Fair enough, especially as I *was* trying to be a smart ass in the original comment:). As I recall, insomuch as I avoid Windows like the plague but still have to use it in corporate environments, there was some overlap in services (or perhaps just confusion), but I've been known to be wrong.
It was a smart-ass comment, but this is somewhat like pointing out that one version of Outlook is entirely different and data-incompatible with another version of Outlook... the distinction is largely lost for the average user trying to deal with the crud that MS hoists on its users.
I see you've gotten the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure version of history, no doubt from some place such as the Oakland Public Schools. I suggest you read on.
FWIW, why not mount the tablet on a gooseneck arm with a magnetic mount, when not carrying? (That's what I do-- FWIW, Google Nexus 7 is my choice for most things, 10" for some, iPad, mostly too heavy... iPod touch mounted at 3" is pretty interesting as a monitor, but you're not going to annotate anything on it...)
Or to cite, for the non-close (as in "not in the ballpark") reader:
"You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot. "
>the article you linked actually says that if you're on PUBLIC property, you can take pictures of things you can see
It does say that. That's not all it says, is it?
>Also US laws do not apply to Canada.
Thank you for that brilliant addition. However it happens to be entirely irrelevant to the point I was making in the general discussion, or, really, the actual prevailing law and practices in Canada.
Except that the page you link to makes no clarification of whether this applies in public accomodation and not purely private contexts. In public accomodation, the individual derives a right to be in the space due to its public nature, which is greater that on property under purely private use.
It's 9:30 am. Your specially programmed Wake-Me-Up nymphbot crawls on top of your sleeping body and begins to wiggle in an attempt to wake you up. Sleepily, you press a snooze button embedded in the interior of your right index finger, and she returns to sleep mode, snuggling warmly on top of you. Another ten minutes go by, and she again wiggles, this time more vigourously, in an attempt to get you to rise.
It seems to me. you severely underestimate the consequences of the next Carrington Event. Even discounting fires and the like, I'd guess urban and associated populations will have no food supply within 3-4 weeks (cf. Russian Revolution post-period, etc.) My guestimate would thus be human population at 5-10% of pre-event levels at t=1 year after the Event.
Or, you split potable-quality from non-potable quality water, (perhaps with on-the-spot filtering & recycling of things like shower water, though it's not necessary). Quite simple, really-- you should try some time on a kibbutz:).
>Fifteen years from now, your alarm goes off at 7:30 AM,
When I was in my twenties, we had a manager who insisted that IT folks under her make it in by 10am. The first time three of us got paged at 2am and were still in the NOC at 10am, she rolled back on this.
>pulling you out of a dead sleep. You roll over, grumbling a command, and the alarm obediently shuts up. You drift off again, but ten minutes later the alarm returns, more insistent.
My current sleep monitor, unlke this proposed future one, is actually intelligent and doesn't try to wake me from dead sleep (which has negative consequences). It waits until I'm between sleep cycles, then GENTLY chirps...
>It won't be so easily pacified this time; the loose sensory netting inside your pillow will keep the noise going until it detects alpha waves in drastically higher numbers than theta waves.
Again, silly. Why would an advanced device keep trying to disrupt your sleep patterns, instead of gently nudging?
> Or until it gets the automated password from the shower. Sighing, you roll out of bed, pull your Computing ID (CID) card from the alarm unit,
Sigh. Someone already mentioned, an ID card is SO 1980s.
>and stumble out of the bedroom. Pausing briefly to drop your CID into your desktop computer, you make your way to the shower and begin washing. Your alarm triggered the shower's heating unit, so the water comes out at a pleasant 108 degrees, exactly your preference. (42 degrees, you remind yourself — the transition to metric
Someone already mentioned: the US? Metric? Is some other country on Imperial Units, and going to convert?
>still isn't second nature, after almost two full years.) You wash quickly to avoid exceeding your water quota,
Water quota?!? Are you friggin' kidding? Any civilized nation that faces freshwater shortage, will simply separate potable (drinking) water from other uses. There's not going to be a shortage of water to shower with etc., and if there was, there'd likely be a revolt in most of the US.
