Offtopic, but in "I am legend", the monster was in fact the last human, in a weird reversal of the vampire's legend (a monster that kills at daytime, just because).
MZ is right. In FB, I configured it right from the start into "sociopath/paranoid mode", and slowly opened myself to the web from there. In G+, everything is open from day 0. Yuck!
If talking to other passengers is so common and accidents are not, I wouldn't include it in your sarcasm since it's obvious that the problem is elsewhere. As for the rest, do you know what they have in common, besides the 10%> part? You had only one hand on the steering wheel. Wow, what a weird idea, who would have thought that using just one hand on a dangerous situation would add more risk?
A lot of posts are coming that just say "You can't eliminate distractive element X!", implying that because a problem can't be removed it can't be mitigated. So, because we'll never have a law against LED on rotating gyroscopes all over your car and noise rock, we shouldn't enact this cell phone law.
It's funny how smart people can be ridiculous at times, but I guess it's the human condition...:P
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
In that case, then yes, we should authorize them. The key part is that, in the end, answering an SMS is displaying a problem controlling your vehicle. If you are unconvinced, there's a study about it. RTFA.
Really, is it really a huge leap of faith to think that having a mobile phone in your hand and talking, or reading/writing an SMS, is detrimental to your attention, which should be concentrated in driving?
I'll lose my invested modpoint, but I can't let this juicy pass.:)
An instant is more like a tenth of a second, not a millisecond. Obviously, there's two orders of magnitude, but in human terms both are extremely short intervals. To lose attention for a millisecond, your muscles have to move and return, both actions requiring something like 100 milliseconds (otherwise, interpretations in prestissimo would be impossible). So we end up with 201 milliseconds if you want to look at other place just for that interval.
Both 100 or 201 are a literal blink. But to continue with your example, let's use the shorter one, just for the sake of the argument. Your 3.35 centimeters turn into... 3 meters. So GP poster is still right.
You nailed it. Predictive policing is stupid, a fancy name for crime prevention, and unless they think of crime as a symptom of an underlying problem (like the one you stated), they have reached a dead end. Moreover, this kind of crime is biased against lower class crimes. Predition: They will implement it, and in five years they will be surprised to know that crime levels haven't went down.
The problem was in the plants' design. If you don't want to modify your existing facilities or build redesigned ones, and would rather invest that money in wind & solar or just buy energy from another country that will update its nuclear power plants, then sure, it's reasonable to phase them out in ten years.
Advise: your sig is empty, why not putting your virtuoso's page on your sig? They do have a page, don't they? Even a MySpace (or should I say My____:P) will do, as long as their songs are being heard. Also, if they have there some means to receive cash, they can, as people here say, at least beat inflation.
Don't argue with him. Have you checked the username? TheThiefMaster This fella knows what he's talking about.;)
Now, seriously, he's right. You got it all the way around: preventing distribution from other sources is the motivation; them trampling on your right to private copy is the side effect.
I would think RIAA would demand 3D scanner be illegal to own or operate as it is a device designed to circumvent "copy protection" known as "obsolescence."
Past DMCA rulemakings by the Register of Copyrights show a pattern of deeming obsolescence a valid exception to anticircumvention laws.
Is this the legal basis for NES/SNES emulators, for example?
Research labs always marvel me because of this strange dance that they do with patents and science. I've worked with people from IBM Research, I can see now what's in a patent. After this disclaimer, I'm clear to go:) -> This is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the one from my employer.
Patents are, at least in principle, a great weapon against industrial espionage. They work by, ironically, publishing your secrets to the world and gaining, in exchange, a monopoly on the design. But you *have to* have a design, otherwise the system just doesn't work. Those big companies don't patent every single dreamed idea, otherwise the problem today would be immensely worse: we would be drowning in an almost-literal patent sea, and the system would have collapsed on its own weight a few years ago (which hasn't happened). So, instead, there's the situation we have now, more or less workable.
A common workflow: you do R you know some idea is either viable or not (although you work on something that looks worthy, the project cemetery is quite big:) ); assuming that you found something useful, you submit your project to a few people, from now on the Great Old Ones (once, I was one of them:) ); assuming that your project is cool enough (it's not blatantly obvious, it's novel, it's useful, it can make money some way, you have means to know someone is infringing your patent and protect it, etc.), the Great Old Ones may or may not decide to pay the cost of a patent for your project.
So, what should be the norm, at least from the point of view of those corporations? Before you work on something you check the bloody patent index. If you find something related to whatever you want to do, either build something slightly different, or sign a contract with the pricks that got there first (if it's a great idea, someone's bound to come up with the same thing; sadly, that someone was you).
There are a few problems today. Patents trolls (which exist), patent litigations (which are proliferating), abusive patent royalties (which leave the little ones behind), ambiguous filings (which I, I'm afraid, can't offer a solution for, because language is ambiguous by definition). A solution would be to impose a fixed royalty (assume 0.5 % of total related sales) to be paid to the owner company, cheaper patent registration fees, and shorter patent duration (essentially, I'm proposing devaluing the whole thing). A possible alternative for this solution that would work really well with copyright is a quadratic-growing year-to-year fee (cheap to buy, expensive to keep year-to-year, and after you stop payments it's on the public domain).
