TFA links to the National Federation for the Blind's article about this topic. Here's the most relevant snippet:
>> While there are no national data on pedestrian injuries or deaths related to low-noise cars...
Ok - guys: get some data!
This is just plain ridiculous to pass a law based on a mere assumption that quiet cars might cause a problem. If someone can prove that this is a plague upon the nation - great; pass the law. But otherwise this is a fake problem.
I've owned a civic hybrid and a prius. Neither were really noticeably quieter (even when the prius was operating electric only) than your typical accord / camry.
Does anyone have any data at all anywhere showing the increased incident rate for quiet cars? I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure it's not there.
Well, with most hybrids, the electric motor actually provides the most benefits between 1-12 mph. A lot of fuel is generally wasted getting a car from - 15 mph & that's why how hybrids are able to save on consumption.
So killing the motor at those speeds would really render a lot of hybrids less efficient.
Hey dude - people only pay for MS licensing if it makes business sense. I can assure you that if there were some better, cheaper alternative - companies would use it. A corporation's job is to make money, period. If there's a way for a business to make more money & it involved never buying another piece of software from MS, they would.
Corporations don't love Microsoft, they don't love paying for stuff. But in a market-based economy, people and corporations are willing to pay for something that adds value.
So either everyone who buys software from Microsoft is stupid, or maybe you just are missing a few pieces to the puzzle.
>This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.
Not thrilled about the web, eh? Hmm. I'm not sure this is the web's fault, to be honest.
If you pay attention to the comment you're replying to, you'll notice the post didn't suggest that all data be accessible by any and all unknown 3rd parties. But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data. That _is_ reasonable. Just like when you walk into a brick-and-mortar H&R block to do you tax return: H&R Block has access to your data too. There are privacy laws to prevent them from doing bad things with the data. But if you give info to any company, on the web or otherwise, they have access to your data.
I've been doing the MS/Cisco consulting thing for a while now and this is a big sticking point for a lot of people. I manage a group of about 40 IT people, all of whom are interested in different ways of furthering their careers. To be 100% honest, most of them have told me that actual training classes are usually a waste. Not _always_, but usually. The best way for them to learn/advance their skill has been just on-the-job training. (working with other knowledgable people is a close second).
It seems like the tech industry is a sink-or-swim kinda place. No one really starts out knowing what they are doing; they just plow ahead & figure stuff out. Only after spending a lot of time figuring things out (the best kind of experience you can get) do the IT training classes seem to help. Training seems to be a good way to get a little better at something that you are already good at. Learning IT stuff straight from a book or an instructor usually doesn't cut it. Don't get me wrong - it's important for your company to help you get better at your job, but I just don't think the traditional "go to class" way is the best. My advice is to try and spend some time during the day with people that do know something about the technology you're working with. If you are the only one that has any semblance of a clue, then it seems like you've got nothing to lose by learning on the job.
And to address your point about after-hours learning: yeah, pretty much if you want to be good, you'll have to put in some at-home time. But the thing is... you should like the stuff enough to enjoy doing it at home. If you don't enjoy it enough to be doing some afterhours work, then maybe, like you said, you may not be in the right field. It's too dynamic & fast-moving an industry to not be willing to learn new things & a lot of the learning does tend to happen after work.
It can definitely put a strain on home/family life - it's just one of those careers.
I was kinda thinking the same thing: photographing criminals seems like a more cost-effective way of "taking action". In which case, you don't really need a robot - you can just have mounted cameras at problem areas, much like the city of Chicago is doing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s02-usgn.ht ml). More effecient & WAY less scary than building robots to hunt people down.
I realize that you are leading me way off topic, but I thought I would at least bother to ask: have you listend to NPR in the past 6 months? Most of the reporting has to do with Iraq, the supreme court, scandals (plenty about the CPB scandal, too) and the way too much freakin' hurricane coverage. I'm a huge NPR fan, but dammit enough hurricane coverage!!
Believe it or not, NPR will provide you a hell of a lot more info about what's going on in the world and the country than most news stations cause they skip the majority of the tabloid, sensationalist trashy stuff that local stations thrive on. Yeah, you can bitch and moan that it further left than Fox news, but honestly: it's 99% solid reporting about actual news.
This stupid RPG story was meant to be a lighter story to give a break from the serious stuff, that's all. And if you listen to a lot of NPR, you are usually grateful for the stories that change the pace.
