We still use lead in some electrical solder, although it is rather discouraged today. Most old electronics, therefor, contain led in their circuitry and thus have a chance of releasing it when they are disposed of. Some vehicle's windshields have lead embedded into the glass. Exercise equipment can sometimes contain lead weights.
It pops up all over the place. It's not quite as harmful, though, if you aren't burning it.
Which seems very odd, since this issue has existed in essentially the same way for at least 50 years. No new laws that I know of are relevant. Technology hasn't progressed and changed the context that frames this issue. This is just the court of today saying that they know better than the court of yesterday. Perhaps they are saying that the bill of rights has lost its persuasive power over time and now the convenience of police is a more relevant test.
The implication that the bill of rights is old news in the mind of the new supreme court is very disturbing indeed.
I am not sure that an arrest and then a release qualifies as illegal. After all, one would assume that there was a suspicion of a crime somewhere. The police could easily say they were arresting the person for questioning.
I am also not sure that it couldn't be argued that each time they asked for permission that it wasn't in fact a separate incident.
It seems to me that this could be interpreted to allow the following scenario: A police informant runs out of gas in front of your house. You let him in to use your phone so he can get a ride. The police then mysteriously show up wanting in. You tell them no but from behind you the informant yells "come right in."
Is that legal? Who knows.. now someone has to take it to court.
What's with this supreme court no-a-days? They seem to think that it's their job just to rewrite the law whenever they choose. What upsets me is that this isn't some new issue in which technology has changed the nature of society. This is an old issue with an established procedure. This scenario would have been just as relevant in the 1950s, but the court at the time would have never ruled this way.
Look at it this way: would you give a toddler a pair of crutches in order to teach him to walk?
That is an astonishingly bad analogy given the popularity of toddler walkers and the fact that every child while learning to walk starts buy pulling themselves up next to something and scooting along it's length.
Or maybe it's a really good analogy, just a bad argument. That sounds more like it to me.
The idea here is that when a significant portion of the internet population has 100mb/s connections then web site owners will start building services that cater to those people and require that quick of a connection. This will leave the people that are wayyy on the other side of the curve that much further behind. There is not analogous effect in real estate, i.e. if 10% more of the population has larger houses then it doesn't eventually make your small house less functional.
Anyway, I disagree with your argument but not with your point. I think a better analogy would have been car ownership. It's very hard to get around and keep a job (outside of the inner city) without a car. The infrastructure of our society has become so dependent on cars that only the very poor don't have one. However, if anyone seriously tried to argue that making better cars was promoting the class divide they would be laughed at. It misses the point.
Wall-Mart already tracks the location of everything on their shelf using RFID. They just don't give that data to consumers. So basically they agree with you: Right now it is more useful to store owners than to consumers. However, this is just a more detailed version of GPS. Many people have already let go of their ability to find their way around town without the help of their phone maps. Given a strong enough push many users would probably give up their ability to find their way around a supermarket as well.
Just imagine how great the world will be once we all rely on technology to such an extent that without it we are totally helpless. How can you not find that appealing?
Good point. Time synchronization would be something of a hurdle. However it seems like a solve-able problem since we ARE talking about a device that can send and receive signals wirelessly in order to synchronize. Guess and check works pretty well for this, i.e. packet 1: "I think you are receiving this at 1:17:36.455667" packet 2 "it was 0.0003 seconds fast."
Being able to transmit more strongly is all well and good, but the phone can only send using so much juice. If you turn up the power of the phone too much it will just get in the way of other phones' transmission like they do now.
Still, half of a solution is better than nothing, I suppose.
You have a golden opportunity here if it ever comes up. You can ask if it would have made the car more or less like porn if it was wearing more clothes.
And now car manufactures have to put in the manual that their car is not intended to be driven by people with funny accents. And driving with children in the car that may start crying will make the vehicle uncontrollable?
It's ironic that you named your message "Epic Fail."
Imagine if this sort of technology was within reason to implement. Police of all kinds would jump on the chance to forbid others from taking pictures and allowing their own pictures. Riot squads would love it. There would be one of these devices on the front of every cop car.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to introduce you to my "friends."
Say hello from me.
What a fantastic idea! By switching to a well understood standard it will finally make our vehicles trivial to hack!
Ohh.. wait.. maybe that isn't such a good thing? *shrug*
Well I look forward to the day in which I no longer have to call a taxi, I can just take out my laptop and make one drive to my location.
Lead in food leads to neurological disorders, retarding intelligence, impairing motor functions, etc.
I refuse to let the validity of your facts detract from the validity of my humor.
*ring ring*
Hello? Mr D? Are you there?
Ohh.. that's right.. it became a problem.
And you died. Oops.
