident because the readings were accurate at the plane didn't dive hard enough.
The chinese have embargoed Japan over a border dispute. They hare restricted export of raw rare earths because they want to retain manufacturing in China. They have not restricted export of toys, etc that contain rare earth magnets.
The reason to use rare earth magnets is that they are very strong compared to normal ferrous magnets. In construction sets such as this contain rare earth magnets. At each end of the bars is a rare earth magnet. They hold the steel spheres very strongly. A regular ferrous magnet will not work. There are even magnetic push pins that are used because they are strong enough to work through several layers of paper. Ever have a regular magnet fall of you fridge because you tried to put a few pieces of paper between it and the metal? That won't happen with rare earth magnets. They are also used in workshops to hold tools on the wall to keep them organized. Anywhere that strong magnets are used they are probably rare earth magnets. Despite their name they are not rare or special.
UMG claims that their use of YouTube systems to take down the video was not an official DMCA takedown notice. Google needs to do the following to fix the issue. 1. Remove UMG's privileges on the grounds of breach of contract due to misuse of the content filtering system. 2. Renegotiate the contract so that UMG must file a DMCA take down notice any time they modify YouTube's database to remove content. 3. Renegotiate any other contracts that are similar to the one with UMG
That way companies like UMG can not hide behind contractual technicalities and can be sued under the DMCA for false takedown notices. In my opinion any system that has the same effect as a DMCA takedown notice is in effect a DMCA takedown notice
Rare earth is a misnomer. Over 80,000 tones of rare earths are mined every year.
"Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms. The few economically exploitable deposits are known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth". The first such mineral discovered was gadolinite, a compound of cerium, yttrium, iron, silicon and other elements. This mineral was extracted from a mine in the village of Ytterby in Sweden; many of the rare earth elements bear names derived from this location."
Do a quick search on Amazon for magnetic toys. You will find quite a few that are held together with rare earth magnets. These toys are purchased at any toy store so are easily accessible to children. There is one class of toys that is basically a bunch of round rare earth magnets that can be put into interesting formations; Buckeyballs There are many construction toys like this. I bet if you looked at any home today with geek parents or older children there would be at least one toy that has rare earth magnets in them.
The toys with magnets are all labelled for older children. The problem occurs when a younger child get hold of age inappropriate toys that were purchased for older siblings. The supervision comes in the parent making sure the young child is not playing with toys designed for older children.
If one has children of varying ages and puts all their toys together in the same room it is very easy to mix toys with different age restrictions together. It is also difficult to get older children to put away toys that are not appropriate for younger children; adults do that. That "safe" play area is only safe of all age inappropriate toys are out of reach of the young child. That toy for your eight year old may not be safe for your two year old but if both play in the same room and the toys are stored in the same room there is a high likelihood that the three year old will come into contact the the eight year old's toys. Age inappropriate toys should not be mixed with age appropriate toys.
There are differences between yesterday's and today's articles; 1. Public vs private individuals. Public figures, such as religeous leaders, get much less harassment protection. If you want to be a public figure the be prepared to be harrased. 2. The defendant in yesterday's article voluntarilly agreed to a HRO and then broke it. No HRO in today's article 3. You have to follow someone to read their tweets. In yesterday's article the defendant sent emails.
Sorry but the religious leader in question, Alyce Zeoli, is female. That puts a hole in two of your stereotypes. (ie. all religious leaders are male and olny females get legal protection from speech)
Here are a bunch of quotes from studues of accidents; http://sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-05.htm Notice that they point out driving too slow is as dangerous if not more dangerous than driving too fast.
The main isue with a few slow drivers is that is requires other drivers to do something. Instead of having two lanes of traffic traveling smoothly at a constant speed, maintaining safe intervals and drivers keeping a constant scan on traffic ahead you have drivers changing lanes( which decreases following distances), changing speed ( which requires other vehicles to change speeds), shoulder checking (which takes eyes off the road ahead). All of these changes cause dangerous situations, stress and fatigue in drivers which increase accident risk.
The purpose of that law is not for safety but to avoid "impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic." In fact, it provides an exception for "safe operation." Does it make sense that driving your automobile slowly for safe operation would be unsafe?