If your tax dollars are being wasted, beleive me... it's not NPR that wasting the bulk of them. The entire lump sum of tax dollars going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for this year (http://www.house.gov/budget/laborhhs03.htm) is 360 million, compared to a total projected overal spending of 300-600 BILLION in iraq (multiple years, obviously), as well as projected 200 BILLION spent on Katrina (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm844.cfm). BTW - that's from the heritage foundation, generally known to be quite conservative people.
Not saying we shouldn't be in Iraq just saying that NPR doesn't cost you much comparatively.
Cisco Unity will do the trick for voicemail/e-mail integration. It works well and customers love it.
Cisco's call manager (their IP-based PBX) also can do the trick for being able to click on an outlook contact and make a call.
As far as being able to automatically assign a billing code and tie the callee's name to it... well that's a taller order. You would need to use a phone-based XML application to get the billing codes entered. The handy thing about the Cisco system is that the phones can run XML apps (open standard... can be developed by anyone that knows XML). So you, or a company that has XML developers, could write this functionality for you. A bit like writing an extension for the mozilla browser.
First, Avaya still does a ton of traditional PBX business - not only that, but they try to sell hybrid TDM/IP systems. All of Avaya is not preaching "TDM is dead".
But it is true, most of the major traditional PBX vendors (Avaya, Nortel, Siemens, Alcatel) are all putting tons and tons of $ in to R&D into IP based PBXs.
Cisco has shown that this IP-based model is more profitable in the long run for companies.
Believe me, traditional circuit-based ways of doing telephony are going away. TDM (time division multiplexing) is not an efficient way to do things. Hell, the Internet is the best example of why packet switching is more effective than dedicated circuits between end nodes.
Once you realize that your voice is just like your e-mail, your IM, your web traffic... it's just data! Why not route it like the rest of your data?
So a better way to look at it is: traditional TDM technology that establishes an end-to-end circuits is going bye bye.
PBX's (private branch exchanges) aren't going away soon. They existing ones will be replaced by more efficient IP-based ones.
It's less like the trading in your horse for a car and more like trading in your car with a carbeurator for a car with fuel-injection.
You are right to sound the BS alarm - this is pure BS, for a few reasons.
Disclaimer/Clarifier: I install/configure/troubleshoot VoIP and IP telephony for a living (Cisco's version). I do it all day everyday - this is one of the few slashdot stories I am qualified to post about. So indulge me:
First - almost all residential VoIP customers still are using analog phones. You plug your analog phone into a device that converts analog signal to IP. So you can't fubar an analog phone with a virus or send spam to it... it's just impossible. Could you fubar the converter? if you have no firewall or router - maybe with like a DoSS attack. But it won't accept random connections from another telephony device not registered with your telco's IP PBX
Second - every voip customer still has a regular phone number - 202.555.1212 or whatever. in order to reach me on my "VoIP phone" - you have to dial that number. You don't dial my IP address!! You dial my phone number, which goes to a T1, plugged into a Telco's router that sends the packets to my house that get converted from IP to analog by a device sitting behind my router/firewall. So everyone from the outside wishing to get to my "VoIP phone" needs to dial the number, just like any other phone.
Third - if you really have IP Telephony (not just VoIP, cause there is a big difference) you are only vulnerable to people on your same LAN/WAN - in otherwords someone needs access to your private network. And even then, they would need to register a device with your IP PBX and then trick it into letting you send pre-canned voice calls. In otherwords, this isn't possible. I'm sorry, it's just not.
If the entire POTS system goes away, and we all have IP phones and there is no more telephony as we know it and all our phones are on one giant, unprotected, unfirewalled network, then yes, you might be subject to SPIT. But I assure you, this won't happen for a long long long time./rant
Apple hasn't quite reached MS in its strictness with protecting IP, and for some reason we hold Apple to a higher standard, but at the end of the day - this is their stuff. They do have a right to keep people from reverse engineering it (I think).
It's not like firefox where it was designed for people to make it better with extensions. This is apple's own product, to be used as specified in the license agreement.
I am not absolving Apple here, clearly they have pissed off people by being sticklers. Why not recognize that its GOOD to have people modding the iPod? that can only help its sales. Why piss people off for no good reason? Dunno.
