The recordings may be legal, but this is not the same as saying that preventing them is illegal.
True, depending on the circumstances. If I am in a public place (sidewalk) and happen to be near an open windows in a police station, then I cannot be required to not record what I hear. The officers in the station have no expectation of privacy while the window is open. If they close it and I attach a listening device to the window, then I have crossed the line of legality.
If a state passes a law making them illegal, then they are no longer admissible.
In that state. However, if it was appealed to the Supreme Court, I am confident that the law would be overturned based on the precedent of previous rulings.
C'mon now--you can't really think that is "discrimination" can you?
Maybe not for me personally, but it certainly could be. You pointed out one case, but there are others where laptop usage is necessary.
Hey, if I can afford a massage chair and a prof won't let me bring it to class, that's discrimination, right? Other people get to sit, just because I can afford a massage chair, he has to let me have it in class, right? It's discrimination otherwise...
Nice straw man you built there.
I'm a college student and I think that a prof should be able to set whatever kind of *reasonable* limitations on his classroom that he wants. I think that not allowing laptops fits.
That's nice and all, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think about it. It is a matter of law that makes or breaks the argument. At my University, the Professor is not supreme and the school has a strict pro technology attitude. I doubt any ban on laptops would get very far.
Don't profs hold some sort of intellectual property rights over their lectures?
Lectures are like speeches and there are no copyright protections for them. That is why you can take notes as detailed as you want (I have a friend that does so verbatim in shorthand). Clearly this is copying, yet there are no guidelines handed out for note taking... How is this different from recording it? Now if the professor handed out his lecture word for word every class, that might be copyrightable. Besides, copyrights are notoriously flexible when it comes to institutions for learning. Our library has millions of articles, books and such available in PDF format for download for any student.
By policy, the class is the PROFESSORS domain, they get to rule.
I guess it depends on the university, but at mine this is definately not the case.
Also, it doesn't matter is a class-room is public domain (which it isn't), but it is the PROFESSOR as a person talking. You cannot just record and distribute me, my voice, or my image, without my permission, and so it is with professors.
Sure I can record it, but distributing it is another matter.
Basically, what they say is implicitaty copyrighted.
This is patently false and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. If I go to a press conference and record a speech with a tape recorder and then transcribe that for my website, I am in no danger or copyright violation. In fact, speeched (and I argue lectures) are not copyright protected because of the nature of the material).
Also it is just crass to record someone without their permission. Just as it is crass to have a cell-phone on in a learning enviroment.
Your are comparing apples to oranges. One is a audible distrubance, the other is clearly innocuous. Crass as you may interpret it, it is not illegal.
It is a shame that manners must be enforced, and that some people think that they have a "right" not to have manners.
I agree that it is a shame. But I am not talking about manners, I am talking about law. And yes, people *do* have a right to not have manners as shameful as it might be. Just between you and me, I value civility to a great degree but I cannot tolerate those who force their view of manners on others. It is okay to be respectful as long as you don't have any expectations of respect from me.
The definition of a public place does not extent to all government-owned facilities.
True.
You do not have an absolute right to tape-record in a public university any more than you have an absolute right to tape-record in the White House or near an open window of your local police department headquarters.
Untrue. I work for a news agency and this kind of thing goes on all the time. The White is not considered public or if it is, it is not a place where common rules apply. It is a special circumstance. There is however ample examples of reporters using an open window to evesdrop on conversations, police station or not. The Supreme Court has ruled that open windows do not give any party an expectation of privacy. This is an important concept because in the context of our argument, expectation of privacy is key. If you are in a subway car, you cannot expect that anyone on the train might not be recording you. Clearly, there have been examples where anonymous video taping has been used as evidenc in a trial and was determined legal (Rodney King is good example). Just because the recording (audio, video) was not used in a trial as evidence, does not mean that it would otherwise be illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled (in Maine v. Mouton, among others) that it is not constitutionally required as a right of privacy that all parties to a telephone conversation consent to recording. It did not rule that it is constitutionally required to permit recording in cases when all parties to a telephone conversation do not consent.
