You can not force people out of their jobs because they have a different set of beliefs that guide their actions.
Yes, actually you can. Back in 2008, many conservative employers fired employees who had Obama bumper stickers on their cars.
No, you don't have a fundamental right to express yourself without repercussion. Discrimination is NOT protected by law, unless it's against certain specially-protected classes, under certain circumstances (e.g. having a place of business open to the general public, but refusing to serve black customers is illegal, whereas having a private club and refusing to allow black members is completely legal). Employers have every right to discriminate against employees for political reasons, as long as a jury isn't convinced they're doing it for racist or sexist reasons.
It's really weird how much the social conservatives will twist things around to try to justify their bigotry and then criticize people for calling them out on it, as if they should have absolute freedom of speech but also freedom from criticism.
There is a cost to developing OSS: either time or money. Paid programmers don't work for free.
A fair amount of OSS has been developed by the government or was funded by government efforts. TCP/IP was developed with government funding, as was Tim Berners-Lee's work. That stuff has had an enormous impact on society, all without royalty costs.
No, it's not different. What you're describing is the current system of university-owned patents. If it were like open-source software, you might pay a little in taxes for the research grant, but after that the knowledge is in the public domain and anyone can make blue LEDs without paying royalties, so blue-LED stuff is cheaper (since all competitors can use it, not just patent-fee-payers).
No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it, and call for his resignation. Mozilla obviously asked for him to step down, since they certainly don't want the bad publicity or to be associated with his bigoted views.
The Dem voters didn't seek to harm you. If the ACA really did, that's unfortunate, but that certainly wasn't the aim of the people who voted for it. (Lots of government programs have unintended side-effects, or just plain don't work out like people envisioned.) Even if they did think it would harm some people, they thought it would make things better overall (this remains to be seen I suppose) for everyone, and did not single out a particular group of people, based on some genetic trait they had no control over, for bad treatment.
Prop 8 did exactly that: it sought to deny rights and privileges to a select group of people merely because they were genetically different, and treat them as second-class citizens. The people who voted for it (shame on you California voters) therefore are people who actually wanted to oppress other people, and can rightfully be called "bigots".
At really, really biased places (i.e. companies that slather themselves in religion) you shouldn't expect to get a job.
Exactly. If you're an outspoken supporter of LGBT rights, you can probably forget about getting a job at Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil-A. On the other hand, if you're an outspoken opponent of LGBT rights, you can forget about getting a job at companies that oppose such bigotry.
He's no libertarian. Libertarians believe in absolute liberty for everyone, rather than holding bigoted views and promoting discriminatory laws. Libertarians have their problems (usually related to the feasibility of the principles they promote, and this depends on how extreme their views are), but socially-conservative ideas like this are not usually part of their credo.
This guy's just another Tea Party moron who calls himself "libertarian" because it's fashionable these days.
You're an idiot. Censorship is something done by the government, and that's it. If I refuse to buy your products because I don't like your public stance on something, that's my right. You sound just as bad and moronic as the Australian government.
Answer this one: if your local (independently-owned) family restaurant posted a big sign saying "black people should be returned to slavery!", would you think it's wrong to boycott them?
Exactly. Eich could shave his head and start calling for the return of slavery, and the government isn't going to do anything to him. But he's going to have a hard time finding a job after that. Some people seem to forget that we also have freedom of association, and that means we don't have to be nice to or accept bigots or other people we don't like.
Don't be retarded; you and Eich both have freedom of speech. The rest of us are free to voice our disagreement and call you bigots, and to demand his removal as CEO. Since an organization like Mozilla isn't going to last long with a lot of negative publicity and accusations that it's headed by a shameless bigot, they did the rational thing and got rid of him.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with you or accept you; we're all free to denounce you and shun you. Somehow, the people who shout "freedom of speech!" always seem to forget that.
Turns out the law on turn signals is somewhat complicated, but I'm not seeing anything that requires turn signal markers on the mirrors/side, simply that they have to be visible on the side. Wrapping the head/brake lights around so the turn is visible from the side should be sufficient to meet the law's requirements.
