Whether they'll succeed or not is another thing. I'm not expecting Facebook, eBay, Amazon, PayPal or climate change deniers to step up for net neutrality. For that to occur we'd need a change in education which won't happen over night.
Hopefully, you're right: once younger generations who grew up with digital media and the internet rise to positions of power, the rules will change and the insanity will ease. That said, I have a lawyer friend under 30 who ran for office in his state legislature and he is just as willfully ignorant about technology issues as the Senate and House champions of SOPA/PIPA. That doesn't give me much hope for the future.
No... You pay both. Because the store has to pay the local taxes.. and the buyer has to pay their local taxes. Plus a "convenience fee" of course, for the overhead of the store having to keep track of every tax in the world, and paying them accordingly.
For awhile, I worked in one state while living in another, which got weird with income tax. In the case of income tax, most states have reciprocity agreements where wages earned in one state are exempt from taxation in the resident state. With sales taxes, there isn't any reciprocity agreement, but if there was, in the GP's example, he would pay Washington sales tax and be exempt from Indiana.
I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...
Unfortunately, the publisher holding the copyright/controlling dissemination is the status quo. As I see it, change is only going to come from within, with researchers and institutions turning up the heat on publishers or starting their own open publications. Some of these changes are happening, with some schools and disciplines shifting towards open access policies. However, based on the current bill and the SOPA fiasco, I don't think legislators can be counted on to do the right thing when it comes to open access on taxpayer-funded research and the effects of technological advances on copyright.
You don't seem to understand the wording of the bill. Federal agencies are barred from mandating open access policies -- in the context of TFA they are talking about funding bodies like the NIH which award grant money to other institutions who perform the research. This leaves the institutions receiving the grant money, usually universities which aren't attached to the federal government, free to do as they please. Lastly, publishers accept copyright waivers all the time, and some schools, like Princeton, mandate that you submit one if the publisher wants to claim copyright. Some Commonwealth countries, like Australia, claim copyright on all publications their universities produce and submit these waivers with each publication.
With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves. There have already been a few discussions on here about some of the better known US schools mandating that all research be published in open conferences/journals. At the last conference I attended, there was a business meeting where it was discussed that we can (and should) attach copyright waivers to the standard ACM copyright form so that we retain copyright of our work and are free to distribute it.
Now that's a different issue, and a much more obvious one, since texting uses minuscule amounts of data. I imagine that one text uses less bandwidth (actual bandwidth, MHz * time) than one *second* of voice calling. (To be more precise, I think that it would take at least ten 160 character text messages take up about the same bandwidth as one *second* of voice calling.)
I'm pretty sure the answer to "why?" there is "because they can".
At this point, we're talking preferences and willingness to pay, not actual infrastructure and overhead costs. You seem to be perfectly content with current wireless prices, but I'm not. You really think wireless is 100 times more costly to the carrier than wired? Like texting, they're charging that much because they can get away with it. I have the cheapest dumbphone I could find with texting blocked and won't be buying a smartphone until the pricing structure is more reasonable.
Just for the record, the link you provided talks about wired bandwidth, not wireless bandwidth. If you're providing wireless bandwidth... you have to pay for the wired bandwidth up to your cell phone tower, and then pay for that tower and all the bandwidth (and this is actual bandwidth here -- "a spot from X MHz to Y MHz") it uses.
So this isn't exactly a fair comparison.
The citations may not be fair but the GPs argument is still valid: blaming data hogs is just an excuse. We can even use the above numbers as an upper bound. Even if the construction and maintenance of wireless networks were 100 times as expensive as their wired counterparts, the cost still isn't justified. Yes, wireless networking certainly has its challenges, a lossy medium with limited throughput being one of them, but it certainly doesn't justify the current US pricing structure. Why must we pay for blocks of data instead of only what we use? Why is texting charged separately and at a much higher rate than data?
The Carriers should charge a cheaper rate per megabyte for bulk data users. They shouldn't cut them off. They shouldn't charge them progressively more the more they use. They should actually give them discounts. Buying the next tier up should be cheaper than watching your data usage trying to live under the line.
Too bad they don't do this. Such as: $x for the first 0-200MB, $y for the next 200MB-1GB, and $z for $1GB and up, where $x > $y > $z. That way everyone is encouraged to use only what they need instead of like the current plans, where users are encouraged to use as close to the maximum possible. With graduated fees per megabyte, the heavy users still have to pay the maximum possible for all tiers below them but no matter the user, the marginal cost for a megabyte will never be some insane amount like it is if you go over your limit in the current plans.