We still use lead in some electrical solder, although it is rather discouraged today. Most old electronics, therefor, contain led in their circuitry and thus have a chance of releasing it when they are disposed of. Some vehicle's windshields have lead embedded into the glass. Exercise equipment can sometimes contain lead weights.
It pops up all over the place. It's not quite as harmful, though, if you aren't burning it.
That's great. Awesome. Knowing your profession is neat too, from a completely random stranger's point of view. Which I am.
These things are scavengers that roam over a wide area. That kind of organism is difficult to farm.
Not so.. Whales almost went extinct. Salmon are still heading that way.
Litmus test doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Which seems very odd, since this issue has existed in essentially the same way for at least 50 years. No new laws that I know of are relevant. Technology hasn't progressed and changed the context that frames this issue. This is just the court of today saying that they know better than the court of yesterday. Perhaps they are saying that the bill of rights has lost its persuasive power over time and now the convenience of police is a more relevant test.
The implication that the bill of rights is old news in the mind of the new supreme court is very disturbing indeed.
I am not sure that an arrest and then a release qualifies as illegal. After all, one would assume that there was a suspicion of a crime somewhere. The police could easily say they were arresting the person for questioning.
I am also not sure that it couldn't be argued that each time they asked for permission that it wasn't in fact a separate incident.
What case? Certainly the arrests would never hold up in court, but they were never the point. It seems that the search would now hold up in court.
Yes, you can specify any conditions you want. Better if you do it in writing though or it's your word against an officer's.
It seems to me that this could be interpreted to allow the following scenario: A police informant runs out of gas in front of your house. You let him in to use your phone so he can get a ride. The police then mysteriously show up wanting in. You tell them no but from behind you the informant yells "come right in."
Is that legal? Who knows.. now someone has to take it to court.
What's with this supreme court no-a-days? They seem to think that it's their job just to rewrite the law whenever they choose. What upsets me is that this isn't some new issue in which technology has changed the nature of society. This is an old issue with an established procedure. This scenario would have been just as relevant in the 1950s, but the court at the time would have never ruled this way.
Look at it this way: would you give a toddler a pair of crutches in order to teach him to walk?
That is an astonishingly bad analogy given the popularity of toddler walkers and the fact that every child while learning to walk starts buy pulling themselves up next to something and scooting along it's length.
Or maybe it's a really good analogy, just a bad argument. That sounds more like it to me.
Then why does your bitcoin purse have 100 coins in it?
The idea here is that when a significant portion of the internet population has 100mb/s connections then web site owners will start building services that cater to those people and require that quick of a connection. This will leave the people that are wayyy on the other side of the curve that much further behind. There is not analogous effect in real estate, i.e. if 10% more of the population has larger houses then it doesn't eventually make your small house less functional.
Anyway, I disagree with your argument but not with your point. I think a better analogy would have been car ownership. It's very hard to get around and keep a job (outside of the inner city) without a car. The infrastructure of our society has become so dependent on cars that only the very poor don't have one. However, if anyone seriously tried to argue that making better cars was promoting the class divide they would be laughed at. It misses the point.
Wall-Mart already tracks the location of everything on their shelf using RFID. They just don't give that data to consumers. So basically they agree with you: Right now it is more useful to store owners than to consumers. However, this is just a more detailed version of GPS. Many people have already let go of their ability to find their way around town without the help of their phone maps. Given a strong enough push many users would probably give up their ability to find their way around a supermarket as well.
Just imagine how great the world will be once we all rely on technology to such an extent that without it we are totally helpless. How can you not find that appealing?
Good point. Time synchronization would be something of a hurdle. However it seems like a solve-able problem since we ARE talking about a device that can send and receive signals wirelessly in order to synchronize. Guess and check works pretty well for this, i.e. packet 1: "I think you are receiving this at 1:17:36.455667" packet 2 "it was 0.0003 seconds fast."
Being able to transmit more strongly is all well and good, but the phone can only send using so much juice. If you turn up the power of the phone too much it will just get in the way of other phones' transmission like they do now.
Still, half of a solution is better than nothing, I suppose.
You have a golden opportunity here if it ever comes up. You can ask if it would have made the car more or less like porn if it was wearing more clothes.
And now car manufactures have to put in the manual that their car is not intended to be driven by people with funny accents. And driving with children in the car that may start crying will make the vehicle uncontrollable?
It's ironic that you named your message "Epic Fail."
lol, it's a display with a big red button on the dash.
Imagine if this sort of technology was within reason to implement. Police of all kinds would jump on the chance to forbid others from taking pictures and allowing their own pictures. Riot squads would love it. There would be one of these devices on the front of every cop car.
Ahh.. but it still costs 5 times as much.