So at the end of the day, if the US decides to use it's power over MS to get information from servers located in Europe, the EU will sue the hell out of MS for knowingly violating privacy laws... Sounds like a loose/loose situation for MS:)
The fact is you either get security at the cost of freedom, or freedom at the cost of security.
You make it sound as it's all or nothing, or that they are substantial increments/decrements: this is clearly not the case. The freedom to walk in the cockpit has a negligible value and the risks averted are huge: that's what makes a great security solution great.
No amount of precautions and countermeasures will prevent the worst from happening; just like with computers and viruses.
So? This is an excuse. Just like "people make mistakes, so it's unreasonable that we achieve 0 defects". You can work on prevention by design, so that people follow procedures that save them from screwing up, or use tools/programs that won't lead them to a situation where they would screw up. Yeah, shit happens, but happening as infrequently as possible (virtually 0) is the best you can do.
Doing damage is the easiest thing to accomplish, but prevention is a very inefficient, resource burning measure. Not saying any amount of prevention is necessarily wrong in itself, but it goes to prove my point.
I hope you aren't a programmer: test cases are cheap and prevent regressions and shipping faulty code, and the resource efficiency is HUGE; continuous integration has a little more cost but prevents the "second visit to install whatever was missing the first time" and combined with test cases it has a HUGE impact on productivity. As for 9/11, a simple locked cockpit would have sufficed and compared to the current cost of the TSA it's just pennies. Doing damage is easy, but doing real damage requires either massive amounts of luck or, unsurprisingly, systemic failures. So, it doesn't go to prove your point.
We don't give them that expectation today, and they are not more responsible. Thing is, regular users think they are sitting in front of a capricious machine, just as likely to explode as to do everything right. Nobody gave them the idea that it's safe: they assumed everything is dangerous and fail-prone so they eventually stop caring.
Having an OS that doesn't trust you is great for them. Just not for us, geeks or tinkers.
Slashdot Mirror
Offtopic, but in "I am legend", the monster was in fact the last human, in a weird reversal of the vampire's legend (a monster that kills at daytime, just because).
It depends on how you define those groups, but the group of people that uses violence is Hobbes' leviathan.
MZ is right. In FB, I configured it right from the start into "sociopath/paranoid mode", and slowly opened myself to the web from there. In G+, everything is open from day 0. Yuck!
If talking to other passengers is so common and accidents are not, I wouldn't include it in your sarcasm since it's obvious that the problem is elsewhere. As for the rest, do you know what they have in common, besides the 10%> part? You had only one hand on the steering wheel. Wow, what a weird idea, who would have thought that using just one hand on a dangerous situation would add more risk?
A lot of posts are coming that just say "You can't eliminate distractive element X!", implying that because a problem can't be removed it can't be mitigated. So, because we'll never have a law against LED on rotating gyroscopes all over your car and noise rock, we shouldn't enact this cell phone law.
It's funny how smart people can be ridiculous at times, but I guess it's the human condition... :P
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
In that case, then yes, we should authorize them. The key part is that, in the end, answering an SMS is displaying a problem controlling your vehicle. If you are unconvinced, there's a study about it. RTFA.
Really, is it really a huge leap of faith to think that having a mobile phone in your hand and talking, or reading/writing an SMS, is detrimental to your attention, which should be concentrated in driving?
I'll lose my invested modpoint, but I can't let this juicy pass. :)
An instant is more like a tenth of a second, not a millisecond. Obviously, there's two orders of magnitude, but in human terms both are extremely short intervals. To lose attention for a millisecond, your muscles have to move and return, both actions requiring something like 100 milliseconds (otherwise, interpretations in prestissimo would be impossible). So we end up with 201 milliseconds if you want to look at other place just for that interval.
Both 100 or 201 are a literal blink. But to continue with your example, let's use the shorter one, just for the sake of the argument. Your 3.35 centimeters turn into... 3 meters. So GP poster is still right.
How do you know?
You nailed it. Predictive policing is stupid, a fancy name for crime prevention, and unless they think of crime as a symptom of an underlying problem (like the one you stated), they have reached a dead end. Moreover, this kind of crime is biased against lower class crimes. Predition: They will implement it, and in five years they will be surprised to know that crime levels haven't went down.
Wat.
The problem was in the plants' design. If you don't want to modify your existing facilities or build redesigned ones, and would rather invest that money in wind & solar or just buy energy from another country that will update its nuclear power plants, then sure, it's reasonable to phase them out in ten years.
Advise: your sig is empty, why not putting your virtuoso's page on your sig? They do have a page, don't they? Even a MySpace (or should I say My____ :P) will do, as long as their songs are being heard. Also, if they have there some means to receive cash, they can, as people here say, at least beat inflation.
Nice link to have!