I doubt there's ever been an aircraft without minor design defects that are fixed as they appear.
This is what happens when an airline is a launch customer (as are Qantas and Singapore I believe). When the airline is first in line to receive a new aircraft type, there are all kinds of bugs that the airline has to be willing to accept. For example, the first six production 787s are overweight in comparison with what was promised. Similarly, I've heard time and time again not to buy the first model year of a new car or significant vehicle redesign because of potential problems that will be found only after production and then fixed in subsequent years.
Published, peer-reviewed, papers go in a portfolio for any subject like that...
I'm curious as to how many people with no university or industry affiliation have published papers, especially those that have published without any collaborators with such affiliations. As a CS grad student, I haven't run across any that I can remember, but perhaps I haven't been around long enough and there are too many other disciplines and specializations to count. Some disciplines would be easier than others -- in Computer Science, for example, there are plenty of research areas that don't require a huge amount of resources.
That said, peer review publications are pretty much by academics and for academics; only few (non academic or industrial research) outsiders would care so much to publish unless they are hoping to gain the very affiliation the eschew.
In the case of the Wrigley Rooftops, the Chicago Cubs argued that baseball games are "a work of art" and even viewing a game without paying royalties is copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court, however, but all major league teams have a history of being just as bad as the RIAA or ASCAP when it comes to recording or viewing games.
Think a bit outside the box. Especially, don't see it as the end product. It's the first step towards a legislation that allows to pull content off the net. Because, well, you already HAVE to implement it, why not give us the right to pull content off for... well, we'll get to that once the whole thing is in and running.
This. If, by some miracle, someone throws together an alternative DNS system that attracts users in droves, the government's only going to come back with bigger guns. I can envision people or corporations being permanently blacklisted from registering domains or running websites.
It would seem anyone running around painted this way would attract more police attention than just wearing a slouch hat.
With more and more automation in law enforcement, it isn't about fooling the police anymore, it's about fooling machines. As of late, law enforcement is pushing hard for automated electronic solutions which replace the venerable eyeball. GPS trackers are replacing stakeouts, speed and traffic light cameras replace traffic police, and facial recognition may be reducing the number of beat cops. When it comes to the state of the art with data mining and machine learning, there are a ton of corner cases to choose from -- a sight that may draw significant attention to a human being might be quickly discarded by an artificial neural network. Nobody will even care to look at the wig you're wearing as everyone's heads are now buried in their phones.
You're really asking us what the difference is between choosing not to say something or having your government making sure you don't say a given thing?
Except that I, the end user, am not the one doing the choosing. Whether it be the website owners or the government, I lose access. If anything, this is a wakeup call to not rely too heavily on any web services since they might not be there tomorrow, thanks to either the government or the owners.
Isn't a collusive action like this no better than the legislation these corporations are trying to stop? Blocking the internet is blocking the internet, regardless of who does it and why.
There's a difference between a protest a few hours long and a law that will change the landscape for decades to come.
How short does the protest have to be so that it's not considered to be "changing the landscape"? Where do you draw the line?
A blackout of a handful of websites, especially when self-imposed, is hardly "blocking the internet." It's not in the same league as the government fucking up DNS for everyone whether they consent or not.
Perhaps my usage of "blocking the internet" was too broad, but in both of these cases, the end result is exactly the same. The government isn't going to shut down the entire DNS system, but they will be able to selectively block sites. What's the difference between Facebook, Google, et. al. taking themselves offline compared to the government doing it for them? From an end user's perspective, there is no difference.
Isn't a collusive action like this no better than the legislation these corporations are trying to stop? Blocking the internet is blocking the internet, regardless of who does it and why.
If this is all of the utmost importance because some people are obsessive and irrational about what's on their devices, then that's fine for obsessive and irrational people and their subcultures. But I can't sympathize with them.
What is it with the "obsessive" and "irrational" labels? Since you seem pretty charged about this, it's clear to me that you do have strong preferences and probably are just as "obsessive" and "irrational" as anyone else here, just maybe not about this particular issue. For example, you certainly didn't "just ignore" this argument. I'm sure there are plenty of software features that you don't like as well as some that don't exist but you wish were available. Instead of just whining about the way things are, with an open platform, you can roll your own and remove the features you don't like and add ones you want. You may not want to make such modifications, but other people certainly do.
