Anything that makes it safer for older drivers to keep driving will make it safer for all drivers to keep driving. An 18 year old shouldn't be looking at the dashboard or road signe any more than necessary. In fact, there isn't a single argument that isn't equally valid for drunk drivers as it is for older drivers. The point isn't to make it easier for drivers who have lost the ability to drive safely to keep driving. The point is to assess all drivers, of all ages and walks of life, on an ongoing basis, based on current technogy, to make certain they still have the physical and mental skills necessary to meet the current requirements for a license. This is just a dodge to A) make money, and B) court the AARP vote.
"The truth is, some university students are going to have the desire to hack something."
The truth is, some university students are going to have the desire to light things on fire, too. How many buildings do we let them practice on before we arrest him?
The truth is, the kid broke the law, and it is nearly inconceivable that he didn't know it at the time he did it. For every hacker they know about, there may well be at least one more they don't know about. But for every hacker they crucify, there will be dozens who think twice before breaking the law.
But the stray neutrons (or other energetic particles, depending on the reaction) are the real problem with fusion as a power source.
That actually depends on what your fuel source is. The common science fair level project uses hydrogen (not deuterium, even), and produces, IIRC, neutrons. There are other fuels possible, and some don't produce much of anything nasty. IIRC, Lithium 3 on one side and Lithium 4 on the other produces stable helium isotopes, and electricity, and absolutely nothing else.
There are still issues with fuel that misses other fuel striking internal components of the reaction chamber, which can produce some radioactivity, but getting to the self-sustaining point will also greatly reduce this sorts of unwanted collisions and ther resulting radioactive byproducts.
No, this really works as advertised. It's a high school science faire level of complexity and cost (if you're willing to deal with stray neutrons). For practical reasons, it can't be made to produce more energy than it consumes, is all. The principles have been known since the 20s. Robert Bussard (of Bussard Ramjet fame) had patents on it.
No string theory needed. The reason it takes more power than it produces is that the fuel collides with stuff other than just other fuel, like anodes and cathodes needed to make the fusion happen.
That is the way it should be. We as a nation (assuming you are in the US, and this may be true elsewhere) do a poor job of placing principles ahead of profit. It is unhealthy for the economy, I believe, because it leads to shoddy products and consumer hostile practices. It is detrimental to employee morale, which I think is a significant underlying component of the general malaise and lack of consumer confidence.
If it's bad for the economy, and pisses off your customers, then you haven't placed profit ahead of principles. You've placed an incorrect perception of profit - an error - ahead of both principles and real profit. And if it really is more profitable, then that means the public - the customer - doesn't actually have a problem with it, and you have placed both profit and the princples that matter - the customers principles - ahead of your own principles. And that's how it should be, since the "you" in question is virtually always an employee of a corporation, not an owner - a shareholder. It is virutally impossible to even find a situation in which real profits and the principles that actually matter are in conflict. Any perception to the contrary is, ultimtaely, an error. If the customers approve enough to give you their money, you have lived up to their principles.
There are no hard decisions in business. You know the right thing to do. There are only decisions you don't want to make.
So, in 20 years, we'll have various forms of mind control, so we can force immortal (available in 20 years) enemy soldiers to steal the (available in 20 years) fusion powered (available in 20 years) flying cars (available in 20 years) and attack the space elevator (available in 20 years) that supplies our permanent colonies on the moon (available in 20 years)?
if you willingly sign a contract that contained a non-complete clause . ..
On the other hand, if the company willingly offers a contract they know cannot be enforced because of provisions that are specifically illegal, that's perfectly OK, eh?
This isn't new or obscure law. Non-compete clauses have been unenforcable in California for a long time. The company knew this when they wrote that boilerplate contract, and chose to break the law.
So, the basic complaint is that instead of using these cameras to catch people who break one particular law, they'll be used to catch people who break many laws. And that's a bad thing, eh?
As to the DHS wanting an archive of your activity, well, so what? What you do in public places, like on a road, is not private now, and never has been. It's always been legal for the cops to track where you go in public places. This is no different.
Cops framing people for things they didn't do isn't a problem with the technology they use, it's a problem with corrupt cops. Don't like it? Get off your lazy, stupid ass and get invovled in local politics, where one person *can* make a difference. Don't think you can? Then you deserve to be a slave.
