"So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger? Or someone trying to find the right station on the radio. Or smoking a cigarette (assuming you are not just hanging the butt from your mouth and letting it ash all down your front.) Or trying to shush their screaming kid in the back seat. Or fishing around in a bag of fast food for a hamburger. Or trying to tip the last bit of coffee out of your spill-proof mug. Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system. Or attempting to decipher driving directions scribbled on a napkin. Or listening to their books on tape." Good point! I think we need a bunch of specific laws that cover every imaginable activity other than driving a car, while sitting in the driver's seat of a moving vehicle.
"I have done it, many times. I read blogs, email, etc. on my phone, studied for tests, read magazines, and so forth while driving too. I even change clothes -- everything except my boxers -- while driving. I've done so regularly for years. And how many accidents have I had? Zero."
The increased risk might be drowned out by the quantization step between wreck/no wreck. Something can be risky without always causing a wreck (I hate the euphemism "accident" for things that happen due to negligence). A better judge of any impairment of your driving is other drivers/pedestrians, not yourself. How can you accurately judge that when your attention is already on driving and these other activities?
"They fine people $101 for not wearing a seatbelt, which is only risking the lives of those in the car[...]" It really only puts the non-wearer in danger. The real reason for the law is probably to reduce medical costs to uninsured people who didn't wear seatbelts. And perhaps so family members will have less of a chance of losing loved ones.
Trusted here of course means that the device does not trust you, the buyer. But you have to trust the device if you want to use it, even though it's not at all worthy of it.
No shit. Awful headline. I guess it's supposed to mean "Google shareholders reject censorship-[related] proposal", but is adding "anti-" such a big deal?
And who the hell would want to wear out their expensive-to-replace/fix Wii with DVDs when they can use their cheap-to-replace DVD player (which has a better remote/features anyway)?
"[...] but they are surely interested that the current viewer has bought lots of computer hardware (thus you might be able to sell some new stuff to him), and shows mainly interest to Linux (don't waste advertising space for Windows products)."
"They" in this case refers to the web session on their server. This isn't a person examining your stats, just a machine. The things the marketing people generally look at are aggregates, not individuals. Though I guess you do have a point that they must be storing your individual information so that the machine can personalize a time-wasting-enablement (i.e. ads) web page design.
There's a fundamental difference between a company doing demographics, and the government spying on citizens. The company doesn't care about any person in particular, just common trends, and simply changes how they design/market their products. At worst, it means they can more effectively sell you junk you don't need. The government's use of data is pretty much the opposite.
People seem to think that if you put a button near a door but label it "not related to this door" that it won't still get mistaken for a door opening button. Proper placement would communicate its purpose without words. You'd still label it, but the label itself wouldn't be the only indication of its true purpose, and it wouldn't be contradictory to its apparent positioning. This is a common thing in user-interface design, where you can either define unintended actions as user errors, or as design errors in the interface. The former gives you something to criticize, while the latter description gives you reason to improve. Ultimately we are stuck with user behavior, whether careless or careful, so the only improvement will come by accommodation rather than blame.
Hey, that's the solution to the other guy's problem of not being able to skip back to check something, then skip back forward: you can only fast-forward over the show itself, not the commercials.
"According to the article, you can only be held liable if 1) they (the government) react as if it were a real emergency, 2) you are aware of their overreaction, and 3) you fail to tell them that it is not a real emergency."
So the real terrorists just tell the government that it's fake, and would they please end their response so you can get on without their interference?
It's kind of like the term "negative benefits". "We're giving you the choice of restriction!" You just have to twist your mind into the right state to make sense of it.
"Reminds me of the time when Luke Skywalker [...] was asked if he wanted a new droid to replace the busted R2D2, he outright refused! [...] let them keep their robot buddies after the war as personal assistants [...] If Luke Skywalker could, why can't they?"
Let's start with the fact that Luke Skywalker is fiction...
The purpose of insurance is to protect against large unpredictable costs in the future. By spreading out the burden, the unpredictability is effectively turned into a small predictable cost for everyone. If genetic testing can predict what one's costs will be in the future, then one either needs to save up funds for this likely future expense. To make this fit the insurance model, you'd have to pay a single sum before conception, when the person's genes are still unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
"So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger? Or someone trying to find the right station on the radio. Or smoking a cigarette (assuming you are not just hanging the butt from your mouth and letting it ash all down your front.) Or trying to shush their screaming kid in the back seat. Or fishing around in a bag of fast food for a hamburger. Or trying to tip the last bit of coffee out of your spill-proof mug. Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system. Or attempting to decipher driving directions scribbled on a napkin. Or listening to their books on tape."
Good point! I think we need a bunch of specific laws that cover every imaginable activity other than driving a car, while sitting in the driver's seat of a moving vehicle.
"I have done it, many times. I read blogs, email, etc. on my phone, studied for tests, read magazines, and so forth while driving too. I even change clothes -- everything except my boxers -- while driving. I've done so regularly for years. And how many accidents have I had?
Zero."