Me, I like the mozilla approach. It's the linux way of doing things. But until there is some sort of "open source iPod/iTunes" that can be freely twisted around - let's not get to bent out of shape. It's apple's stuff, they can get mad about issues like this - it's their right. That's life. If you don't like the way apple does things, let them know about it. Tell them that you won't use an iPod or iTunes because of their crappy 'tude.
I don't know of any distro that claims to be granny-proof, and FC is no exception.
However... Most of the common problems with Fedora aren't bad enough to require a boot back into windows. I think if you took a survey you'd find that most people, out of the box, can get keyboard, video, mouse, network and sound.
In my opinion, that's good enough to get started.
I am a hobbyist/enthusiast and have enjoyed the challenge of figuring out how to get USB scanners/printers, firewire, wireless networking etc. to function properly on my FC box.
I admit, I got my ass kicked when I tried to get Debian running and doing all those same things. That was a problem (found myself booting into RH to google for debian answers). But I just don't see that many people who can't get RH/FC working well enough. Just my 2 cents.
I agree there are many more benefits with IPT - that's why I do it for a living.
But ask people when the last time they rebooted their PBX or had a minute of downtime was.
The bottom line is: security/stability/features are a downside of Cisco's IPT solution and it keeps many people from buying it. More customers will by stable phone systems than video-enabled ones.
Why is it that cisco is cramming this new feature onto IP phones - one that people don't really want?
clarifier: I install cisco IPT for a living so this is just my 2 cents from the field...
Customers complain about: 1) the platform running on Win2k (bugs/virus/stability)
2)lack of traditional PBX features (yeah, they're getting there, but not quite to what a G3 has)
3) lack of support for adavanced security on the wireless phones
4) lack of a true operator console
The list goes on. Not once has anyone said "These phones are crap - there's no video phone!" nope - that's not what keeps people from buying them.
So why address the one thing that people AREN'T clamoring for?
Dunno. I like IPT, I like cisco, I think the Cisco IPT platform is the best by far. But if Cisco wants to take market share away from traditional phones then they should focus on adding critical features that users want/expect.
Yup - that's just what I was looking for. Thanks for the insight. My one basic gripe with Linux now is that there is too much inconsistency on the desktop.
But I am too worried about giving up all the "freedom" that Linux gives me. I guess it is an unsolvable double-edged sword. I like that it is configurable, I hate that I have to configure everything. Hmmm...
Anyway, I really appreciate your insight. Thanks for the feedback.
I am intrigued... what is it that has you switched back? I haven't used a Mac in a while (been happy with RH9/KDE) so I could use some solid info on what it does for ya.
After all these years, I still wonder two things: 1) why hasn't the Mac done better? 2) why hasn't the Mac died? I know the standard answer to why Mac is still around is "Small but loyal group of devotees", but I have trouble with that idea.
If it is good enough to inspire fanatical loyalty in some, why hasn't it been good enough to win over the rest of the world? And, having failed in winning over the world, how can apple still afford to be in the business?
Dunno. I always did like Macs, myself. Always met my needs.
I live in Oak Park, so let me shed some light. This town has a lot of well educated, socially concerned, and politcally involved citizens. This kind of crap happens any time the city/school board wants to do anything.
These parents are mostly intelligent people who have no clue about technology. But it makes sense to them that WiFi might be dangerous, so they want a thorough review. The school board tells them "we reviewed it, and it's safe" but the trial-lawyer parents and CFOs don't like to be brushed off, so they sue.
Like I said, this happens with any change in this town, be it making a street a one-way or putting up a new high-rise apartment complex.
Don't get fooled and think this lawsuit has a real technological base - it doesn't...it is just our village citizens bitching like they do about everything else.
The school board is not backing down and they won't turn off the WiFi. It won't cost much to win the lawsuit, because the claims have no actual merit. The studies that the plaintiffs site are not studies using 802.11 or 2.4 gHz technology - look it up. The studies refer to other wireless technology but not the kind being implemented at OPRF high school. The board has said as much and basically told this group: bring it on, you guys are idiots.
Seems to me that this database could only provide information that we already know... cause when someone does something really stupid like get a DUI or smoke up, it makes it into the news right away anyway.