>and step out refreshed, ready to meet the day.
After a short shower? The writer clearly is in his/her 20s and hasn't aged 15 years yet. When the writer is 15 years older, they'll likely find that a long, hot shower is the only way they can get their muscles halfway untensed for the day-- followed by stretches (I assume a tech lifestyle, ie, staring at six monitors all day).
I leave taking apart the silliness of the rest of the paragraphs, as an exerice for the reader.
All agree on the above, though I've known a few people who were great at balancing both. My point was that 'sucess' should not be measured solely in terms of the research itself, but activities that broadly contribute to the advancement of science/knowledge.
Well... my first semester Physics experience, which was quite fortunate, was 10 students for 6 hours of class a week, plus 6-10 hours of lab, in Morely's old basement facilty, taught by a theoritcian and an experimentalist, with a dedicated TA and an undergrad assistant.
Only 3 of us became professional physicists; one of us, works in theatre. But each of us derived E=mc^2 from experiment on our own-- that's great teaching, which you can't do on your own. We learned how to think; we learned that we could solve difficult problems, on our own-- but of course, with a lot of help and guidance over our shoulders in that case.
For me, the ultimate lesson was a sort of arrogance-- the arrogance to take on any problem apace, to beat my head against the brick wall again and again, until a solution was found. It was about what we could do if we applied ourselves-- what we could get done and acheive.
In fact that course often took 30 and sometimes 40 hours in a week. But the lesson-- persistence and that hours are necessary and you get results if you put them in, with a good dash of compentence and knowledge-- has been much of my life since.
Even if that has meant sleeping on a cot in the office for weeks on end, to get the job done, "whatever it takes," as John Walker at AutoDesk succinctly put it.
OK-- back to work! Just wanted to point out, that great teaching, teaching which teaches you to teach yourself, has a place, and furthers scientific endeavor beyond what is measured by just "publication."
Ah, nah, what was I thinking. Whether someone produces future scientists or students who know science, doesn't matter one bit. Let's continue to fetishize publication, and the system of duchies it rests on!
>'I bought and sold FB shares as a TRADE, not an investment.... It wasn't the fault of the FB CFO that I lost money. It was my fault. [N]o one sells me shares of stock because they expect the price of the stock to go up.... That is the way the stock market works. [Y]ou look for the sucker. When you don't see one, it's you. In this case it was me.'
Well, it used to be, that when you bought a stock you made an investment... a long-term one, which required a belief that the joint-stock company that you were allocating resources to had some product, a business plan, and some chance at profitability which would recoup and even yield dividends on the investment.
Today, instead of that relatively rational process, it is about getting short-term gains (profits) without work, and finding suckers to hand money to When you sit at the trading terminal you. This rewards foolishness and hype, such as Facebook, and denies resources to the most worthwhile and rational pursuits.
In short, it means the sharks have made suckers out of all of us. Witness housing meltdown, financial meltdown, and so forth. It's a system whose fundamental flaws have been allowed to grow, until they've now taken over from what good was once done.
> If there is no entity enforcing a right, then you do not have it, as simple as that.
That seems to me a slipperly slope, and a dangerous one at that. The counterargument is that the *right* still exists, and it is up to individuals or civil societies, to force its recognition. Else you fall down the slope to "oh, ok, the right doesn't exist because no one will enforce it, so forget about it."
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough, especially as I *was* trying to be a smart ass in the original comment :). As I recall, insomuch as I avoid Windows like the plague but still have to use it in corporate environments, there was some overlap in services (or perhaps just confusion), but I've been known to be wrong.
That is all.
It was a smart-ass comment, but this is somewhat like pointing out that one version of Outlook is entirely different and data-incompatible with another version of Outlook... the distinction is largely lost for the average user trying to deal with the crud that MS hoists on its users.
After 100 million installs of Shoot the Messenger [www.grc.com/stm/shootthemessenger.htm], it's about time.