Granted, hate speech is a somewhat subjective issue,
What body is going to decide what exactly is hate speech on the Internet?
Oddly enough, there is a body whose job is to determine the facts on matters that are somewhat subjective, and alledged to be harmful. That body is called "a jury."
That statement was spun to make it sound like they were back doors, when in reality this was likely done for no other reason than to facilitate emergency maintenance.
From what I can see, this was done for no other reason than to facilitate Child's not having to share his toys with the other children. Had he documented his work in a professional manner, there were other admins who could do anything on site that he could do remotely. It wasn't about having access remotely, it was about keeping other admins out of his sand box.
Really...so basically these people didn't document ANYTHING.
If the press coverage is accurate (heh), then "these people" are Childs. And his purpose in not documenting anything was specifically to prevent anyone else from being able to gain any kind of administrative access to his network. Except is isn't his network, it's the city's, and part of his job is documentation.
If the press coverage is even close to accurate, this guy belongs in prison.
Sure. As long as I, and only I, get to decide who gets the license and who doesn't. Remember, the country is currently run by jeezmoid fantatics who believe - literally - in forced breeding.
Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly.
Sure. With a very precise definition of what constitutes "getting help," which will involve getting it from some government office (who else could we trust?). Said office will be open 24 hours a day in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, and one hour a month in poor, mostly non-white neighborhoods. Of course.
End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
Unless, of course, you are a man, in which case you obviously should have no responsibility whatsoever for where you dip your wick. (Yes, that is exactly what you just said - live with the results, but only if you are a woman.)
Oh, and, BTW, get ready for the tax increases, since all those women will be on welfare. Except, of course, you'd rather let them literally starve. I mean, really, it's not like women are people or anything, right?
Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?
Hold the parents responsible in exactly what way? Put them in prison? More tax increases. Plus, more tax increases to take care of their other kids.
Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents.
Which is to say, more taxes. Lots more taxes. And, if so many parents aren't capable of raising their kids properly, where are you going to find social workers who can? If we can train social workers to raise other people's kids, why can't we use the same money to train parents to raise their own, and then no pay them middle class wages for the rest of their working lives?
But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.
You appaerently want to put more people in prison. Then, you turn around and decry how many people are in prison.
"We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."
And we, the public, are disappointed that our public servants are to goddamn stupid that they think COPA had any chance of accomplishing that.
If the source is obviously not credible, it doesn't matter what lies they make up. And if the source is obviously not credible, anybody who believes it is stupid, and not worth my time.
I mean, really, if there's a woman out there who wouldn't date me because my name appears in a fake profile on a scam dating site (and they're all scams), then quite honestly, she's too stupid for me to be interested in anyway.
When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.
The reason most Firefox users use the most up to date version is that it's the only way to get rid of the annoying pop-ups.
professional poker is a psychological game. Unless the computer has the feeling of anxiety it will have an edge.
Poke is almost entirely a game of skill, not chance, at professional levels. The average dufus at his weekend poker game will play for luck. Professionals play the other players. A computer has no tells, and can't read them in a human player. The computer therefore has a distince edge against the amateur, and a distinct disadvantage against the pro.
What I find impressive is the fact it lost in the past. It would also be interesting to see what it can do with some sort of lie detector software.
The only lie detector that has any hope of working - as you should know, if you read/. - is a professional poker player.
The base price on the cheap PCs isn't going to change much. The XP they're offering is XP Pro, not XP Home. The older XP PCs have always been priced with XP Home.
In other words, what used to cost $100 (upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro) is not $50 (upgrade from Vista to XP Pro).
XP Home, unfortunately, looks to no longer be available at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything that makes it safer for older drivers to keep driving will make it safer for all drivers to keep driving. An 18 year old shouldn't be looking at the dashboard or road signe any more than necessary. In fact, there isn't a single argument that isn't equally valid for drunk drivers as it is for older drivers. The point isn't to make it easier for drivers who have lost the ability to drive safely to keep driving. The point is to assess all drivers, of all ages and walks of life, on an ongoing basis, based on current technogy, to make certain they still have the physical and mental skills necessary to meet the current requirements for a license. This is just a dodge to A) make money, and B) court the AARP vote.