True, but it not rule that the opposite is true. Namely that all parties must consent, which is what you mention in the next paragraph.
Furthermore, it applied specifically to admissability of recordings at trial, which is somewhat different than the legality of simply making them. The argument was "my telephone calls were taped without my consent, which constitutionally should make them inadmissable as evidence in court," and the Supreme Court ruled that this argument was invalid, since the Constitution does not protect against your phone calls being taped by the other party to the conversation.
But logic follows that if they are admissible in court, then they must be legal. Therefore, if I record all my phone conversations without asking consent of every party I speak with, then I would have a fair chance of passing Constitutional muster if a State tried to call me on it.
Furthermore, if it were true that any recording in public places were permitted, then even the FCC rules would be too stringent -- you should be able to place a recording device in a public phone booth and retrieve the tape at a later time, which is illegal (as recording phone conversations without either party consenting is against FCC rules).
A phone booth may not be a public place. You have to get nitty gritty with that definition before you can say that recording is not permissible. More importantly, your example implies that I place the recorder and then leave, which is not legal. It is only legal when I am party to the conversations being recorded.
This is silly. First of all, just because something is "state-run" doesn't make it a public place. A military base is state run, but they certainly aren't public places.
But the converse is not necessarily true either. A coutroom is a public place and it is state run. I would argue that a public place is anywhere the public may be resonably expected to gather. Thus, a university would be, but your living room would not. Private or public is irrelevant. A park is public, but you can be asked to leave.
Secondly, just because someplace is a public place, doesn't mean that you make recordings there.
Aside from copyright issues, why not? I don't believe that a lecture is considered copyrightable material. A paper or dissertation yes, but not a lecture.
If you were sitting next to me typing away on your laptop and did not have a quiet keyboard, I would politely ask you to find a quieter way of taking notes so as to not interfere with my education.
And I would politely tell you to get over it or move somewhere else, it is just the sound of a keyboard.
What the hell is this bullshit about discrimination? Requiring laptops might be socio-economic discrimination, but banning them is not, unless you have some sort of a disability that prevents you from using pen and paper.
If there are exceptions, then it is not necessarily bullshit. How do you know I don't have a disability?
The legality of tape-recording depends greatly on the state. In many states is it illegal to tape-record people without their permission. If I were a fellow student in your class, I would object to you tape-recording the questions I asked during the class.
Federal law trumps state law and the Supreme Court has stated that conversations can be recorded with the consent of only one party. You could object all you want, it would not be a legal requirement for me to stop my recording.
You, as a computer owner, are free to leave your computer in your dorm room, and thus suffer no discrimination. The only possible argument towards this end would be if you had a disability that required you to use a computer to take notes, in which case you could explain it to the professor, and most would be happy to make an exception.
There are other exceptions as well, not just disabilities. Some classes and even some universities *require* laptops as part of attendance. I know one parent who sued successfuly to end the policy at one small time college (in Missouri) because it was discrimination. By successful, I mean they ended the requirement. At another university (in Alabama) a student was banned from a communications class for taking notes with a PDS/keyboard combo. He sued and won on grounds of discrimination because his writing was illegible.
Incorrect. In many states it is illegal to tape-record phone conversations without consent of both parties.
I disagree and so do the feds. There have been several cases where recorded conversations were legitimized because at least one party knew about it. If I ask and respond to questions in a class, is this not a conversation? While I don't have a link to a specific case regarding classrooms and lectures, general recording is protected.
If it were legal to turn on your tape recorder in any public place, you could tape-record a call without the other party's consent, which is not the case
Wrong, see MAINE v. MOULTON (1985) where only one party knows about the conversation. There are a plethora of others if you are willing to dig for them.
Laws on non-telephone recording are more nebulous and varied, but it does remain illegal in many states to record people without their consent.
I challenge you to find a case or even a law where this is true, in any state.
There are exceptions for public figures (you can record the Mayor's speech without his consent), but even if these applied to your professor, they would not apply to fellow students in the class, so you would be obligated to turn off your tape recorder every time someone asked a question.
