No. They can now just conflate crackers, hackers AND pirates and get even stricter laws into enforcement. This isn't a security problem on their end of course. This is because we're too soft on those dirty music downloaders.
And when we win that war because we have oil-based tanks and you have inferior solar ones that can be defeated by our ever-expanding smog cloud we'll use our riches to clean our own air and export you the black death of soot and smog. You'll all look up and shout "Save us!"... and we'll look down and whisper "No."
And how much of the excess $5/gallon we don't pay at the pump goes towards environmental stewardship?
It's a chicken-and-egg problem here in the US. We have cities and surrounding suburbs built for long commutes on cheap gasoline. Mass transit is expensive to build and even more expensive when it's unused. Mass transit is unused so long as it's less convenient than driving. The problem is we don't see a need to invest until gas gets around $5/gallon to $10/gallon but when it's at $5/gallon it'll be $10/gallon or more by the time decent transit options are built/if we start building them immediately/.
We're definitely opening up ourselves to an oil-based recession.
We sat to the side for decades upon decades until the people of Libya gave us the choice of allowing them to be slaughtered or giving minimal aid that allows for self-governance? I think he got a pretty good deal out of it, really.
Thanks for the info! I will, however, be writing a strongly worded letter to the foundation about those extortionate shipping and handling fees! That's just highway robbery!
I believe that the MPEG-2 licensing issue is for hardware decoding. The rPi should still be able to software decode it (though I don't know how well) if you have the appropriate codec installed.
First, they're manufacturing them for under $35 for model B boards.
Second, if they were to sell them at market cost that would undermine the very purpose of the board to begin with -- to get cheap computers into the hands of children. A school could possibly afford 30 boards at $35. It's a little tougher to afford 30 boards at $135.
Let's say I make a product and give it a GPL license. If someone modifies and redistributes my code outside of that license then they've done something I don't like/with something I created/.
Let's say I get a software patent. If someone infringes on that patent then they've done something that doesn't financially benefit me/with something similar to what I thought up/.
I feel there's a strong distinction there. I made it and only want it used in accordance with my wishes. I thought up a possible result (neither created the result nor created a process to that result) and want financial compensation for that. Yeah, no, not the same.
(Process patents are fine, to me. An algorithm is not a process. "Ooh, ooh, what if you could buy that thing/with one click/" is not a process nor an invention.)
If most fatal accidents occur at low speeds then that indicates a governor isn't very useful since it's not creating safety at those low speeds. If you don't want to get a ticket on the freeway then you could just choose to not speed (unless you're in a Toyota?)
Some people that have problems with regulations have problems because the regulations induce a hardship that does not solve the purported problem. The problem is not cars speeding, the problem is poor traffic engineering. (Yes, the vast majority of accidents list speeding as a contributing factor; that's because the vast majority of cars are speeding at any given time. Around here, at least.)
We already have a system to police breaking traffic laws -- it's called the police. They should be policing people if they intend to police people. The technological solution of adding a governor is fraught with potential problems but only solves a very narrow subset. That is not the hallmark of a good solution.
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly. They "know" (possibly only at a subconscious level) that they can buy their way out of trouble so they feel the risk of being chastised is weaker.
Or maybe they feel that because they are rich they have contributed (again possibly only subconsciously) and so should be allowed to bend or ignore rules. I think this meshes with the Prius driver example -- maybe Prius drives feel that the good karma they've gained by driving a Prius entitles them to more leniency in road etiquette. (Again, this is most likely subconscious if this is the actual reason.)
I think it's just a knee-jerk us-vs.-them reaction to say that the amoral get rich and the nice guy loses, as if the rich deserve to be brought down a peg because they must be evil to be rich, rather than power and money corrupting them once they get there.
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly. They "know" (possibly only at a subconscious level) that they can buy their way out of trouble so they feel the risk of being chastised is weaker.