"The truth is, some university students are going to have the desire to hack something."
The truth is, some university students are going to have the desire to light things on fire, too. How many buildings do we let them practice on before we arrest him?
The truth is, the kid broke the law, and it is nearly inconceivable that he didn't know it at the time he did it. For every hacker they know about, there may well be at least one more they don't know about. But for every hacker they crucify, there will be dozens who think twice before breaking the law.
But the stray neutrons (or other energetic particles, depending on the reaction) are the real problem with fusion as a power source.
That actually depends on what your fuel source is. The common science fair level project uses hydrogen (not deuterium, even), and produces, IIRC, neutrons. There are other fuels possible, and some don't produce much of anything nasty. IIRC, Lithium 3 on one side and Lithium 4 on the other produces stable helium isotopes, and electricity, and absolutely nothing else.
There are still issues with fuel that misses other fuel striking internal components of the reaction chamber, which can produce some radioactivity, but getting to the self-sustaining point will also greatly reduce this sorts of unwanted collisions and ther resulting radioactive byproducts.
No, this really works as advertised. It's a high school science faire level of complexity and cost (if you're willing to deal with stray neutrons). For practical reasons, it can't be made to produce more energy than it consumes, is all. The principles have been known since the 20s. Robert Bussard (of Bussard Ramjet fame) had patents on it.
No string theory needed. The reason it takes more power than it produces is that the fuel collides with stuff other than just other fuel, like anodes and cathodes needed to make the fusion happen.
We'll be using IPv6 to run our fusion powered, flying cars to go to the moon?
That is the way it should be. We as a nation (assuming you are in the US, and this may be true elsewhere) do a poor job of placing principles ahead of profit. It is unhealthy for the economy, I believe, because it leads to shoddy products and consumer hostile practices. It is detrimental to employee morale, which I think is a significant underlying component of the general malaise and lack of consumer confidence.
If it's bad for the economy, and pisses off your customers, then you haven't placed profit ahead of principles. You've placed an incorrect perception of profit - an error - ahead of both principles and real profit. And if it really is more profitable, then that means the public - the customer - doesn't actually have a problem with it, and you have placed both profit and the princples that matter - the customers principles - ahead of your own principles. And that's how it should be, since the "you" in question is virtually always an employee of a corporation, not an owner - a shareholder. It is virutally impossible to even find a situation in which real profits and the principles that actually matter are in conflict. Any perception to the contrary is, ultimtaely, an error. If the customers approve enough to give you their money, you have lived up to their principles.
There are no hard decisions in business. You know the right thing to do. There are only decisions you don't want to make.
So, in 20 years, we'll have various forms of mind control, so we can force immortal (available in 20 years) enemy soldiers to steal the (available in 20 years) fusion powered (available in 20 years) flying cars (available in 20 years) and attack the space elevator (available in 20 years) that supplies our permanent colonies on the moon (available in 20 years)?
The future's looking bright!
if you willingly sign a contract that contained a non-complete clause . . .
On the other hand, if the company willingly offers a contract they know cannot be enforced because of provisions that are specifically illegal, that's perfectly OK, eh?
This isn't new or obscure law. Non-compete clauses have been unenforcable in California for a long time. The company knew this when they wrote that boilerplate contract, and chose to break the law.
So, the basic complaint is that instead of using these cameras to catch people who break one particular law, they'll be used to catch people who break many laws. And that's a bad thing, eh?
As to the DHS wanting an archive of your activity, well, so what? What you do in public places, like on a road, is not private now, and never has been. It's always been legal for the cops to track where you go in public places. This is no different.
Cops framing people for things they didn't do isn't a problem with the technology they use, it's a problem with corrupt cops. Don't like it? Get off your lazy, stupid ass and get invovled in local politics, where one person *can* make a difference. Don't think you can? Then you deserve to be a slave.
I would submit that you are the new poster child for the pussification of America.
Granted, hate speech is a somewhat subjective issue,
What body is going to decide what exactly is hate speech on the Internet?
Oddly enough, there is a body whose job is to determine the facts on matters that are somewhat subjective, and alledged to be harmful. That body is called "a jury."