The increased risk might be drowned out by the quantization step between wreck/no wreck. Something can be risky without always causing a wreck (I hate the euphemism "accident" for things that happen due to negligence). A better judge of any impairment of your driving is other drivers/pedestrians, not yourself. How can you accurately judge that when your attention is already on driving and these other activities?
"They fine people $101 for not wearing a seatbelt, which is only risking the lives of those in the car[...]"
It really only puts the non-wearer in danger. The real reason for the law is probably to reduce medical costs to uninsured people who didn't wear seatbelts. And perhaps so family members will have less of a chance of losing loved ones.
Another misused word is "incredible".
Trusted here of course means that the device does not trust you, the buyer. But you have to trust the device if you want to use it, even though it's not at all worthy of it.
"Hardcore Trek fans may know 40 Eridani as the star associated with the planet Vulcan."
Unfortunately, hardcore Trek fans don't know that the planet Vulcan is fictional.
No shit. Awful headline. I guess it's supposed to mean "Google shareholders reject censorship-[related] proposal", but is adding "anti-" such a big deal?
And who the hell would want to wear out their expensive-to-replace/fix Wii with DVDs when they can use their cheap-to-replace DVD player (which has a better remote/features anyway)?
You could print the lines interleved and use an overlay consisting of alternating white and clear horizontal lines. Not very practical though.
This reminds me of R.D. Laing's interesting book Knots , where he uses indention to clarify structure.
"[...] but they are surely interested that the current viewer has bought lots of computer hardware (thus you might be able to sell some new stuff to him), and shows mainly interest to Linux (don't waste advertising space for Windows products)."
"They" in this case refers to the web session on their server. This isn't a person examining your stats, just a machine. The things the marketing people generally look at are aggregates, not individuals. Though I guess you do have a point that they must be storing your individual information so that the machine can personalize a time-wasting-enablement (i.e. ads) web page design.
Spend half an hour fiddling with cables because the display isn't properly decrypting the content stream.
Thank you for being the first with the true meaning of the acronym. I was hoping we'd have a good replacement for Digital Restrictions Management.
There's a fundamental difference between a company doing demographics, and the government spying on citizens. The company doesn't care about any person in particular, just common trends, and simply changes how they design/market their products. At worst, it means they can more effectively sell you junk you don't need. The government's use of data is pretty much the opposite.
People seem to think that if you put a button near a door but label it "not related to this door" that it won't still get mistaken for a door opening button. Proper placement would communicate its purpose without words. You'd still label it, but the label itself wouldn't be the only indication of its true purpose, and it wouldn't be contradictory to its apparent positioning. This is a common thing in user-interface design, where you can either define unintended actions as user errors, or as design errors in the interface. The former gives you something to criticize, while the latter description gives you reason to improve. Ultimately we are stuck with user behavior, whether careless or careful, so the only improvement will come by accommodation rather than blame.
Hey, that's the solution to the other guy's problem of not being able to skip back to check something, then skip back forward: you can only fast-forward over the show itself, not the commercials.
It's both: the land of opportunity for litigation and bullshit.
"According to the article, you can only be held liable if 1) they (the government) react as if it were a real emergency, 2) you are aware of their overreaction, and 3) you fail to tell them that it is not a real emergency."
So the real terrorists just tell the government that it's fake, and would they please end their response so you can get on without their interference?
"We need some severe curtailment of corporate privileges. Immediately."
Corrected that for you. Corporations can't have rights since they aren't people.
"Sorry what is being "given" to viewers here?"
It's kind of like the term "negative benefits". "We're giving you the choice of restriction!" You just have to twist your mind into the right state to make sense of it.
"Reminds me of the time when Luke Skywalker [...] was asked if he wanted a new droid to replace the busted R2D2, he outright refused! [...] let them keep their robot buddies after the war as personal assistants [...] If Luke Skywalker could, why can't they?"
Let's start with the fact that Luke Skywalker is fiction...
1. Buy calendar
2. Mark date that license has to be renewed
3. Renew license when that date arrives
3. ???
4. No loss of spectrum!!!
Seriously, anyone who pays monthly bills generally figures out a simple, cheap system like this. Nothing to remember except checking the calendar.
1. Phish the old fashioned way
2. Set aside $50,000 to register phishing.bank
3. Phish the new way
4. Profit!!!
or
1. Propose new TLD and charge $50,000 per registration
2. Wait for banks to fall for it
3. Profit!!!
"As long as a signifigant portion of the population doesn't take even basic steps to protect themselves phishing will be a prevalent problem."
As long as the banks make all members pay for successful phishing, rather than the individual careless customer, it will be a problem.
If you nano-squint just nano-right, you can nano-see the nano-structures. Nano is the latest fad, nano-don't you know!
The purpose of insurance is to protect against large unpredictable costs in the future. By spreading out the burden, the unpredictability is effectively turned into a small predictable cost for everyone. If genetic testing can predict what one's costs will be in the future, then one either needs to save up funds for this likely future expense. To make this fit the insurance model, you'd have to pay a single sum before conception, when the person's genes are still unknown.