Or maybe they feel that because they are rich they have contributed (again possibly only subconsciously) and so should be allowed to bend or ignore rules. I think this meshes with the Prius driver example -- maybe Prius drives feel that the good karma they've gained by driving a Prius entitles them to more leniency in road etiquette. (Again, this is most likely subconscious if this is the actual reason.)
I think it's just a knee-jerk us-vs.-them reaction to say that the amoral get rich and the nice guy loses, as if the rich deserve to be brought down a peg because they must be evil to be rich, rather than power and money corrupting them once they get there.
I think I just realized why we have this derisive and abusive notion that a person who uses a point-and-shoot cameras is "just some dork with a camera." We're conflating the art of photography with the practice of recording an event in a visual format using the science that allowed for both. Unfortunately, these two acts do not have separate words in English so I will coin one now...
Let us call the act of taking pictures to record events "picturing" instead and things become far more clear: This lets us say: "Casual picturers always regarded cameras as just a do-hickie: a means to an end."
You would be an amateur photographer (yes, amateurs can still be called amateurs even when on a shoe-string budget) rather than a picturer. I am "only" (though to be derisive about such a thing is to misunderstand) a picturer. I have no interest in the art of photography but I would like to have a keepsake to help remember that time I climbed a mountain. However, to call me "some dork with a camera" is unfair to me. It is not my intent to make great art, only to have a memento of the past that I can show others.
So can we stop being pompous jerks about photography so that I don't get chided for having poor composition skills and not understanding what f-stops are for?
If it's trivial to disable the governor then... it's trivial to disable the governor. The only way it'll actually affect driving is if it's not trivial to disable, in which case it wouldn't be a simple operation on track days.
Also, in general the speedo cable is the part that sends the speed to the cabin. If you want to make a secondary speedo cable for the governor, then what happens when/that/ fails?
You also completely failed to address what I think was the most salient point I brought up -- a study which states that the vast majority of fatal accidents (for the subset studied -- which is most likely the vast majority of fatal accidents. I didn't go too far into reading the comparison of the subset in the study to/all/.) occur at under 45 MPH.
I don't find that a governor is of significant value compared to proper traffic engineering instead.
Here's a simple issue: Some people drive their street vehicles where US traffic laws do not apply. How do you allow for that behavior while enforcing the need for a governor?
What about when your speedo dies because your car is old and now your governor can't tell how fast you're going? Should the car be unlimited or should it no longer work? If you have no limit now you're incentivizing people to have cars where they can't determine the speed they're going easily. If it's non-functional you now how to get your car towed to the shop at additional cost.
Not to mention the fact that adding one more interlock adds one more point of failure. What if that failure occurs while on the highway?
Also, this does nothing to stop someone from going 70 in a 20 MPH school zone. According to this report: http://members.optusnet.com.au/carsafety/paine_impact_speeds_jan07.pdf half of fatal car accidents (front-impact, with seatbelts) occur at less than 30 MPH. Only 10% occur over 45 MPH.
So maybe just limiting cars to the maximum speed limit won't really help all that much. But it'll surely add in some new points of failure.
Obviously, absent a method to fire said bullet a bullet is the wrong tool to use to kill someone. That doesn't mean that other tools are unsuitable, however. All of them, though, require some human intervention in order to make it murder or manslaughter. (As opposed to something like a rock slide killing some one, of course.)
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill. The issue arises when it is used against a person unlawfully, not when it is created. To willfully ignore that is to sidestep the debate in an attempt to declare victory based on assertion rather than actual discussion.
> Furthermore, how would you not riot over your government doing something like that to you? Because the citizens are told (and some believe) that other countries are doing worse to their citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I really can't let that go.
Whoosh.
No. They can now just conflate crackers, hackers AND pirates and get even stricter laws into enforcement. This isn't a security problem on their end of course. This is because we're too soft on those dirty music downloaders.
Ah, crap. It didn't escape my <jack-crass 'merican> tags... Now comes Poe's law.