That statement was spun to make it sound like they were back doors, when in reality this was likely done for no other reason than to facilitate emergency maintenance.
From what I can see, this was done for no other reason than to facilitate Child's not having to share his toys with the other children. Had he documented his work in a professional manner, there were other admins who could do anything on site that he could do remotely. It wasn't about having access remotely, it was about keeping other admins out of his sand box.
Really...so basically these people didn't document ANYTHING.
If the press coverage is accurate (heh), then "these people" are Childs. And his purpose in not documenting anything was specifically to prevent anyone else from being able to gain any kind of administrative access to his network. Except is isn't his network, it's the city's, and part of his job is documentation.
If the press coverage is even close to accurate, this guy belongs in prison.
Licenses and education required for breeding.
Sure. As long as I, and only I, get to decide who gets the license and who doesn't. Remember, the country is currently run by jeezmoid fantatics who believe - literally - in forced breeding.
Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly.
Sure. With a very precise definition of what constitutes "getting help," which will involve getting it from some government office (who else could we trust?). Said office will be open 24 hours a day in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, and one hour a month in poor, mostly non-white neighborhoods. Of course.
End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
Unless, of course, you are a man, in which case you obviously should have no responsibility whatsoever for where you dip your wick. (Yes, that is exactly what you just said - live with the results, but only if you are a woman.)
Oh, and, BTW, get ready for the tax increases, since all those women will be on welfare. Except, of course, you'd rather let them literally starve. I mean, really, it's not like women are people or anything, right?
Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?
Hold the parents responsible in exactly what way? Put them in prison? More tax increases. Plus, more tax increases to take care of their other kids.
Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents.
Which is to say, more taxes. Lots more taxes. And, if so many parents aren't capable of raising their kids properly, where are you going to find social workers who can? If we can train social workers to raise other people's kids, why can't we use the same money to train parents to raise their own, and then no pay them middle class wages for the rest of their working lives?
But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.
You appaerently want to put more people in prison. Then, you turn around and decry how many people are in prison.
"We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."
And we, the public, are disappointed that our public servants are to goddamn stupid that they think COPA had any chance of accomplishing that.
Slydial erodes and cheapens genuine human interaction . . .
No, what erodes and cheapens genuine human interaction is being so boring that your friends would rather talk to your voicemail than to you.
Dude, you're the one getting defensive. The truth isn't always warm and fuzzy.
If the source is obviously not credible, it doesn't matter what lies they make up. And if the source is obviously not credible, anybody who believes it is stupid, and not worth my time.
It really is an IQ test. You didn't pass.
I mean, really, if there's a woman out there who wouldn't date me because my name appears in a fake profile on a scam dating site (and they're all scams), then quite honestly, she's too stupid for me to be interested in anyway.
When Microsoft has shit flashing on the screen automatically to remind you to do updates, it's evil intrusion in to one's privacy. But when Firefox does exactaly the same thing, they're God's gift to enlightenment.
The reason most Firefox users use the most up to date version is that it's the only way to get rid of the annoying pop-ups.
professional poker is a psychological game. Unless the computer has the feeling of anxiety it will have an edge.
Poke is almost entirely a game of skill, not chance, at professional levels. The average dufus at his weekend poker game will play for luck. Professionals play the other players. A computer has no tells, and can't read them in a human player. The computer therefore has a distince edge against the amateur, and a distinct disadvantage against the pro.
What I find impressive is the fact it lost in the past. It would also be interesting to see what it can do with some sort of lie detector software.
The only lie detector that has any hope of working - as you should know, if you read /. - is a professional poker player.
Is this a subtle way of announcing that Fark ran out of Obvious tags?
The mobile hotspot, called UConnect Web, would be the first such technology from any automaker."
That would be because it's a bad idea and other automakesare aren't as stupid.
The base price on the cheap PCs isn't going to change much. The XP they're offering is XP Pro, not XP Home. The older XP PCs have always been priced with XP Home.
In other words, what used to cost $100 (upgrade from XP Home to XP Pro) is not $50 (upgrade from Vista to XP Pro).
XP Home, unfortunately, looks to no longer be available at all.