Yeah, maybe with this database we can get credit card reciepts or ISP logs... what does that prove? that gov. employees watch porn or drink booze?? oh wait - so does everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA links to the National Federation for the Blind's article about this topic. Here's the most relevant snippet: >> While there are no national data on pedestrian injuries or deaths related to low-noise cars... Ok - guys: get some data! This is just plain ridiculous to pass a law based on a mere assumption that quiet cars might cause a problem. If someone can prove that this is a plague upon the nation - great; pass the law. But otherwise this is a fake problem. I've owned a civic hybrid and a prius. Neither were really noticeably quieter (even when the prius was operating electric only) than your typical accord / camry. Does anyone have any data at all anywhere showing the increased incident rate for quiet cars? I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure it's not there.
Well, with most hybrids, the electric motor actually provides the most benefits between 1-12 mph. A lot of fuel is generally wasted getting a car from - 15 mph & that's why how hybrids are able to save on consumption.
So killing the motor at those speeds would really render a lot of hybrids less efficient.
one word: library
Hey dude - people only pay for MS licensing if it makes business sense. I can assure you that if there were some better, cheaper alternative - companies would use it. A corporation's job is to make money, period. If there's a way for a business to make more money & it involved never buying another piece of software from MS, they would.
Corporations don't love Microsoft, they don't love paying for stuff. But in a market-based economy, people and corporations are willing to pay for something that adds value.
So either everyone who buys software from Microsoft is stupid, or maybe you just are missing a few pieces to the puzzle.
I laughed so hard when I read this. Thanks man, that was awesome.
>This is why I am not entirely thrilled about the web.
Not thrilled about the web, eh? Hmm. I'm not sure this is the web's fault, to be honest.
If you pay attention to the comment you're replying to, you'll notice the post didn't suggest that all data be accessible by any and all unknown 3rd parties. But what he/she says is that when you do your tax return online with TurboTax, they have access to your data. That _is_ reasonable. Just like when you walk into a brick-and-mortar H&R block to do you tax return: H&R Block has access to your data too. There are privacy laws to prevent them from doing bad things with the data. But if you give info to any company, on the web or otherwise, they have access to your data.
or, maybe more properly, Gnubuntu?
I've been doing the MS/Cisco consulting thing for a while now and this is a big sticking point for a lot of people. I manage a group of about 40 IT people, all of whom are interested in different ways of furthering their careers. To be 100% honest, most of them have told me that actual training classes are usually a waste. Not _always_, but usually. The best way for them to learn/advance their skill has been just on-the-job training. (working with other knowledgable people is a close second).
It seems like the tech industry is a sink-or-swim kinda place. No one really starts out knowing what they are doing; they just plow ahead & figure stuff out. Only after spending a lot of time figuring things out (the best kind of experience you can get) do the IT training classes seem to help. Training seems to be a good way to get a little better at something that you are already good at. Learning IT stuff straight from a book or an instructor usually doesn't cut it.
Don't get me wrong - it's important for your company to help you get better at your job, but I just don't think the traditional "go to class" way is the best. My advice is to try and spend some time during the day with people that do know something about the technology you're working with. If you are the only one that has any semblance of a clue, then it seems like you've got nothing to lose by learning on the job.
And to address your point about after-hours learning: yeah, pretty much if you want to be good, you'll have to put in some at-home time. But the thing is... you should like the stuff enough to enjoy doing it at home. If you don't enjoy it enough to be doing some afterhours work, then maybe, like you said, you may not be in the right field. It's too dynamic & fast-moving an industry to not be willing to learn new things & a lot of the learning does tend to happen after work.
It can definitely put a strain on home/family life - it's just one of those careers.
>More effecient & WAY less scary
Oops - i mean "efficient". Sorry, spelling freaks.
I was kinda thinking the same thing: photographing criminals seems like a more cost-effective way of "taking action". In which case, you don't really need a robot - you can just have mounted cameras at problem areas, much like the city of Chicago is doing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0730/p01s02-usgn.ht ml). More effecient & WAY less scary than building robots to hunt people down.
I realize that you are leading me way off topic, but I thought I would at least bother to ask: have you listend to NPR in the past 6 months? Most of the reporting has to do with Iraq, the supreme court, scandals (plenty about the CPB scandal, too) and the way too much freakin' hurricane coverage. I'm a huge NPR fan, but dammit enough hurricane coverage!!
m ). BTW - that's from the heritage foundation, generally known to be quite conservative people.
Believe it or not, NPR will provide you a hell of a lot more info about what's going on in the world and the country than most news stations cause they skip the majority of the tabloid, sensationalist trashy stuff that local stations thrive on. Yeah, you can bitch and moan that it further left than Fox news, but honestly: it's 99% solid reporting about actual news.