>I mean, even if America get the minting of quadrillion-dollar plutonium ingot going, the world doesn't have to "buy" it.
Yes it does. Period. USD is default currency. US can spend whatever it wants; you can't run out of pins in a bowling alley.
I indeed hope this was sarcase: Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
I see you've gotten the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure version of history, no doubt from some place such as the Oakland Public Schools. I suggest you read on.
To paraphrase Doug Lenat: machine translation is bogus.
FWIW, why not mount the tablet on a gooseneck arm with a magnetic mount, when not carrying? (That's what I do-- FWIW, Google Nexus 7 is my choice for most things, 10" for some, iPad, mostly too heavy... iPod touch mounted at 3" is pretty interesting as a monitor, but you're not going to annotate anything on it...)
Or to cite, for the non-close (as in "not in the ballpark") reader:
"You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot. "
>the article you linked actually says that if you're on PUBLIC property, you can take pictures of things you can see
It does say that. That's not all it says, is it?
>Also US laws do not apply to Canada.
Thank you for that brilliant addition. However it happens to be entirely irrelevant to the point I was making in the general discussion, or, really, the actual prevailing law and practices in Canada.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
Just to clarify the reality here, guys.
Except that the page you link to makes no clarification of whether this applies in public accomodation and not purely private contexts. In public accomodation, the individual derives a right to be in the space due to its public nature, which is greater that on property under purely private use.
It's 9:30 am. Your specially programmed Wake-Me-Up nymphbot crawls on top of your sleeping body and begins to wiggle in an attempt to wake you up. Sleepily, you press a snooze button embedded in the interior of your right index finger, and she returns to sleep mode, snuggling warmly on top of you. Another ten minutes go by, and she again wiggles, this time more vigourously, in an attempt to get you to rise.
It seems to me. you severely underestimate the consequences of the next Carrington Event. Even discounting fires and the like, I'd guess urban and associated populations will have no food supply within 3-4 weeks (cf. Russian Revolution post-period, etc.) My guestimate would thus be human population at 5-10% of pre-event levels at t=1 year after the Event.
Unless we do something, of course ;)
Or, you split potable-quality from non-potable quality water, (perhaps with on-the-spot filtering & recycling of things like shower water, though it's not necessary). Quite simple, really-- you should try some time on a kibbutz :).
>But before I get in teh shower I'll jump on Slashdot to try and get first post. Some things never change!
Crap! You just reminded me that I should get in the shower and stop reading /. !
Let's take it apart:
>Fifteen years from now, your alarm goes off at 7:30 AM,
When I was in my twenties, we had a manager who insisted that IT folks under her make it in by 10am. The first time three of us got paged at 2am and were still in the NOC at 10am, she rolled back on this.
>pulling you out of a dead sleep. You roll over, grumbling a command, and the alarm obediently shuts up. You drift off again, but ten minutes later the alarm returns, more insistent.
My current sleep monitor, unlke this proposed future one, is actually intelligent and doesn't try to wake me from dead sleep (which has negative consequences). It waits until I'm between sleep cycles, then GENTLY chirps...
>It won't be so easily pacified this time; the loose sensory netting inside your pillow will keep the noise going until it detects alpha waves in drastically higher numbers than theta waves.
Again, silly. Why would an advanced device keep trying to disrupt your sleep patterns, instead of gently nudging?
> Or until it gets the automated password from the shower. Sighing, you roll out of bed, pull your Computing ID (CID) card from the alarm unit,
Sigh. Someone already mentioned, an ID card is SO 1980s.
>and stumble out of the bedroom. Pausing briefly to drop your CID into your desktop computer, you make your way to the shower and begin washing. Your alarm triggered the shower's heating unit, so the water comes out at a pleasant 108 degrees, exactly your preference. (42 degrees, you remind yourself — the transition to metric
Someone already mentioned: the US? Metric? Is some other country on Imperial Units, and going to convert?