But for some reason you're going to make up stories about how it might be bad.
If he had to root his tablet because of some dark fantasy about Layar being sinister, then that surely answers my question on the side of irrational and obsessive. I was asking if there was a reason that's more rooted in reality. I still don't know.
The intended functionality of the application doesn't matter. If he didn't want the application on his phone, he should be able to remove it -- this is the reason rooted in reality. What may seem obsessive to you is tinkering and customization to others. In fact, most of the comments here discuss exactly this: customization and tinkering are things a relatively small number of people wish to do, but because the number of people who want that is small in and of itself doesn't justify locking down a hardware or software platform.
It was impossible to uninstall without rooting, and the marketplace page for it is just page after page of people giving it one-star reviews and complaining that it was installed without their consent. I think it's some type of augmented-reality program.
Why not just ignore it? Did you "have to" root your tablet, or did you root your tablet because you have a semi-irrational, obsessive dislike of Layar (and/or other bits of software)?
I've never heard of "Layar" before, but it could consume quite a bit of system resources, reducing both phone responsiveness and battery life. It could also nag the user with random toasts and dialogs while other applications are in the foreground. The GP paid for the phone; he should have every right to modify its behavior to his liking. Either that or buy another phone and sign with another carrier that doesn't push crapware.
The meatspace analogy is an uninvited houseguest eating your food, sleeping in your bed, and making a mess. You could tell him to leave or force him out. Or, you could just ignore him.
Give HostGator a try. Excellent service although they do charge more to register domains. I had to switch from APLUS.NET (A Deluxe Company!! YAY!) after ten years due to horrendous, defunct, abysmal service from hell. I think APLUS.NET fired anyone who knew anything about networking and hosting accounts.
I've also used HostGator for several years for both domains and hosting. My experience has been great with few problems.
But knowing that drivers do what they do, are you willing to risk a collision (and your safety, along with your passengers' safety) when you see someone is following too closely? Or would you risk the ticket?
Seriously? You justify running red lights because someone behind you might be following just close enough and might not react quickly enough to stop within the same distance you are able to stop in?
When I'm on a road with a high speed limit, a light ahead of me turns yellow, and there's someone right behind me, I definitely consider going through the intersection. My car has good brakes, but I can't say the same for the car behind me. I'm paying attention, but I can't say the same for whoever is behind me. In fact, I can't make any assumptions about other drivers and their behavior. In a case like this, where the light is in the process of changing, the risk of a rear end collision at high speed is much greater than a collision with intersecting traffic. Avoiding an accident trumps following the letter of the law.
At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.
I've driven in a dozen states, all on the east coast of the US. In those states, this is not only permitted, it is the correct thing to do. It is taught that way in driver's education and a traffic cop will direct you to do this as well. When the light turns red, the driver in the intersection completes the left turn. It is not dangerous because there are a few seconds where the light remains red specifically as a time to clear the intersection. The only problem I've ever seen is when bad drivers either stay in the intersection and block it, or back-up - both of which are illegal.
This is also what I remember from my high school driving course (Virginia). Some places go a step farther with the Pittsburgh Left, but that's more of a custom, not the law.
It doesn't even matter whether or not there's a few seconds of red in all directions -- traffic in the intersection always has the right of way over traffic entering the intersection. Anecdote: I had a friend who went through an intersection on a green light and was hit by someone who blew the red light while turning left. I don't remember what happened with the other guy, but the police gave my friend a ticket for not yielding.
They already do that to some extent, running analysis before each game and trying to distill the most salient bits of data into things for the coach/players to memorize. I agree it'd up it another order of magnitude if they allowed it in real time, though at this point it's already a weird sort of quasi-athletic competition where how good the coach is at memorizing things is a significant factor...
I saw a TV show about this a year or two ago where analysts for each team would pore over years of footage of opposing teams. I'm sure franchises quickly scoop up anyone with a background in data mining. Real time analysis, however, is probably exactly why computer equipment is banned.
Slashdot Mirror
Where it becomes bad is if they harass or in any way mistreat people who aren't threatening violence. Is there any evidence that they're doing that?
Every time I go to the airport.
