Exactly. Even as intuitive "interface" as bathroom signs require explanation at least one time, and even as widespread as bathroom signs, they still do not have uniform notation.
I know, right? I have done a lot of work on bathroom signs, but the jerks keep painting over them..
Well, if you'd stop putting them on the door to the kitchen...
I would say however, that a big source of frustration for users when they need to dig into the manual is digging thru to find what they really want to do.
To which I add the caveat, if the documentation SUCKS, ie poorly written/laid out/indexed, it's an even bigger source of frustration. Like, "I would really like to throttle the idiot who got paid to write this offal, preferably with a Franklinator" kind of frustration
if thats the case, why the big push for more busses and less cars (mass transit) by these same types of people
Depends on what you mean by "same type of people."
Assuming we're talking about corporations like Google or Apple, it's because they aren't paying the brunt of taxes to fix the roads their buses destroy, the rest of the city's population does.
Assuming we're talking about "regular Joe's," it's because they aren't thinking beyond the end of their own noses. Humans and electricity share the trait of preferring the path of least resistance (although in the case of humans, it's more the "path of least thinky").
If we're talking about government types, it's because they probably own the road resurfacing company, and thus double-dip on public funds.
But oh, we can't do that, because it would put so many DEA agents and overpaid government contractors out of work!
At this point they can be re-tasked to nicotine prohibition.
OR, and I know this is a stretch, they could be re-tasked to actual, important work, like border security, or laid off because their jobs are unnecessary. But then, I'm one of those "crazy Libertarian types" who believes what substances a person chooses to put into their bodies is their choice, not the governments.
The real solution, of course, is to legalize marijuana nationally, thus drying up demand for the cartels main cash crop.
But oh, we can't do that, because it would put so many DEA agents and overpaid government contractors out of work!
So, they come up with not-even-half-assed solutions that sound good in a press release, and end up being nothing more than yet another tool of citizen subjugation over the long run.
Don't think that would work, as lie detectors are based off of heart rate and skin salinity (I think), whereas this camera operates by recording a persons "aura," for lack of a more scientific term.
Point being, a true sociopath, such as a religious fanatic, isn't going to show stress the way the authorities would expect them to. All this camera is going to catch are the people with high blood pressure, and those of us who get nervous around cops.
There are people who says that there is a way to cheat the lie-detector - and I am wondering of there is a way to cheat this new hyperspectral imaging thing ?
Yea - it's called "being exactly the type of sociopath you would want stopped by this sort of thing."
See, a sociopath won't show stress before committing a crime, because they don't stress about such things; that sort of behavior is normal for them.
eventhough its taking thousands of cars off the roads, being green, which is something you would think san fran likes
Maybe it does take "thousands of cars off the road," though that seems dubious, but what you're discounting is that the majority of road damage is caused by large, heavy vehicles... such as buses. So, the more buses on the streets, the more roadwork that will need to be done, which means more pollution from making, transporting, and using the highly toxic materials used in road building...
I'll bet, if you really dug into it, you'd find out that swapping small, personal cars for an army of buses has marginal, if any, environmental gains. Might even be worse.
I'm not complaining, I'm clarifying OP's complaint (which, as it turns out, is unfounded).
Personally I prefer it the way it is, because people blocking bus stops causes major traffic issues.
Of course, the local utility company who runs the bus system does so in the most ass-backwards way possible, so it always loses money, so they can write it off on their taxes every year... incidentally, hub-and-spoke is the most idiotic way to run buses in any city of appreciable square mileage.
But I digress - on the point of Google buses using city stops, hey, if they're paying for the privilege and not operating to the detriment of public services, I have no complaints.
Isn't it true that a bus stop may be used by any conveyance, public or private?
Not in my town, bus stops are for city bus use only, period, no exception; they made a big deal about it in the local media about a year ago. Pull into one with your personal vehicle, you're going to be looking at a minimum $250 fine.
So what is the problem?
Your concept of legality, apparently. FWIW, there is no universal, federal law regulating bus stops, as far as I'm aware.
the local service industry has to pay more to get people to work, so prices go up even more, until everyone making under $100k/yr has to commute 2hrs just to get to work. The city panics and start enforcing rent control so people can at least afford an tiny apartment. For an example, see Manhattan.
NYC has come up with a solution to this issue: Poor Doors, so the goodly rich inhabiting luxury apartments don't have to sully their eyes with visions of the lowly proles who serve them.
He is mad, because a corporation is being given a free pass to do something a private citizen would be ticketed for, which is a legitimate bitch, if somewhat petty.
Now, if Google paid for and built their own bus stops, or more reasonably, paid a fee to the city and worked with the existing public transit system to set up a schedule for using the existing bus stops? That would be ideal.