This stupid RPG story was meant to be a lighter story to give a break from the serious stuff, that's all. And if you listen to a lot of NPR, you are usually grateful for the stories that change the pace.
If your tax dollars are being wasted, beleive me... it's not NPR that wasting the bulk of them. The entire lump sum of tax dollars going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for this year (http://www.house.gov/budget/laborhhs03.htm) is 360 million, compared to a total projected overal spending of 300-600 BILLION in iraq (multiple years, obviously), as well as projected 200 BILLION spent on Katrina (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm844.cf
Not saying we shouldn't be in Iraq just saying that NPR doesn't cost you much comparatively.
Cisco Unity will do the trick for voicemail/e-mail integration. It works well and customers love it.
Cisco's call manager (their IP-based PBX) also can do the trick for being able to click on an outlook contact and make a call.
As far as being able to automatically assign a billing code and tie the callee's name to it... well that's a taller order. You would need to use a phone-based XML application to get the billing codes entered. The handy thing about the Cisco system is that the phones can run XML apps (open standard... can be developed by anyone that knows XML). So you, or a company that has XML developers, could write this functionality for you. A bit like writing an extension for the mozilla browser.
First, Avaya still does a ton of traditional PBX business - not only that, but they try to sell hybrid TDM/IP systems. All of Avaya is not preaching "TDM is dead".
But it is true, most of the major traditional PBX vendors (Avaya, Nortel, Siemens, Alcatel) are all putting tons and tons of $ in to R&D into IP based PBXs.
Cisco has shown that this IP-based model is more profitable in the long run for companies.
Believe me, traditional circuit-based ways of doing telephony are going away. TDM (time division multiplexing) is not an efficient way to do things. Hell, the Internet is the best example of why packet switching is more effective than dedicated circuits between end nodes.
Once you realize that your voice is just like your e-mail, your IM, your web traffic... it's just data! Why not route it like the rest of your data?
So a better way to look at it is: traditional TDM technology that establishes an end-to-end circuits is going bye bye.
PBX's (private branch exchanges) aren't going away soon. They existing ones will be replaced by more efficient IP-based ones.
It's less like the trading in your horse for a car and more like trading in your car with a carbeurator for a car with fuel-injection.
You are right to sound the BS alarm - this is pure BS, for a few reasons.
/rant
Disclaimer/Clarifier: I install/configure/troubleshoot VoIP and IP telephony for a living (Cisco's version). I do it all day everyday - this is one of the few slashdot stories I am qualified to post about. So indulge me:
First - almost all residential VoIP customers still are using analog phones. You plug your analog phone into a device that converts analog signal to IP. So you can't fubar an analog phone with a virus or send spam to it... it's just impossible. Could you fubar the converter? if you have no firewall or router - maybe with like a DoSS attack. But it won't accept random connections from another telephony device not registered with your telco's IP PBX
Second - every voip customer still has a regular phone number - 202.555.1212 or whatever. in order to reach me on my "VoIP phone" - you have to dial that number. You don't dial my IP address!! You dial my phone number, which goes to a T1, plugged into a Telco's router that sends the packets to my house that get converted from IP to analog by a device sitting behind my router/firewall. So everyone from the outside wishing to get to my "VoIP phone" needs to dial the number, just like any other phone.
Third - if you really have IP Telephony (not just VoIP, cause there is a big difference) you are only vulnerable to people on your same LAN/WAN - in otherwords someone needs access to your private network. And even then, they would need to register a device with your IP PBX and then trick it into letting you send pre-canned voice calls. In otherwords, this isn't possible. I'm sorry, it's just not.
If the entire POTS system goes away, and we all have IP phones and there is no more telephony as we know it and all our phones are on one giant, unprotected, unfirewalled network, then yes, you might be subject to SPIT. But I assure you, this won't happen for a long long long time.
Have a pleasant day and please I(gnore)TFA!
Apple hasn't quite reached MS in its strictness with protecting IP, and for some reason we hold Apple to a higher standard, but at the end of the day - this is their stuff. They do have a right to keep people from reverse engineering it (I think).
It's not like firefox where it was designed for people to make it better with extensions. This is apple's own product, to be used as specified in the license agreement.
I am not absolving Apple here, clearly they have pissed off people by being sticklers. Why not recognize that its GOOD to have people modding the iPod? that can only help its sales. Why piss people off for no good reason? Dunno.