Whether they'll succeed or not is another thing. I'm not expecting Facebook, eBay, Amazon, PayPal or climate change deniers to step up for net neutrality. For that to occur we'd need a change in education which won't happen over night.
Hopefully, you're right: once younger generations who grew up with digital media and the internet rise to positions of power, the rules will change and the insanity will ease. That said, I have a lawyer friend under 30 who ran for office in his state legislature and he is just as willfully ignorant about technology issues as the Senate and House champions of SOPA/PIPA. That doesn't give me much hope for the future.
No... You pay both. Because the store has to pay the local taxes.. and the buyer has to pay their local taxes. Plus a "convenience fee" of course, for the overhead of the store having to keep track of every tax in the world, and paying them accordingly.
For awhile, I worked in one state while living in another, which got weird with income tax. In the case of income tax, most states have reciprocity agreements where wages earned in one state are exempt from taxation in the resident state. With sales taxes, there isn't any reciprocity agreement, but if there was, in the GP's example, he would pay Washington sales tax and be exempt from Indiana.
I DO have a problem with "the Publisher gets to decide, which is what this is doing...
Unfortunately, the publisher holding the copyright/controlling dissemination is the status quo. As I see it, change is only going to come from within, with researchers and institutions turning up the heat on publishers or starting their own open publications. Some of these changes are happening, with some schools and disciplines shifting towards open access policies. However, based on the current bill and the SOPA fiasco, I don't think legislators can be counted on to do the right thing when it comes to open access on taxpayer-funded research and the effects of technological advances on copyright.
You don't seem to understand the wording of the bill. Federal agencies are barred from mandating open access policies -- in the context of TFA they are talking about funding bodies like the NIH which award grant money to other institutions who perform the research. This leaves the institutions receiving the grant money, usually universities which aren't attached to the federal government, free to do as they please. Lastly, publishers accept copyright waivers all the time, and some schools, like Princeton, mandate that you submit one if the publisher wants to claim copyright. Some Commonwealth countries, like Australia, claim copyright on all publications their universities produce and submit these waivers with each publication.
With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves. There have already been a few discussions on here about some of the better known US schools mandating that all research be published in open conferences/journals. At the last conference I attended, there was a business meeting where it was discussed that we can (and should) attach copyright waivers to the standard ACM copyright form so that we retain copyright of our work and are free to distribute it.
Now that's a different issue, and a much more obvious one, since texting uses minuscule amounts of data. I imagine that one text uses less bandwidth (actual bandwidth, MHz * time) than one *second* of voice calling. (To be more precise, I think that it would take at least ten 160 character text messages take up about the same bandwidth as one *second* of voice calling.)
I'm pretty sure the answer to "why?" there is "because they can".
At this point, we're talking preferences and willingness to pay, not actual infrastructure and overhead costs. You seem to be perfectly content with current wireless prices, but I'm not. You really think wireless is 100 times more costly to the carrier than wired? Like texting, they're charging that much because they can get away with it. I have the cheapest dumbphone I could find with texting blocked and won't be buying a smartphone until the pricing structure is more reasonable.
Just for the record, the link you provided talks about wired bandwidth, not wireless bandwidth. If you're providing wireless bandwidth ... you have to pay for the wired bandwidth up to your cell phone tower, and then pay for that tower and all the bandwidth (and this is actual bandwidth here -- "a spot from X MHz to Y MHz") it uses.
So this isn't exactly a fair comparison.
The citations may not be fair but the GPs argument is still valid: blaming data hogs is just an excuse. We can even use the above numbers as an upper bound. Even if the construction and maintenance of wireless networks were 100 times as expensive as their wired counterparts, the cost still isn't justified. Yes, wireless networking certainly has its challenges, a lossy medium with limited throughput being one of them, but it certainly doesn't justify the current US pricing structure. Why must we pay for blocks of data instead of only what we use? Why is texting charged separately and at a much higher rate than data?
The Carriers should charge a cheaper rate per megabyte for bulk data users. They shouldn't cut them off. They shouldn't charge them progressively more the more they use. They should actually give them discounts. Buying the next tier up should be cheaper than watching your data usage trying to live under the line.
Too bad they don't do this. Such as: $x for the first 0-200MB, $y for the next 200MB-1GB, and $z for $1GB and up, where $x > $y > $z. That way everyone is encouraged to use only what they need instead of like the current plans, where users are encouraged to use as close to the maximum possible. With graduated fees per megabyte, the heavy users still have to pay the maximum possible for all tiers below them but no matter the user, the marginal cost for a megabyte will never be some insane amount like it is if you go over your limit in the current plans.