You missed a very important part of the "safe operation" clause. The whole clause usually reads "necessary for safe operation". Driving slowly for safe operation of your vehicle may be unsafe for other vehicles on the road. "Safe operation" deals with the capabilities of the vehicle so that it does not get into a single vehicle accident. For example, a construction crane that is top heavy would be dangerous in corners of driven at highway speeds. Impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic cause unsafe conditions. In some jurisdictions (BC for example) police officers are allowed to remove slow vehicles from the road no matter the reason for them driving slowly.
You do 60 in an 80 zone and see how many people have to change lanes to pass you and how many of them are pissed off at you for not keeping up with the flow of traffic. Driving too slow causes many accidents. That is the reason there are laws against driving slower than the flow of traffic.
The issue with this takedown notice is that it was sent by the alledged copyright owner and not YouTube. By law, on receipt of a takedown notice YouTube has to comply until it is sorted out.
I love it when I am given amunition. Here is a quote from the page you linked.
A 2005 review by the Hawaiian legislature entitled "Cell Phone Use and Motor Vehicle Collisions: A Review of the Studies" contains an analysis of studies on cell phone/motor vehicle accident causality. A key finding was that: "No studies were found that directly address and resolve the issue of whether a causal relation exists between cellular telephone use while operating a motor vehicle and motor vehicle collisions."
What I was more getting at was that everyone does not have the same reactions. There are many drivers who can be partially distracted and drive safely at 100% of the speed limit. The speed limits are more designed for low reaction drivers rather than average drivers or experienced drivers.
Slowing down can cause more issues than distracted drivers.
Statements of fact wothout supporting documentation are suspect at best. What NTSB evidence are you referring to? What was the actual study? Were they comparing talking on phones to a completely quiet single occupancy car? Yes talking on cell phones cause distractions but is that distraction enough to be an issue?
I agree that distractions decrease one's abolity to react to situations. But does one have to be 100% responsive all the time to drive a car? The daily commute is not an F-1 race. Can somone be 10%, 20% or 30% distracted and still be a safe driver? Has there been any studies to look into this? Why haven't they banned eating, drinking, talking, etc while driving? All these are easilly avoidable distractions.
There is a huge difference between driving along a quiet highway and navigating rush hour city traffic. In the former one can be quite distracted and still be safe. In the latter, any distraction can be deadly. Why ban something at all times when it is only an issue some of the time?
One issue with a blanket ban is that people will use phones when they are in safe situations and realize they are breaking the law. In unsafe situations they will do the same thing because they have the habit of breaking the law.
A better option would be to educate drivers as to when it is unsafe to use the phone. There are already laws dealing with accidents caused by avoidable distractions. Where I live it is called "driving without due care and attention". My slogan for this would be "Shut up and Drive".
Simple fix for a complex issue. 1. Who would be making these calls? Wouldn't that double the number of people needed as every call would get a callback? It it worth that much money to fix an issue with 10% of calls? 2. "Resolved" has a different meaning for the user and the tech. From the tech point of view it may be resolved as it follows policy but may not be resolved from the users point of view because they didn't get what they wanted. 3. Can the person who made the call be reached for comment and do they want to spend the time to make their comment?
There are 48 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, resulting in nearly 8 years of content uploaded every day. Do the math. 48*60*24= 69120 hours uploaded every day. Assuming an employee can watch 6 hours of video per shift it would take 69120/6= 11520 employees to watch every video uploaded in a day. Say each employee makes 20K/year and costs for an employee (hr, computers, management, etc) are at least 2* wages you get a bill of 11520*20000*2= $460,800,00/year to screen every video. That is a huge bill for one company.
Here are some differences; 1. court costs are spread across many different jurisdictions; YouTube would have to bear all costs itself 2. Court costs are paid for by taxes and judgements; uTube does not charge per upload. 3. False imprisonment has a much bigger effect than a false takedown notice.
I agree there should be a penalty for false takedown notices or at least a better way of disputing one.
I used to work at a cell phone call centre and many times I got calls from people who have had the same billing issue month after month. The previous call takers had credited the bill for the amount charged but never fixed the reason for the charge. They fixed the symptom rather than the problem. Sometimes it took half an hour to fix the issue instead of the five minutes to issue the credit. My call times went up where their call times stayed low. When they moved me up to Tier two I also got many issues transferred from tier 1 that they could handle but would take time. Luckily tier two was expected to have longer calls.
If someone can call in month after month and there is no link between similar issues then metrics will be way off.