And when we win that war because we have oil-based tanks and you have inferior solar ones that can be defeated by our ever-expanding smog cloud we'll use our riches to clean our own air and export you the black death of soot and smog. You'll all look up and shout "Save us!"... and we'll look down and whisper "No."
And how much of the excess $5/gallon we don't pay at the pump goes towards environmental stewardship?
It's a chicken-and-egg problem here in the US. We have cities and surrounding suburbs built for long commutes on cheap gasoline. Mass transit is expensive to build and even more expensive when it's unused. Mass transit is unused so long as it's less convenient than driving. The problem is we don't see a need to invest until gas gets around $5/gallon to $10/gallon but when it's at $5/gallon it'll be $10/gallon or more by the time decent transit options are built /if we start building them immediately/.
We're definitely opening up ourselves to an oil-based recession.
Assuming he's really the leader of course.
We sat to the side for decades upon decades until the people of Libya gave us the choice of allowing them to be slaughtered or giving minimal aid that allows for self-governance? I think he got a pretty good deal out of it, really.
Thanks for the info! I will, however, be writing a strongly worded letter to the foundation about those extortionate shipping and handling fees! That's just highway robbery!
I believe that the MPEG-2 licensing issue is for hardware decoding. The rPi should still be able to software decode it (though I don't know how well) if you have the appropriate codec installed.
First, they're manufacturing them for under $35 for model B boards.
Second, if they were to sell them at market cost that would undermine the very purpose of the board to begin with -- to get cheap computers into the hands of children. A school could possibly afford 30 boards at $35. It's a little tougher to afford 30 boards at $135.
Or this will prompt a change in the rules and regulations around hypnotic sleep aids...
Let's say I make a product and give it a GPL license. If someone modifies and redistributes my code outside of that license then they've done something I don't like /with something I created/.
Let's say I get a software patent. If someone infringes on that patent then they've done something that doesn't financially benefit me /with something similar to what I thought up/.
I feel there's a strong distinction there. I made it and only want it used in accordance with my wishes. I thought up a possible result (neither created the result nor created a process to that result) and want financial compensation for that. Yeah, no, not the same.
(Process patents are fine, to me. An algorithm is not a process. "Ooh, ooh, what if you could buy that thing /with one click/" is not a process nor an invention.)
If most fatal accidents occur at low speeds then that indicates a governor isn't very useful since it's not creating safety at those low speeds. If you don't want to get a ticket on the freeway then you could just choose to not speed (unless you're in a Toyota?)
Some people that have problems with regulations have problems because the regulations induce a hardship that does not solve the purported problem. The problem is not cars speeding, the problem is poor traffic engineering. (Yes, the vast majority of accidents list speeding as a contributing factor; that's because the vast majority of cars are speeding at any given time. Around here, at least.)
We already have a system to police breaking traffic laws -- it's called the police. They should be policing people if they intend to police people. The technological solution of adding a governor is fraught with potential problems but only solves a very narrow subset. That is not the hallmark of a good solution.
+1 insightful if I could. Good point!
Is that really the cause?
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly. They "know" (possibly only at a subconscious level) that they can buy their way out of trouble so they feel the risk of being chastised is weaker.
Or maybe they feel that because they are rich they have contributed (again possibly only subconsciously) and so should be allowed to bend or ignore rules. I think this meshes with the Prius driver example -- maybe Prius drives feel that the good karma they've gained by driving a Prius entitles them to more leniency in road etiquette. (Again, this is most likely subconscious if this is the actual reason.)
I think it's just a knee-jerk us-vs.-them reaction to say that the amoral get rich and the nice guy loses, as if the rich deserve to be brought down a peg because they must be evil to be rich, rather than power and money corrupting them once they get there.
Is that really the cause?
Perhaps people who are rich perceive a smaller consequence for behaving badly. They "know" (possibly only at a subconscious level) that they can buy their way out of trouble so they feel the risk of being chastised is weaker.