I doubt there's ever been an aircraft without minor design defects that are fixed as they appear.
This is what happens when an airline is a launch customer (as are Qantas and Singapore I believe). When the airline is first in line to receive a new aircraft type, there are all kinds of bugs that the airline has to be willing to accept. For example, the first six production 787s are overweight in comparison with what was promised. Similarly, I've heard time and time again not to buy the first model year of a new car or significant vehicle redesign because of potential problems that will be found only after production and then fixed in subsequent years.
Published, peer-reviewed, papers go in a portfolio for any subject like that...
I'm curious as to how many people with no university or industry affiliation have published papers, especially those that have published without any collaborators with such affiliations. As a CS grad student, I haven't run across any that I can remember, but perhaps I haven't been around long enough and there are too many other disciplines and specializations to count. Some disciplines would be easier than others -- in Computer Science, for example, there are plenty of research areas that don't require a huge amount of resources.
That said, peer review publications are pretty much by academics and for academics; only few (non academic or industrial research) outsiders would care so much to publish unless they are hoping to gain the very affiliation the eschew.
In the case of the Wrigley Rooftops, the Chicago Cubs argued that baseball games are "a work of art" and even viewing a game without paying royalties is copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court, however, but all major league teams have a history of being just as bad as the RIAA or ASCAP when it comes to recording or viewing games.
Think a bit outside the box. Especially, don't see it as the end product. It's the first step towards a legislation that allows to pull content off the net. Because, well, you already HAVE to implement it, why not give us the right to pull content off for ... well, we'll get to that once the whole thing is in and running.
This. If, by some miracle, someone throws together an alternative DNS system that attracts users in droves, the government's only going to come back with bigger guns. I can envision people or corporations being permanently blacklisted from registering domains or running websites.
It would seem anyone running around painted this way would attract more police attention than just wearing a slouch hat.
With more and more automation in law enforcement, it isn't about fooling the police anymore, it's about fooling machines. As of late, law enforcement is pushing hard for automated electronic solutions which replace the venerable eyeball. GPS trackers are replacing stakeouts, speed and traffic light cameras replace traffic police, and facial recognition may be reducing the number of beat cops. When it comes to the state of the art with data mining and machine learning, there are a ton of corner cases to choose from -- a sight that may draw significant attention to a human being might be quickly discarded by an artificial neural network. Nobody will even care to look at the wig you're wearing as everyone's heads are now buried in their phones.
You're really asking us what the difference is between choosing not to say something or having your government making sure you don't say a given thing?
Except that I, the end user, am not the one doing the choosing. Whether it be the website owners or the government, I lose access. If anything, this is a wakeup call to not rely too heavily on any web services since they might not be there tomorrow, thanks to either the government or the owners.
Isn't a collusive action like this no better than the legislation these corporations are trying to stop? Blocking the internet is blocking the internet, regardless of who does it and why.
There's a difference between a protest a few hours long and a law that will change the landscape for decades to come.
How short does the protest have to be so that it's not considered to be "changing the landscape"? Where do you draw the line?
What a bizarre thing to say.
Can we dispense with the red herrings?
A blackout of a handful of websites, especially when self-imposed, is hardly "blocking the internet." It's not in the same league as the government fucking up DNS for everyone whether they consent or not.
Perhaps my usage of "blocking the internet" was too broad, but in both of these cases, the end result is exactly the same. The government isn't going to shut down the entire DNS system, but they will be able to selectively block sites. What's the difference between Facebook, Google, et. al. taking themselves offline compared to the government doing it for them? From an end user's perspective, there is no difference.
Isn't a collusive action like this no better than the legislation these corporations are trying to stop? Blocking the internet is blocking the internet, regardless of who does it and why.
If this is all of the utmost importance because some people are obsessive and irrational about what's on their devices, then that's fine for obsessive and irrational people and their subcultures. But I can't sympathize with them.
What is it with the "obsessive" and "irrational" labels? Since you seem pretty charged about this, it's clear to me that you do have strong preferences and probably are just as "obsessive" and "irrational" as anyone else here, just maybe not about this particular issue. For example, you certainly didn't "just ignore" this argument. I'm sure there are plenty of software features that you don't like as well as some that don't exist but you wish were available. Instead of just whining about the way things are, with an open platform, you can roll your own and remove the features you don't like and add ones you want. You may not want to make such modifications, but other people certainly do.