There is one thing I have always thought. If a user has a large number of tickets for simple things maybe they need more training on the systems they use.
The "agreed trade" in this case was "I don't breach the conditions of the HRO and you don't impose other penalties on me". Since he breached the HRO he no longer gets the benefit of lesser penalties. As it states in the judgment he voluntarily signed the HRO. Here is the quote from the judgement "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO..." He didn't fight it and it was not imposed on him by the court. It probably would have been longer if he had not agreed to sign it.
The law can restrict speech if the sole intent of that speech is to harass someone. He has proven that buy the means and content of his speech about her so far. The main point in this whole proceeding is that harassing speech is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
I would liken it in severity to cutting out a person's tongue for being caught telling a lie while under oath in court.
That is a bad analogy. He can still talk to and about anyone he wants to except the person he has harassed. In no way is he completely muzzled about everything as he would be if his tongue was cut out. A better analogy is being banned from a particular store because he shoplifts every time he goes there. He can still go to other stores; just not the one where he breaks the law.
Read the judgement: "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.” By its terms, the HRO expired on June 22, 2010." Notice it says "consented to" and not "acknowledged". One does not "consent to" a speeding ticket by signing it.
Posting intimate details about someone's sex life and mental state is deffinitly intended to adversly effect her privacy. The blog itself broke the HRO.
You can sign away free speech rights in a contract. It happens all the time with non-disclosure agreements. For example, disclosing trade secrets from a company one works for, disclosing the contents of an injury settlement, etc. There are restrictions to Free Speach and contracts are one of them.
The guy signed an six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.”
I would say blogging personal information, publicizing it and directly contacting family friends and co-workers are acts intended to adversely affect Johnson's privacy. As punishment he is now being given a stronger/longer HRO. He lost his right to free speech when he signed the HRO.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a good chance that the fix was to limit the degree to which the autopilot can dive the plane. Now wait till there is an accident because the readings were accurate at the plane didn't dive hard enough.
The chinese have embargoed Japan over a border dispute. They hare restricted export of raw rare earths because they want to retain manufacturing in China. They have not restricted export of toys, etc that contain rare earth magnets.
The reason to use rare earth magnets is that they are very strong compared to normal ferrous magnets. In construction sets such as this contain rare earth magnets. At each end of the bars is a rare earth magnet. They hold the steel spheres very strongly. A regular ferrous magnet will not work. There are even magnetic push pins that are used because they are strong enough to work through several layers of paper. Ever have a regular magnet fall of you fridge because you tried to put a few pieces of paper between it and the metal? That won't happen with rare earth magnets. They are also used in workshops to hold tools on the wall to keep them organized. Anywhere that strong magnets are used they are probably rare earth magnets. Despite their name they are not rare or special.
UMG claims that their use of YouTube systems to take down the video was not an official DMCA takedown notice. Google needs to do the following to fix the issue.
1. Remove UMG's privileges on the grounds of breach of contract due to misuse of the content filtering system.
2. Renegotiate the contract so that UMG must file a DMCA take down notice any time they modify YouTube's database to remove content.
3. Renegotiate any other contracts that are similar to the one with UMG
That way companies like UMG can not hide behind contractual technicalities and can be sued under the DMCA for false takedown notices. In my opinion any system that has the same effect as a DMCA takedown notice is in effect a DMCA takedown notice
Rare earth is a misnomer. Over 80,000 tones of rare earths are mined every year.
"Despite their name, rare earth elements (with the exception of the radioactive promethium) are relatively plentiful in the Earth's crust, with cerium being the 25th most abundant element at 68 parts per million (similar to copper). However, because of their geochemical properties, rare earth elements are typically dispersed and not often found in concentrated and economically exploitable forms. The few economically exploitable deposits are known as rare earth minerals.[3] It was the very scarcity of these minerals (previously called "earths") that led to the term "rare earth". The first such mineral discovered was gadolinite, a compound of cerium, yttrium, iron, silicon and other elements. This mineral was extracted from a mine in the village of Ytterby in Sweden; many of the rare earth elements bear names derived from this location."
Do a quick search on Amazon for magnetic toys. You will find quite a few that are held together with rare earth magnets. These toys are purchased at any toy store so are easily accessible to children. There is one class of toys that is basically a bunch of round rare earth magnets that can be put into interesting formations; Buckeyballs There are many construction toys like this. I bet if you looked at any home today with geek parents or older children there would be at least one toy that has rare earth magnets in them.