<>pI agree with you, . This is a terrivble idea!<>/p
Don't argue with him. Have you checked the username? TheThiefMaster This fella knows what he's talking about. ;)
Now, seriously, he's right. You got it all the way around: preventing distribution from other sources is the motivation; them trampling on your right to private copy is the side effect.
I would think RIAA would demand 3D scanner be illegal to own or operate as it is a device designed to circumvent "copy protection" known as "obsolescence."
Past DMCA rulemakings by the Register of Copyrights show a pattern of deeming obsolescence a valid exception to anticircumvention laws.
Is this the legal basis for NES/SNES emulators, for example?
Research labs always marvel me because of this strange dance that they do with patents and science. I've worked with people from IBM Research, I can see now what's in a patent. After this disclaimer, I'm clear to go :) -> This is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the one from my employer.
Patents are, at least in principle, a great weapon against industrial espionage. They work by, ironically, publishing your secrets to the world and gaining, in exchange, a monopoly on the design. But you *have to* have a design, otherwise the system just doesn't work. Those big companies don't patent every single dreamed idea, otherwise the problem today would be immensely worse: we would be drowning in an almost-literal patent sea, and the system would have collapsed on its own weight a few years ago (which hasn't happened). So, instead, there's the situation we have now, more or less workable.
A common workflow: you do R you know some idea is either viable or not (although you work on something that looks worthy, the project cemetery is quite big :) ); assuming that you found something useful, you submit your project to a few people, from now on the Great Old Ones (once, I was one of them :) ); assuming that your project is cool enough (it's not blatantly obvious, it's novel, it's useful, it can make money some way, you have means to know someone is infringing your patent and protect it, etc.), the Great Old Ones may or may not decide to pay the cost of a patent for your project.
So, what should be the norm, at least from the point of view of those corporations? Before you work on something you check the bloody patent index. If you find something related to whatever you want to do, either build something slightly different, or sign a contract with the pricks that got there first (if it's a great idea, someone's bound to come up with the same thing; sadly, that someone was you).
There are a few problems today. Patents trolls (which exist), patent litigations (which are proliferating), abusive patent royalties (which leave the little ones behind), ambiguous filings (which I, I'm afraid, can't offer a solution for, because language is ambiguous by definition). A solution would be to impose a fixed royalty (assume 0.5 % of total related sales) to be paid to the owner company, cheaper patent registration fees, and shorter patent duration (essentially, I'm proposing devaluing the whole thing). A possible alternative for this solution that would work really well with copyright is a quadratic-growing year-to-year fee (cheap to buy, expensive to keep year-to-year, and after you stop payments it's on the public domain).
So at the end of the day, if the US decides to use it's power over MS to get information from servers located in Europe, the EU will sue the hell out of MS for knowingly violating privacy laws... Sounds like a loose/loose situation for MS :)
More like a tight/tight situation. ;)
It was a pleasant surprise to see a large and articulated text instead of the usual summary.
I disagree.
The fact is you either get security at the cost of freedom, or freedom at the cost of security.
You make it sound as it's all or nothing, or that they are substantial increments/decrements: this is clearly not the case. The freedom to walk in the cockpit has a negligible value and the risks averted are huge: that's what makes a great security solution great.
No amount of precautions and countermeasures will prevent the worst from happening; just like with computers and viruses.
So? This is an excuse. Just like "people make mistakes, so it's unreasonable that we achieve 0 defects". You can work on prevention by design, so that people follow procedures that save them from screwing up, or use tools/programs that won't lead them to a situation where they would screw up. Yeah, shit happens, but happening as infrequently as possible (virtually 0) is the best you can do.
Doing damage is the easiest thing to accomplish, but prevention is a very inefficient, resource burning measure. Not saying any amount of prevention is necessarily wrong in itself, but it goes to prove my point.
I hope you aren't a programmer: test cases are cheap and prevent regressions and shipping faulty code, and the resource efficiency is HUGE; continuous integration has a little more cost but prevents the "second visit to install whatever was missing the first time" and combined with test cases it has a HUGE impact on productivity. As for 9/11, a simple locked cockpit would have sufficed and compared to the current cost of the TSA it's just pennies. Doing damage is easy, but doing real damage requires either massive amounts of luck or, unsurprisingly, systemic failures. So, it doesn't go to prove your point.
Patnts are an artifact of your imagination.
Just like constitutional rights. So?
He wasn't the same after the antitrust trial.
We are really good at reinventing the wheel. :)
"If you don't learn from the past, it'll repeat itself", or something like that.
Yeah! I thought the same. "Ha! They made a funny! Wait, something's wrong... oh, it's just a typo."
I don't buy it
Almost no one buys SPAM-advertised products. That's the cause of SPAM's decline.
We don't give them that expectation today, and they are not more responsible. Thing is, regular users think they are sitting in front of a capricious machine, just as likely to explode as to do everything right. Nobody gave them the idea that it's safe: they assumed everything is dangerous and fail-prone so they eventually stop caring.
Having an OS that doesn't trust you is great for them. Just not for us, geeks or tinkers.