Me, I like the mozilla approach. It's the linux way of doing things. But until there is some sort of "open source iPod/iTunes" that can be freely twisted around - let's not get to bent out of shape. It's apple's stuff, they can get mad about issues like this - it's their right. That's life.
If you don't like the way apple does things, let them know about it. Tell them that you won't use an iPod or iTunes because of their crappy 'tude.
I don't know of any distro that claims to be granny-proof, and FC is no exception.
However...
Most of the common problems with Fedora aren't bad enough to require a boot back into windows. I think if you took a survey you'd find that most people, out of the box, can get keyboard, video, mouse, network and sound.
In my opinion, that's good enough to get started.
I am a hobbyist/enthusiast and have enjoyed the challenge of figuring out how to get USB scanners/printers, firewire, wireless networking etc. to function properly on my FC box.
I admit, I got my ass kicked when I tried to get Debian running and doing all those same things. That was a problem (found myself booting into RH to google for debian answers). But I just don't see that many people who can't get RH/FC working well enough. Just my 2 cents.
I agree there are many more benefits with IPT - that's why I do it for a living.
But ask people when the last time they rebooted their PBX or had a minute of downtime was.
The bottom line is: security/stability/features are a downside of Cisco's IPT solution and it keeps many people from buying it. More customers will by stable phone systems than video-enabled ones.
Why is it that cisco is cramming this new feature onto IP phones - one that people don't really want?
clarifier: I install cisco IPT for a living so this is just my 2 cents from the field...
Customers complain about:
1) the platform running on Win2k (bugs/virus/stability)
2)lack of traditional PBX features (yeah, they're getting there, but not quite to what a G3 has)
3) lack of support for adavanced security on the wireless phones
4) lack of a true operator console
The list goes on. Not once has anyone said "These phones are crap - there's no video phone!" nope - that's not what keeps people from buying them.
So why address the one thing that people AREN'T clamoring for?
Dunno. I like IPT, I like cisco, I think the Cisco IPT platform is the best by far. But if Cisco wants to take market share away from traditional phones then they should focus on adding critical features that users want/expect.
Yup - that's just what I was looking for. Thanks for the insight. My one basic gripe with Linux now is that there is too much inconsistency on the desktop.
But I am too worried about giving up all the "freedom" that Linux gives me. I guess it is an unsolvable double-edged sword. I like that it is configurable, I hate that I have to configure everything. Hmmm...
Anyway, I really appreciate your insight. Thanks for the feedback.
I am intrigued... what is it that has you switched back? I haven't used a Mac in a while (been happy with RH9/KDE) so I could use some solid info on what it does for ya.
After all these years, I still wonder two things:
1) why hasn't the Mac done better?
2) why hasn't the Mac died?
I know the standard answer to why Mac is still around is "Small but loyal group of devotees", but I have trouble with that idea.
If it is good enough to inspire fanatical loyalty in some, why hasn't it been good enough to win over the rest of the world? And, having failed in winning over the world, how can apple still afford to be in the business?
Dunno. I always did like Macs, myself. Always met my needs.
> I dub you unamerican.
Or as the more left-leaning would say I Dubya unamerican
These parents are mostly intelligent people who have no clue about technology. But it makes sense to them that WiFi might be dangerous, so they want a thorough review. The school board tells them "we reviewed it, and it's safe" but the trial-lawyer parents and CFOs don't like to be brushed off, so they sue.
Like I said, this happens with any change in this town, be it making a street a one-way or putting up a new high-rise apartment complex.
Don't get fooled and think this lawsuit has a real technological base - it doesn't...it is just our village citizens bitching like they do about everything else.
The school board is not backing down and they won't turn off the WiFi. It won't cost much to win the lawsuit, because the claims have no actual merit. The studies that the plaintiffs site are not studies using 802.11 or 2.4 gHz technology - look it up. The studies refer to other wireless technology but not the kind being implemented at OPRF high school. The board has said as much and basically told this group: bring it on, you guys are idiots.
Seems to me that this database could only provide information that we already know... cause when someone does something really stupid like get a DUI or smoke up, it makes it into the news right away anyway.
Yeah, maybe with this database we can get credit card reciepts or ISP logs... what does that prove? that gov. employees watch porn or drink booze?? oh wait - so does everyone else.
BFD, I say.
That way the real genius could work on problems like cures for death
And then even smarter people could work on problems like overpopulation