I call bullshit. I have never, ever heard of anything more ridiculous.
I'd say you're lucky. You may be paying to go to college, but you attend class by yhe grace of your professor. If you do something he/she finds disruptive, he/she has every right to remove you from the class.
Perhaps, but it would be a hard case to sell that to a review board when I appeal on grounds that I'm being discriminated against because I have a computer.
And no, taking a tape is not harassment.
The hell it isn't. Read on.
What a teacher says in a classroom is often well prepared personal knowledge that you may learn from, but not record and reproduce exactly. And recording someone in a classroom (which is not a public place) may even be illegal in many places. The teacher might be doing that student a favor.
Wrongo. What a teach says in classroom is menat for me to learn. I may record that and play it back to my heart's content and there is not a legal thing anyone can do about it. A public university *is* a legally defined public place. As for making recordings, I can turn on my tape recorder anywhere I want and even do it clandestinely with full protection from the law. It does not matter what jursdiction I'm in either because it is a federal law, designed to protect informants. In any case, in a public institution in the USA, I can by rights record any lecture I want and listen to it all I want. What I cannot do is distribute it ad infinum.
So if a professor tries to take my tape and I refuse, he will likely threaten scholastic punishment (lower grade, etc). That is harrasment and he can be successfully sued/fired/whatever.
The problem is that although your keyboard may be quiet most aren't. I know that as a student I never would have tolerated someone in the classroom making noise that interferes with my ability to learn. I don't care if its a keyboard or someone talking: if you are making noise in the classroom you are being rude and should expect to be asked to leave.
Of all places on campus, the library is supposed to be the most quiet. However, it is also the single greatest concentration of computers. Not jus tin isolated rooms either... They're in the lobby, at the reference desk, the copy room and even in study areas. Besides, do you find it that distracting when someone is typing? Can you not think and type at the same time? Learn to filter it out like the sound of the pipes/air conditioning/people in the halls/whispering two rows over. Computers are here to stay in the classroom and I for one am sick of intolerant people telling me that I can't use them.
Additionally it is the student recording the class that may be doing something illegal, not the teacher confiscating their tape. Keep in mind that it is not legal to make unauthorized recordings of someone's work be it music, a movie or a lecture. I appreciate that some geeks can't get that through their heads but don't for a minute think you can sue someone for protecting their own rights.
There are court cases where lectures were ruled to not be "public performances" but closer to speeches (which are not protected by copyrights). If I am in my state run university, I am by definition in a public place. Federal law currently allows me to make recordingd in public places without the consent of anyone within microphone range.
As somebody who teaches many college freshmen each year, I can tell you that you'll be out on your ear quickly if you're clicking on laptop keys in my classroom. About recording a class on tape: make sure you always get permission. I always allow this, but I like to be told. I've seen a professor pull a tape out of a student's cassette before, because the student was recording without obtaining consent.
What kind of nazi university do you teach at? I have *never* taken paper notes in three years and have *never* been asked to put the laptop away. Granted, it is a quiet keyboard, but the concept of technology discrimination is absurd. Furthermore, to ask a student for a tape recording from class that he/she made is illegal at best and harassment at worst. I wouldn't be surprised if you were sued!
the accord has been the number one selling car for years. They are everywhere.
That's what I am saying. They are ubiquitous, whereas the segway is not. Accords are stolen in a proportional amount to the numbers in the market. Furthermore, the numbers of Accords make them more accessible to thieves (hotwiring, key fakes, lock cracking, etc.) The more you have to sample, the easier a time crooks will have figuring out how to steal it.
Valentine seems to think it's possible to hotwire one, since he has the keys and thinks someone might be riding his.
It is bad reporting. He didn't say that "anyone riding one would be checked out in a hurry", the reporter did. The reporter should have said, "anyone seen with one, would be checked out in a hurry."
Sorry, but just cause some reporter says you can't hot-wire it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
I never suggested otherwise. However, the parent poster was less than clear on what information he wanted. Since the article addressed the issue, perhaps he should have mentioned it in his post?