To a certain degree, he has a point - trying to shoehorn non-networking functions, like web and media serving, into a network device is kind of stupid - you're just going to end up wasting processing cycles on processes that don't have much-if-anything to do with routing.
Now, to say that a WAP should be a WAP and nothing else, ie no routing, firewall, or switching functions (other than what a WAP requires)? Sure, makes a lot of sense... if you're made of money. While you're at it, go buy one of those $10,000 firewall appliances too.
If you're like me, and you are not made of money, and/or you like hacking on stuff, there's nothing wrong with picking up a WRT router at a garage sale for 5 bucks and slapping a fairly feature-rich DD-WRT build on it, presuming you got a model with enough space and power to handle the functions you want to use.
I have a Linksys E900 I've been running DD-WRT on for a while, and never had a lick of trouble with it until this week, when the WAN port fried thanks to a power surge (caused by some dumbass with a drill...).
That's the router I'd recommend, as it's 802.11n, has enough space in flash to support a pretty feature-rich build of DD-WRT, and can be had for less than $50.
Assuming this truly was the case, even just for the sake of argument, it would still be more cost effective for me to let it slide than pay my lawyer. Especially considering that I don't expect to purchase 44 TVs in my lifetime.
I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.
On the one hand, I agree with this, especially considering that Sony is pretty well known for their shady business practices.
On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.
In my research, the DIC panel is about the only thing on those trucks that doesn't require a reprogram. I've even heard swapping radios requires it, although in fairness I haven't bothered to verify that claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Even as intuitive "interface" as bathroom signs require explanation at least one time, and even as widespread as bathroom signs, they still do not have uniform notation.
I know, right? I have done a lot of work on bathroom signs, but the jerks keep painting over them..
Well, if you'd stop putting them on the door to the kitchen...
If this is true, where does the widespread notion that nobody reads the documentation come from?
Web comics, stereotypes, and bad jokes.
I only wish I was kidding.
I would say however, that a big source of frustration for users when they need to dig into the manual is digging thru to find what they really want to do.
To which I add the caveat, if the documentation SUCKS , ie poorly written/laid out/indexed, it's an even bigger source of frustration. Like, "I would really like to throttle the idiot who got paid to write this offal, preferably with a Franklinator" kind of frustration
Being that you probably have shelled out a lot of money for the Motercycle.
Not unless it's a Harley; most bikes can be had new for a few grand, even a litre bike will run less than $11,000 brand new in most cases.
.....ok
if thats the case, why the big push for more busses and less cars (mass transit) by these same types of people
Depends on what you mean by "same type of people."
Assuming we're talking about corporations like Google or Apple, it's because they aren't paying the brunt of taxes to fix the roads their buses destroy, the rest of the city's population does.
Assuming we're talking about "regular Joe's," it's because they aren't thinking beyond the end of their own noses. Humans and electricity share the trait of preferring the path of least resistance (although in the case of humans, it's more the "path of least thinky").
If we're talking about government types, it's because they probably own the road resurfacing company, and thus double-dip on public funds.
> whereas this camera operates by recording a persons "aura," for lack of a more scientific term.
Aura? Seriously?
Well, no, of course not. But when they use terms like "hyperspectral imaging," you've got to admit, that sounds pretty damn Ghosthunter-y.
But oh, we can't do that, because it would put so many DEA agents and overpaid government contractors out of work!
At this point they can be re-tasked to nicotine prohibition.
OR, and I know this is a stretch, they could be re-tasked to actual, important work, like border security, or laid off because their jobs are unnecessary. But then, I'm one of those "crazy Libertarian types" who believes what substances a person chooses to put into their bodies is their choice, not the governments.
The real solution, of course, is to legalize marijuana nationally, thus drying up demand for the cartels main cash crop.
But oh, we can't do that, because it would put so many DEA agents and overpaid government contractors out of work!
So, they come up with not-even-half-assed solutions that sound good in a press release, and end up being nothing more than yet another tool of citizen subjugation over the long run.
Don't think that would work, as lie detectors are based off of heart rate and skin salinity (I think), whereas this camera operates by recording a persons "aura," for lack of a more scientific term.
Point being, a true sociopath, such as a religious fanatic, isn't going to show stress the way the authorities would expect them to. All this camera is going to catch are the people with high blood pressure, and those of us who get nervous around cops.
As civil liberties are not contingent on one's "need" to exercise them, I'm not sure what point you thought you were making here.
There are people who says that there is a way to cheat the lie-detector - and I am wondering of there is a way to cheat this new hyperspectral imaging thing ?