Or maybe they feel that because they are rich they have contributed (again possibly only subconsciously) and so should be allowed to bend or ignore rules. I think this meshes with the Prius driver example -- maybe Prius drives feel that the good karma they've gained by driving a Prius entitles them to more leniency in road etiquette. (Again, this is most likely subconscious if this is the actual reason.)
I think it's just a knee-jerk us-vs.-them reaction to say that the amoral get rich and the nice guy loses, as if the rich deserve to be brought down a peg because they must be evil to be rich, rather than power and money corrupting them once they get there.
I think I just realized why we have this derisive and abusive notion that a person who uses a point-and-shoot cameras is "just some dork with a camera." We're conflating the art of photography with the practice of recording an event in a visual format using the science that allowed for both. Unfortunately, these two acts do not have separate words in English so I will coin one now...
Let us call the act of taking pictures to record events "picturing" instead and things become far more clear:
This lets us say: "Casual picturers always regarded cameras as just a do-hickie: a means to an end."
You would be an amateur photographer (yes, amateurs can still be called amateurs even when on a shoe-string budget) rather than a picturer. I am "only" (though to be derisive about such a thing is to misunderstand) a picturer. I have no interest in the art of photography but I would like to have a keepsake to help remember that time I climbed a mountain. However, to call me "some dork with a camera" is unfair to me. It is not my intent to make great art, only to have a memento of the past that I can show others.
So can we stop being pompous jerks about photography so that I don't get chided for having poor composition skills and not understanding what f-stops are for?
If it's trivial to disable the governor then... it's trivial to disable the governor. The only way it'll actually affect driving is if it's not trivial to disable, in which case it wouldn't be a simple operation on track days.
Also, in general the speedo cable is the part that sends the speed to the cabin. If you want to make a secondary speedo cable for the governor, then what happens when /that/ fails?
You also completely failed to address what I think was the most salient point I brought up -- a study which states that the vast majority of fatal accidents (for the subset studied -- which is most likely the vast majority of fatal accidents. I didn't go too far into reading the comparison of the subset in the study to /all/.) occur at under 45 MPH.
I don't find that a governor is of significant value compared to proper traffic engineering instead.
Or have diabetes. http://www.duianswer.com/library/diabetes-can-give-an-inaccurate-bac-reading.cfm
Here's a simple issue: Some people drive their street vehicles where US traffic laws do not apply. How do you allow for that behavior while enforcing the need for a governor?
What about when your speedo dies because your car is old and now your governor can't tell how fast you're going? Should the car be unlimited or should it no longer work? If you have no limit now you're incentivizing people to have cars where they can't determine the speed they're going easily. If it's non-functional you now how to get your car towed to the shop at additional cost.
Not to mention the fact that adding one more interlock adds one more point of failure. What if that failure occurs while on the highway?
Also, this does nothing to stop someone from going 70 in a 20 MPH school zone. According to this report: http://members.optusnet.com.au/carsafety/paine_impact_speeds_jan07.pdf half of fatal car accidents (front-impact, with seatbelts) occur at less than 30 MPH. Only 10% occur over 45 MPH.
So maybe just limiting cars to the maximum speed limit won't really help all that much. But it'll surely add in some new points of failure.
Obviously, absent a method to fire said bullet a bullet is the wrong tool to use to kill someone. That doesn't mean that other tools are unsuitable, however. All of them, though, require some human intervention in order to make it murder or manslaughter. (As opposed to something like a rock slide killing some one, of course.)
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill. The issue arises when it is used against a person unlawfully, not when it is created. To willfully ignore that is to sidestep the debate in an attempt to declare victory based on assertion rather than actual discussion.
But we want them to work out their muscles, not their vocabulary of racial slurs.
Go on strike, watch it crumble, I presume.
> Furthermore, how would you not riot over your government doing something like that to you?
Because the citizens are told (and some believe) that other countries are doing worse to their citizens.
Users don't necessarily require new features or functionality, just that existing features and functionality not be removed.