I guess some people do believe everything they read - and I thought it was just a figure of speech.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and not believe everything you read. Assuming that I believe what the article says is just as idiotic. Effective communication requires explicit phraseology. Anything less provides opportunity for confusion as is clearly the case here.
Yeah, and DVD's are not copyable and region restricted, the Xbox will only run approved MS code, The PS2 will not play any backups, a Cuecat can only be used with DC's own software, a blank cdrom can not be overburned, Macrovision prevents copying video streams, Safedisc and Securerom prevent coping cd's and a cable box can prevent you from watching the Playboy channel for free.
All these examples are overgeneralizations.
For the perp to steal the segway and "hotwire" it, he would need to have the following:
Knowledge of how to hotwire a segway with fewer than 5,000 sold in the world.
Either knowledge of this guy owning a segway and his subsequent stalking of the owner seeking an opportunity to steal it. Or the chance encounter, in the few minutes window it was locked with a chain, to cut the chain and hotwire it.
Either a strong enough desire to have a segway to overpower the consequences of a felony in Kent, WA. Or sufficient stupidity to care less about such things as prision time which would negate points one and two.
My gut feeling is with the guy cutting the chain, realizing it was useless without the key and ditching it to avoid prosecution.
and yet, honda accords with thier electronic keys continue to be the number one stolen vehicle.
Last I checked, 'stolen' and 'hotwired' had distinctly different meanings.
I don't even want to get into market penetration, the prevalence of master keys, and other factors that make it easy to steal accords and apply to cars rather than segways.
Rather than over-analyzing marginal science-fiction films for deep meaning, why not spend that time actually perusing the great works of literature? Most likely it's a much better use of your time.
While great works of literature abound, they are not always relevant in today's society. The rising generation is striving for a connection to themselves, one that centuries old literature does not provide. Movies are a medium that provide such connection in a way that is engrossing to modern youth. The messages they instill may be the same ones you have already read in books, but that does not mean all people must likewise gain knowledge.
Wrong. They know they are making popular, mass-market, action films in order to make money. Anything else will be subjugated to that goal.
They why did Keanu write out his take of the profits? Why did the brothers insist on a less lucrative "R" rating? The goal for the studios may have been money, but I have a gut feeling that the Wachowskis are more dedicated to the message and art of movie making than any $$ that they will get.
Let's just not get carried away with the idea that "deep messages" are buried in these films.
Why not? That is part of the ethos of mass communication. Just because movies fail to fit into your box of meaningful artforms, does not mean there are no deep meanings. It must be pretty lonely up there on your high-horse.
Got a bone to pick? Who cares about Michael and the whole slash cadre. If they want to be juvenile, let them, it is after all their site. Just don't sink to their level. This little rant makes you seem more like a Finkelstein luddite than anything else.
As you mentioned, they will just mod you into oblivion and this whole thread will get buried anyway. So let them act stupid and you can flame them in your journal, where they are less apt to mod bomb you.
Perhaps they are confusing because you lack basic communication skills. I would hate to think simple words like "prevent" and "private" would cause confusion in anyone.
The purpose of national security is to secure the civil liberties of the citizens. Trying to trade civil liberty for national security is like selling your kidneys on the black market to raise money to buy health insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Geek author with a penchant for dropping nerdy innuendos or coincidence?
True, depending on the circumstances. If I am in a public place (sidewalk) and happen to be near an open windows in a police station, then I cannot be required to not record what I hear. The officers in the station have no expectation of privacy while the window is open. If they close it and I attach a listening device to the window, then I have crossed the line of legality.
In that state. However, if it was appealed to the Supreme Court, I am confident that the law would be overturned based on the precedent of previous rulings.
Maybe not for me personally, but it certainly could be. You pointed out one case, but there are others where laptop usage is necessary.
Hey, if I can afford a massage chair and a prof won't let me bring it to class, that's discrimination, right? Other people get to sit, just because I can afford a massage chair, he has to let me have it in class, right? It's discrimination otherwise...Nice straw man you built there.