The toys with magnets are all labelled for older children. The problem occurs when a younger child get hold of age inappropriate toys that were purchased for older siblings. The supervision comes in the parent making sure the young child is not playing with toys designed for older children.
If one has children of varying ages and puts all their toys together in the same room it is very easy to mix toys with different age restrictions together. It is also difficult to get older children to put away toys that are not appropriate for younger children; adults do that. That "safe" play area is only safe of all age inappropriate toys are out of reach of the young child. That toy for your eight year old may not be safe for your two year old but if both play in the same room and the toys are stored in the same room there is a high likelihood that the three year old will come into contact the the eight year old's toys. Age inappropriate toys should not be mixed with age appropriate toys.
Dogma = sustaining beliefs in the face of facts.
There are differences between yesterday's and today's articles;
1. Public vs private individuals. Public figures, such as religeous leaders, get much less harassment protection. If you want to be a public figure the be prepared to be harrased.
2. The defendant in yesterday's article voluntarilly agreed to a HRO and then broke it. No HRO in today's article
3. You have to follow someone to read their tweets. In yesterday's article the defendant sent emails.
Sorry but the religious leader in question, Alyce Zeoli, is female. That puts a hole in two of your stereotypes. (ie. all religious leaders are male and olny females get legal protection from speech)
Here are a bunch of quotes from studues of accidents; http://sense.bc.ca/disc/disc-05.htm
Notice that they point out driving too slow is as dangerous if not more dangerous than driving too fast.
The main isue with a few slow drivers is that is requires other drivers to do something. Instead of having two lanes of traffic traveling smoothly at a constant speed, maintaining safe intervals and drivers keeping a constant scan on traffic ahead you have drivers changing lanes( which decreases following distances), changing speed ( which requires other vehicles to change speeds), shoulder checking (which takes eyes off the road ahead). All of these changes cause dangerous situations, stress and fatigue in drivers which increase accident risk.
The purpose of that law is not for safety but to avoid "impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic." In fact, it provides an exception for "safe operation." Does it make sense that driving your automobile slowly for safe operation would be unsafe?
You missed a very important part of the "safe operation" clause. The whole clause usually reads "necessary for safe operation". Driving slowly for safe operation of your vehicle may be unsafe for other vehicles on the road. "Safe operation" deals with the capabilities of the vehicle so that it does not get into a single vehicle accident. For example, a construction crane that is top heavy would be dangerous in corners of driven at highway speeds. Impeding or blocking the reasonable and normal speed of traffic cause unsafe conditions. In some jurisdictions (BC for example) police officers are allowed to remove slow vehicles from the road no matter the reason for them driving slowly.
You do 60 in an 80 zone and see how many people have to change lanes to pass you and how many of them are pissed off at you for not keeping up with the flow of traffic. Driving too slow causes many accidents. That is the reason there are laws against driving slower than the flow of traffic.
The issue with this takedown notice is that it was sent by the alledged copyright owner and not YouTube. By law, on receipt of a takedown notice YouTube has to comply until it is sorted out.
I love it when I am given amunition. Here is a quote from the page you linked.
A 2005 review by the Hawaiian legislature entitled "Cell Phone Use and Motor Vehicle Collisions: A Review of the Studies" contains an analysis of studies on cell phone/motor vehicle accident causality. A key finding was that: "No studies were found that directly address and resolve the issue of whether a causal relation exists between cellular telephone use while operating a motor vehicle and motor vehicle collisions."
What I was more getting at was that everyone does not have the same reactions. There are many drivers who can be partially distracted and drive safely at 100% of the speed limit. The speed limits are more designed for low reaction drivers rather than average drivers or experienced drivers.
Slowing down can cause more issues than distracted drivers.
Statements of fact wothout supporting documentation are suspect at best. What NTSB evidence are you referring to? What was the actual study? Were they comparing talking on phones to a completely quiet single occupancy car? Yes talking on cell phones cause distractions but is that distraction enough to be an issue?
I agree that distractions decrease one's abolity to react to situations. But does one have to be 100% responsive all the time to drive a car? The daily commute is not an F-1 race. Can somone be 10%, 20% or 30% distracted and still be a safe driver? Has there been any studies to look into this? Why haven't they banned eating, drinking, talking, etc while driving? All these are easilly avoidable distractions.