Yea - it's called "being exactly the type of sociopath you would want stopped by this sort of thing."
See, a sociopath won't show stress before committing a crime, because they don't stress about such things; that sort of behavior is normal for them.
eventhough its taking thousands of cars off the roads, being green, which is something you would think san fran likes
Maybe it does take "thousands of cars off the road," though that seems dubious, but what you're discounting is that the majority of road damage is caused by large, heavy vehicles... such as buses. So, the more buses on the streets, the more roadwork that will need to be done, which means more pollution from making, transporting, and using the highly toxic materials used in road building...
I'll bet, if you really dug into it, you'd find out that swapping small, personal cars for an army of buses has marginal, if any, environmental gains. Might even be worse.
So do the residents, but they don't get to treat the bus stop like their own personal valet station.
Of course, from what I understand Google is paying a per-stop fee to the city for their use, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm not complaining, I'm clarifying OP's complaint (which, as it turns out, is unfounded).
Personally I prefer it the way it is, because people blocking bus stops causes major traffic issues.
Of course, the local utility company who runs the bus system does so in the most ass-backwards way possible, so it always loses money, so they can write it off on their taxes every year... incidentally, hub-and-spoke is the most idiotic way to run buses in any city of appreciable square mileage.
But I digress - on the point of Google buses using city stops, hey, if they're paying for the privilege and not operating to the detriment of public services, I have no complaints.
google is paying the city for the right to do so....
Well fair enough, then, I fail to see what the issue is.
That makes OP's complaint seem even more petty, since there's lots of stuff Google does that one could legitimately bitch about.
Isn't it true that a bus stop may be used by any conveyance, public or private?
Not in my town, bus stops are for city bus use only, period, no exception; they made a big deal about it in the local media about a year ago. Pull into one with your personal vehicle, you're going to be looking at a minimum $250 fine.
So what is the problem?
Your concept of legality, apparently. FWIW, there is no universal, federal law regulating bus stops, as far as I'm aware.
would reply to this
With a 5 page rant-blog? That seems to be his default response to criticism.
the local service industry has to pay more to get people to work, so prices go up even more, until everyone making under $100k/yr has to commute 2hrs just to get to work. The city panics and start enforcing rent control so people can at least afford an tiny apartment. For an example, see Manhattan.
NYC has come up with a solution to this issue: Poor Doors, so the goodly rich inhabiting luxury apartments don't have to sully their eyes with visions of the lowly proles who serve them.
He is mad, because a corporation is being given a free pass to do something a private citizen would be ticketed for, which is a legitimate bitch, if somewhat petty.
Now, if Google paid for and built their own bus stops, or more reasonably, paid a fee to the city and worked with the existing public transit system to set up a schedule for using the existing bus stops? That would be ideal.
To a certain degree, he has a point - trying to shoehorn non-networking functions, like web and media serving, into a network device is kind of stupid - you're just going to end up wasting processing cycles on processes that don't have much-if-anything to do with routing.
Now, to say that a WAP should be a WAP and nothing else, ie no routing, firewall, or switching functions (other than what a WAP requires)? Sure, makes a lot of sense... if you're made of money. While you're at it, go buy one of those $10,000 firewall appliances too.
If you're like me, and you are not made of money, and/or you like hacking on stuff, there's nothing wrong with picking up a WRT router at a garage sale for 5 bucks and slapping a fairly feature-rich DD-WRT build on it, presuming you got a model with enough space and power to handle the functions you want to use.
I have a Linksys E900 I've been running DD-WRT on for a while, and never had a lick of trouble with it until this week, when the WAN port fried thanks to a power surge (caused by some dumbass with a drill...).
That's the router I'd recommend, as it's 802.11n, has enough space in flash to support a pretty feature-rich build of DD-WRT, and can be had for less than $50.
Product Page
But would they damage or steal it when told "this brings incredibly expensive, easy to smuggle things"?
FTFY, so you can see how obvious the answer is.
Those bastards!
Assuming this truly was the case, even just for the sake of argument, it would still be more cost effective for me to let it slide than pay my lawyer. Especially considering that I don't expect to purchase 44 TVs in my lifetime.
I'm for it. Blatant false advertizing needs to be punished and this is the route that's available to him.
On the one hand, I agree with this, especially considering that Sony is pretty well known for their shady business practices.
On the other hand... I just bought a monitor that Tigerdirect advertised as 22", but when it was delivered the box says 21.5", and I don't think that's really worth paying my lawyer $250/hr to handle.
In my research, the DIC panel is about the only thing on those trucks that doesn't require a reprogram. I've even heard swapping radios requires it, although in fairness I haven't bothered to verify that claim.