I'm a college student and I think that a prof should be able to set whatever kind of *reasonable* limitations on his classroom that he wants. I think that not allowing laptops fits.That's nice and all, but it really doesn't matter what you or I think about it. It is a matter of law that makes or breaks the argument. At my University, the Professor is not supreme and the school has a strict pro technology attitude. I doubt any ban on laptops would get very far.
Don't profs hold some sort of intellectual property rights over their lectures?Lectures are like speeches and there are no copyright protections for them. That is why you can take notes as detailed as you want (I have a friend that does so verbatim in shorthand). Clearly this is copying, yet there are no guidelines handed out for note taking... How is this different from recording it? Now if the professor handed out his lecture word for word every class, that might be copyrightable. Besides, copyrights are notoriously flexible when it comes to institutions for learning. Our library has millions of articles, books and such available in PDF format for download for any student.
I guess it depends on the university, but at mine this is definately not the case.
Also, it doesn't matter is a class-room is public domain (which it isn't), but it is the PROFESSOR as a person talking. You cannot just record and distribute me, my voice, or my image, without my permission, and so it is with professors.Sure I can record it, but distributing it is another matter.
Basically, what they say is implicitaty copyrighted.This is patently false and I challenge you to prove it otherwise. If I go to a press conference and record a speech with a tape recorder and then transcribe that for my website, I am in no danger or copyright violation. In fact, speeched (and I argue lectures) are not copyright protected because of the nature of the material).
Also it is just crass to record someone without their permission. Just as it is crass to have a cell-phone on in a learning enviroment.Your are comparing apples to oranges. One is a audible distrubance, the other is clearly innocuous. Crass as you may interpret it, it is not illegal.
It is a shame that manners must be enforced, and that some people think that they have a "right" not to have manners.I agree that it is a shame. But I am not talking about manners, I am talking about law. And yes, people *do* have a right to not have manners as shameful as it might be. Just between you and me, I value civility to a great degree but I cannot tolerate those who force their view of manners on others. It is okay to be respectful as long as you don't have any expectations of respect from me.
True.
You do not have an absolute right to tape-record in a public university any more than you have an absolute right to tape-record in the White House or near an open window of your local police department headquarters.Untrue. I work for a news agency and this kind of thing goes on all the time. The White is not considered public or if it is, it is not a place where common rules apply. It is a special circumstance. There is however ample examples of reporters using an open window to evesdrop on conversations, police station or not. The Supreme Court has ruled that open windows do not give any party an expectation of privacy. This is an important concept because in the context of our argument, expectation of privacy is key. If you are in a subway car, you cannot expect that anyone on the train might not be recording you. Clearly, there have been examples where anonymous video taping has been used as evidenc in a trial and was determined legal (Rodney King is good example). Just because the recording (audio, video) was not used in a trial as evidence, does not mean that it would otherwise be illegal.
True, but it not rule that the opposite is true. Namely that all parties must consent, which is what you mention in the next paragraph.
Furthermore, it applied specifically to admissability of recordings at trial, which is somewhat different than the legality of simply making them. The argument was "my telephone calls were taped without my consent, which constitutionally should make them inadmissable as evidence in court," and the Supreme Court ruled that this argument was invalid, since the Constitution does not protect against your phone calls being taped by the other party to the conversation.But logic follows that if they are admissible in court, then they must be legal. Therefore, if I record all my phone conversations without asking consent of every party I speak with, then I would have a fair chance of passing Constitutional muster if a State tried to call me on it.
Furthermore, if it were true that any recording in public places were permitted, then even the FCC rules would be too stringent -- you should be able to place a recording device in a public phone booth and retrieve the tape at a later time, which is illegal (as recording phone conversations without either party consenting is against FCC rules).A phone booth may not be a public place. You have to get nitty gritty with that definition before you can say that recording is not permissible. More importantly, your example implies that I place the recorder and then leave, which is not legal. It is only legal when I am party to the conversations being recorded.