>still isn't second nature, after almost two full years.) You wash quickly to avoid exceeding your water quota,
Water quota?!? Are you friggin' kidding? Any civilized nation that faces freshwater shortage, will simply separate potable (drinking) water from other uses. There's not going to be a shortage of water to shower with etc., and if there was, there'd likely be a revolt in most of the US.
>and step out refreshed, ready to meet the day.
After a short shower? The writer clearly is in his/her 20s and hasn't aged 15 years yet. When the writer is 15 years older, they'll likely find that a long, hot shower is the only way they can get their muscles halfway untensed for the day-- followed by stretches (I assume a tech lifestyle, ie, staring at six monitors all day).
I leave taking apart the silliness of the rest of the paragraphs, as an exerice for the reader.
>1) They could answer charge and have it dismissed in favor of moving it to a Federal court.
At which point they'd have to pay $455 to file and hire a lawyer, while you can still self-represent. Sounds good to me.
All agree on the above, though I've known a few people who were great at balancing both. My point was that 'sucess' should not be measured solely in terms of the research itself, but activities that broadly contribute to the advancement of science/knowledge.
Well... my first semester Physics experience, which was quite fortunate, was 10 students for 6 hours of class a week, plus 6-10 hours of lab, in Morely's old basement facilty, taught by a theoritcian and an experimentalist, with a dedicated TA and an undergrad assistant.
Only 3 of us became professional physicists; one of us, works in theatre. But each of us derived E=mc^2 from experiment on our own-- that's great teaching, which you can't do on your own. We learned how to think; we learned that we could solve difficult problems, on our own-- but of course, with a lot of help and guidance over our shoulders in that case.
For me, the ultimate lesson was a sort of arrogance-- the arrogance to take on any problem apace, to beat my head against the brick wall again and again, until a solution was found. It was about what we could do if we applied ourselves-- what we could get done and acheive.
In fact that course often took 30 and sometimes 40 hours in a week. But the lesson-- persistence and that hours are necessary and you get results if you put them in, with a good dash of compentence and knowledge-- has been much of my life since.
Even if that has meant sleeping on a cot in the office for weeks on end, to get the job done, "whatever it takes," as John Walker at AutoDesk succinctly put it.
OK-- back to work! Just wanted to point out, that great teaching, teaching which teaches you to teach yourself, has a place, and furthers scientific endeavor beyond what is measured by just "publication."
Ah, nah, what was I thinking. Whether someone produces future scientists or students who know science, doesn't matter one bit. Let's continue to fetishize publication, and the system of duchies it rests on!
Let's just repeat this, with some editing down:
>'I bought and sold FB shares as a TRADE, not an investment. ... It wasn't the fault of the FB CFO that I lost money. It was my fault. [N]o one sells me shares of stock because they expect the price of the stock to go up. ... That is the way the stock market works. [Y]ou look for the sucker. When you don't see one, it's you. In this case it was me.'
Well, it used to be, that when you bought a stock you made an investment... a long-term one, which required a belief that the joint-stock company that you were allocating resources to had some product, a business plan, and some chance at profitability which would recoup and even yield dividends on the investment.
Today, instead of that relatively rational process, it is about getting short-term gains (profits) without work, and finding suckers to hand money to When you sit at the trading terminal you. This rewards foolishness and hype, such as Facebook, and denies resources to the most worthwhile and rational pursuits.
In short, it means the sharks have made suckers out of all of us. Witness housing meltdown, financial meltdown, and so forth. It's a system whose fundamental flaws have been allowed to grow, until they've now taken over from what good was once done.
Could you cite statute or precedent or applicable common law or such to back that up? Counter a tort claim?
I didn't think so. But thanks for playing.
> If there is no entity enforcing a right, then you do not have it, as simple as that.
That seems to me a slipperly slope, and a dangerous one at that. The counterargument is that the *right* still exists, and it is up to individuals or civil societies, to force its recognition. Else you fall down the slope to "oh, ok, the right doesn't exist because no one will enforce it, so forget about it."