There is a huge difference between driving along a quiet highway and navigating rush hour city traffic. In the former one can be quite distracted and still be safe. In the latter, any distraction can be deadly. Why ban something at all times when it is only an issue some of the time?
One issue with a blanket ban is that people will use phones when they are in safe situations and realize they are breaking the law. In unsafe situations they will do the same thing because they have the habit of breaking the law.
A better option would be to educate drivers as to when it is unsafe to use the phone. There are already laws dealing with accidents caused by avoidable distractions. Where I live it is called "driving without due care and attention". My slogan for this would be "Shut up and Drive".
Simple fix for a complex issue.
1. Who would be making these calls? Wouldn't that double the number of people needed as every call would get a callback? It it worth that much money to fix an issue with 10% of calls?
2. "Resolved" has a different meaning for the user and the tech. From the tech point of view it may be resolved as it follows policy but may not be resolved from the users point of view because they didn't get what they wanted.
3. Can the person who made the call be reached for comment and do they want to spend the time to make their comment?
There are 48 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, resulting in nearly 8 years of content uploaded every day.
Do the math. 48*60*24= 69120 hours uploaded every day. Assuming an employee can watch 6 hours of video per shift it would take 69120/6= 11520 employees to watch every video uploaded in a day. Say each employee makes 20K/year and costs for an employee (hr, computers, management, etc) are at least 2* wages you get a bill of 11520*20000*2= $460,800,00/year to screen every video. That is a huge bill for one company.
Here are some differences;
1. court costs are spread across many different jurisdictions; YouTube would have to bear all costs itself
2. Court costs are paid for by taxes and judgements; uTube does not charge per upload.
3. False imprisonment has a much bigger effect than a false takedown notice.
I agree there should be a penalty for false takedown notices or at least a better way of disputing one.
I used to work at a cell phone call centre and many times I got calls from people who have had the same billing issue month after month. The previous call takers had credited the bill for the amount charged but never fixed the reason for the charge. They fixed the symptom rather than the problem. Sometimes it took half an hour to fix the issue instead of the five minutes to issue the credit. My call times went up where their call times stayed low. When they moved me up to Tier two I also got many issues transferred from tier 1 that they could handle but would take time. Luckily tier two was expected to have longer calls.
If someone can call in month after month and there is no link between similar issues then metrics will be way off.
There is one thing I have always thought. If a user has a large number of tickets for simple things maybe they need more training on the systems they use.
The "agreed trade" in this case was "I don't breach the conditions of the HRO and you don't impose other penalties on me". Since he breached the HRO he no longer gets the benefit of lesser penalties. As it states in the judgment he voluntarily signed the HRO. Here is the quote from the judgement "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO..." He didn't fight it and it was not imposed on him by the court. It probably would have been longer if he had not agreed to sign it.
The law can restrict speech if the sole intent of that speech is to harass someone. He has proven that buy the means and content of his speech about her so far. The main point in this whole proceeding is that harassing speech is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
I would liken it in severity to cutting out a person's tongue for being caught telling a lie while under oath in court.
That is a bad analogy. He can still talk to and about anyone he wants to except the person he has harassed. In no way is he completely muzzled about everything as he would be if his tongue was cut out. A better analogy is being banned from a particular store because he shoplifts every time he goes there. He can still go to other stores; just not the one where he breaks the law.
.
Read the judgement: "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.” By its terms, the HRO expired on June 22, 2010." Notice it says "consented to" and not "acknowledged". One does not "consent to" a speeding ticket by signing it.
Posting intimate details about someone's sex life and mental state is deffinitly intended to adversly effect her privacy. The blog itself broke the HRO.
You can sign away free speech rights in a contract. It happens all the time with non-disclosure agreements. For example, disclosing trade secrets from a company one works for, disclosing the contents of an injury settlement, etc. There are restrictions to Free Speach and contracts are one of them.
The guy signed an six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.”
I would say blogging personal information, publicizing it and directly contacting family friends and co-workers are acts intended to adversely affect Johnson's privacy. As punishment he is now being given a stronger/longer HRO. He lost his right to free speech when he signed the HRO.
What about downwind areas where the water would fall naturally? Might that effect snow packs and cause drought during summer months?