But the converse is not necessarily true either. A coutroom is a public place and it is state run. I would argue that a public place is anywhere the public may be resonably expected to gather. Thus, a university would be, but your living room would not. Private or public is irrelevant. A park is public, but you can be asked to leave.
Secondly, just because someplace is a public place, doesn't mean that you make recordings there.Aside from copyright issues, why not? I don't believe that a lecture is considered copyrightable material. A paper or dissertation yes, but not a lecture.
And I would politely tell you to get over it or move somewhere else, it is just the sound of a keyboard.
What the hell is this bullshit about discrimination? Requiring laptops might be socio-economic discrimination, but banning them is not, unless you have some sort of a disability that prevents you from using pen and paper.If there are exceptions, then it is not necessarily bullshit. How do you know I don't have a disability?
The legality of tape-recording depends greatly on the state. In many states is it illegal to tape-record people without their permission. If I were a fellow student in your class, I would object to you tape-recording the questions I asked during the class.Federal law trumps state law and the Supreme Court has stated that conversations can be recorded with the consent of only one party. You could object all you want, it would not be a legal requirement for me to stop my recording.
There are other exceptions as well, not just disabilities. Some classes and even some universities *require* laptops as part of attendance. I know one parent who sued successfuly to end the policy at one small time college (in Missouri) because it was discrimination. By successful, I mean they ended the requirement. At another university (in Alabama) a student was banned from a communications class for taking notes with a PDS/keyboard combo. He sued and won on grounds of discrimination because his writing was illegible.
Incorrect. In many states it is illegal to tape-record phone conversations without consent of both parties.I disagree and so do the feds. There have been several cases where recorded conversations were legitimized because at least one party knew about it. If I ask and respond to questions in a class, is this not a conversation? While I don't have a link to a specific case regarding classrooms and lectures, general recording is protected.
If it were legal to turn on your tape recorder in any public place, you could tape-record a call without the other party's consent, which is not the caseWrong, see MAINE v. MOULTON (1985) where only one party knows about the conversation. There are a plethora of others if you are willing to dig for them.
Laws on non-telephone recording are more nebulous and varied, but it does remain illegal in many states to record people without their consent.I challenge you to find a case or even a law where this is true, in any state.
There are exceptions for public figures (you can record the Mayor's speech without his consent), but even if these applied to your professor, they would not apply to fellow students in the class, so you would be obligated to turn off your tape recorder every time someone asked a question.I call bullshit. I have never, ever heard of anything more ridiculous.
Perhaps, but it would be a hard case to sell that to a review board when I appeal on grounds that I'm being discriminated against because I have a computer.
And no, taking a tape is not harassment.The hell it isn't. Read on.
What a teacher says in a classroom is often well prepared personal knowledge that you may learn from, but not record and reproduce exactly. And recording someone in a classroom (which is not a public place) may even be illegal in many places. The teacher might be doing that student a favor.Wrongo. What a teach says in classroom is menat for me to learn. I may record that and play it back to my heart's content and there is not a legal thing anyone can do about it. A public university *is* a legally defined public place. As for making recordings, I can turn on my tape recorder anywhere I want and even do it clandestinely with full protection from the law. It does not matter what jursdiction I'm in either because it is a federal law, designed to protect informants. In any case, in a public institution in the USA, I can by rights record any lecture I want and listen to it all I want. What I cannot do is distribute it ad infinum.
So if a professor tries to take my tape and I refuse, he will likely threaten scholastic punishment (lower grade, etc). That is harrasment and he can be successfully sued/fired/whatever.
Of all places on campus, the library is supposed to be the most quiet. However, it is also the single greatest concentration of computers. Not jus tin isolated rooms either... They're in the lobby, at the reference desk, the copy room and even in study areas. Besides, do you find it that distracting when someone is typing? Can you not think and type at the same time? Learn to filter it out like the sound of the pipes/air conditioning/people in the halls/whispering two rows over. Computers are here to stay in the classroom and I for one am sick of intolerant people telling me that I can't use them.