I've never heard of "Layar" before, but ....
But for some reason you're going to make up stories about how it might be bad.
If he had to root his tablet because of some dark fantasy about Layar being sinister, then that surely answers my question on the side of irrational and obsessive. I was asking if there was a reason that's more rooted in reality. I still don't know.
The intended functionality of the application doesn't matter. If he didn't want the application on his phone, he should be able to remove it -- this is the reason rooted in reality. What may seem obsessive to you is tinkering and customization to others. In fact, most of the comments here discuss exactly this: customization and tinkering are things a relatively small number of people wish to do, but because the number of people who want that is small in and of itself doesn't justify locking down a hardware or software platform.
It was impossible to uninstall without rooting, and the marketplace page for it is just page after page of people giving it one-star reviews and complaining that it was installed without their consent. I think it's some type of augmented-reality program.
Why not just ignore it? Did you "have to" root your tablet, or did you root your tablet because you have a semi-irrational, obsessive dislike of Layar (and/or other bits of software)?
I've never heard of "Layar" before, but it could consume quite a bit of system resources, reducing both phone responsiveness and battery life. It could also nag the user with random toasts and dialogs while other applications are in the foreground. The GP paid for the phone; he should have every right to modify its behavior to his liking. Either that or buy another phone and sign with another carrier that doesn't push crapware.
The meatspace analogy is an uninvited houseguest eating your food, sleeping in your bed, and making a mess. You could tell him to leave or force him out. Or, you could just ignore him.
Give HostGator a try. Excellent service although they do charge more to register domains. I had to switch from APLUS.NET (A Deluxe Company!! YAY!) after ten years due to horrendous, defunct, abysmal service from hell. I think APLUS.NET fired anyone who knew anything about networking and hosting accounts.
I've also used HostGator for several years for both domains and hosting. My experience has been great with few problems.
But knowing that drivers do what they do, are you willing to risk a collision (and your safety, along with your passengers' safety) when you see someone is following too closely? Or would you risk the ticket?
Seriously? You justify running red lights because someone behind you might be following just close enough and might not react quickly enough to stop within the same distance you are able to stop in?
When I'm on a road with a high speed limit, a light ahead of me turns yellow, and there's someone right behind me, I definitely consider going through the intersection. My car has good brakes, but I can't say the same for the car behind me. I'm paying attention, but I can't say the same for whoever is behind me. In fact, I can't make any assumptions about other drivers and their behavior. In a case like this, where the light is in the process of changing, the risk of a rear end collision at high speed is much greater than a collision with intersecting traffic. Avoiding an accident trumps following the letter of the law.
At this point you can either do a really dangerous left turn, or remain blocking the traffic, or try to back up (assuming people havent filled in behind you.
I've driven in a dozen states, all on the east coast of the US. In those states, this is not only permitted, it is the correct thing to do. It is taught that way in driver's education and a traffic cop will direct you to do this as well. When the light turns red, the driver in the intersection completes the left turn. It is not dangerous because there are a few seconds where the light remains red specifically as a time to clear the intersection. The only problem I've ever seen is when bad drivers either stay in the intersection and block it, or back-up - both of which are illegal.
This is also what I remember from my high school driving course (Virginia). Some places go a step farther with the Pittsburgh Left, but that's more of a custom, not the law.
It doesn't even matter whether or not there's a few seconds of red in all directions -- traffic in the intersection always has the right of way over traffic entering the intersection. Anecdote: I had a friend who went through an intersection on a green light and was hit by someone who blew the red light while turning left. I don't remember what happened with the other guy, but the police gave my friend a ticket for not yielding.
They already do that to some extent, running analysis before each game and trying to distill the most salient bits of data into things for the coach/players to memorize. I agree it'd up it another order of magnitude if they allowed it in real time, though at this point it's already a weird sort of quasi-athletic competition where how good the coach is at memorizing things is a significant factor...
I saw a TV show about this a year or two ago where analysts for each team would pore over years of footage of opposing teams. I'm sure franchises quickly scoop up anyone with a background in data mining. Real time analysis, however, is probably exactly why computer equipment is banned.