Additionally it is the student recording the class that may be doing something illegal, not the teacher confiscating their tape. Keep in mind that it is not legal to make unauthorized recordings of someone's work be it music, a movie or a lecture. I appreciate that some geeks can't get that through their heads but don't for a minute think you can sue someone for protecting their own rights.There are court cases where lectures were ruled to not be "public performances" but closer to speeches (which are not protected by copyrights). If I am in my state run university, I am by definition in a public place. Federal law currently allows me to make recordingd in public places without the consent of anyone within microphone range.
About recording a class on tape: make sure you always get permission. I always allow this, but I like to be told. I've seen a professor pull a tape out of a student's cassette before, because the student was recording without obtaining consent.
What kind of nazi university do you teach at? I have *never* taken paper notes in three years and have *never* been asked to put the laptop away. Granted, it is a quiet keyboard, but the concept of technology discrimination is absurd. Furthermore, to ask a student for a tape recording from class that he/she made is illegal at best and harassment at worst. I wouldn't be surprised if you were sued!
That's what I am saying. They are ubiquitous, whereas the segway is not. Accords are stolen in a proportional amount to the numbers in the market. Furthermore, the numbers of Accords make them more accessible to thieves (hotwiring, key fakes, lock cracking, etc.) The more you have to sample, the easier a time crooks will have figuring out how to steal it.
It is bad reporting. He didn't say that "anyone riding one would be checked out in a hurry", the reporter did. The reporter should have said, "anyone seen with one, would be checked out in a hurry."
I never suggested otherwise. However, the parent poster was less than clear on what information he wanted. Since the article addressed the issue, perhaps he should have mentioned it in his post?
I guess some people do believe everything they read - and I thought it was just a figure of speech.Perhaps you should take your own advice and not believe everything you read. Assuming that I believe what the article says is just as idiotic. Effective communication requires explicit phraseology. Anything less provides opportunity for confusion as is clearly the case here.
All these examples are overgeneralizations.
For the perp to steal the segway and "hotwire" it, he would need to have the following:
My gut feeling is with the guy cutting the chain, realizing it was useless without the key and ditching it to avoid prosecution.
Last I checked, 'stolen' and 'hotwired' had distinctly different meanings.
I don't even want to get into market penetration, the prevalence of master keys, and other factors that make it easy to steal accords and apply to cars rather than segways.
Couldn't bring yourself to read the article, huh?
From the article: "There's no way they can hot-wire it,'' said Valentine, a retired merchant marine officer."
He said the Segway can't be started without the key, which includes a computer chip.
While great works of literature abound, they are not always relevant in today's society. The rising generation is striving for a connection to themselves, one that centuries old literature does not provide. Movies are a medium that provide such connection in a way that is engrossing to modern youth. The messages they instill may be the same ones you have already read in books, but that does not mean all people must likewise gain knowledge.
Wrong. They know they are making popular, mass-market, action films in order to make money. Anything else will be subjugated to that goal.They why did Keanu write out his take of the profits? Why did the brothers insist on a less lucrative "R" rating? The goal for the studios may have been money, but I have a gut feeling that the Wachowskis are more dedicated to the message and art of movie making than any $$ that they will get.
Let's just not get carried away with the idea that "deep messages" are buried in these films.Why not? That is part of the ethos of mass communication. Just because movies fail to fit into your box of meaningful artforms, does not mean there are no deep meanings. It must be pretty lonely up there on your high-horse.
Got a bone to pick? Who cares about Michael and the whole slash cadre. If they want to be juvenile, let them, it is after all their site. Just don't sink to their level. This little rant makes you seem more like a Finkelstein luddite than anything else.
As you mentioned, they will just mod you into oblivion and this whole thread will get buried anyway. So let them act stupid and you can flame them in your journal, where they are less apt to mod bomb you.
Perhaps they are confusing because you lack basic communication skills. I would hate to think simple words like "prevent" and "private" would cause confusion in anyone.
Well said, sir! Well said...
No, but maybe this will prod them in the right direction...
That IS powerful technology.
The stock is not publicly traded, IOW it is private stock. The article explains it in the first couple of paragraphs.