You're forgetting that US laws do not apply worldwide. There's a reason European cars all have had side-marker lights for ages; they're required there. Wrapping corner-located light assemblies around does not satisfy that law.
Can you provide a link about them putting radar units in the side mirrors? Never heard of that, thought they generally mounted it on the grill/bumper.
After a bit of googling, it appears to depend on the system. Volvo's BLIS is in the mirrors, but it uses cameras rather than radar. Other systems use radar units mounted inside the front and rear bumpers.
No, a lot of things are still assembled in cars using humans, because they're easy to train to do fairly complex tasks rather than building a robot to do the same thing. For instance, I'm pretty sure installing carpet in cars is probably done by humans.
Oh please, what a load of crap. Yes, large companies will get the tech for free (though they'll only get the very basics, they'll still have to develop manufacturing techniques, which the university research isn't going to help them with that much). But it's not just one company, it's ALL companies that have a desire to use this tech. And then the rest of society benefits from having the knowledge, and the technology cheaply available since all competitors now have it.
It's no different than open-source software. Having it out there enriches everyone, even when big companies use it for their own purposes, or build products based on it. It advances the state of the art faster, increases quality, and reduces costs (resulting in reduced prices to end-users). You really think we'd be better off if all our consumer routers and various other devices had to pay $$$ for VxWorks licenses rather than having Linux and BSD available for free?
The University gets recognition for their invention.
and the possibility to build a company assembling blue LEDs without having to worry about patents. Well, I guess that's something.
That's a very big something; it's the whole idea. Patented tech with high license fees doesn't benefit us as much as freely-available tech.
As another poster said, you don't understand what a signature is. It doesn't have to be legible, it just needs to be a unique handwritten mark. It can be a quickly-drawn picture of an elephant if you want, as long as it looks much like all your other such pictures, and is hard for someone else to duplicate.
This is California you're talking about; smog is a big problem there. HOV lanes aren't just for congestion, they're to reduce smog. Driving electric and hybrid vehicles achieves that goal. (Also, last I heard, regular hybrids no longer got HOV privileges, because there were so many of them these days.)
Finally, yes, people actually do carpool. I used to live in Phoenix, which also has HOV lanes, and I saw people carpooling on the 101 all the time. And if the cops can make a bunch of money giving $500 tickets to assholes who ride in the HOV lane alone, I don't have a problem with that. It's a lot better than speeding tickets. Over in the DC area, they even have "stump lines" IIRC correctly, so it seems it works quite well there too.
Obviously the screen would need proper contrast and brightness to handle night viewing. However I wonder if LCD wouldn't work that well, since LCDs always have a backlight; perhaps some other screen technology would work better, like OLED?
Of course, we already have lots of cars on the road now with LCD screens on all the time, and I don't hear a lot of complaints about them.
The fancier cars (like my 9-year-old Volvo) have turn signals, mirror heaters, motors for adjustment, and also "puddle lights". The newest cars now add radar systems for warning you when someone's in your blind spot, plus an indicator light for this. There's a lot of stuff in a modern side-view mirror assembly. It actually seems like moving to these camera would increase costs, because of labor. With our current mirrors, the automaker gets all these handy features in two (L and R) pre-assembled units, and just has to have a guy slap them onto the sides of the car with three nuts each, and a cover plate. If they move to cameras and eliminate the side-view mirrors, now they have to put cameras somewhere (maybe higher up), always-on displays on the inside somewhere, turn signal lights on the sides somewhere (probably just ahead of the doors as in Euro cars), puddle lights somewhere for the more luxurious cars (maybe in the door sill?), and radar transponders somewhere along the sides. (Of course, motors wouldn't be needed any more, and the cameras would have heaters integrated. The blind spot warning light would be integrated into the display screens.)
My next car will inevitably have rain-sensor-wipers or something else which no longer works properly by the time I get it, and causes stupid, expensive and easily-avoided problems.
I just bought a 9-year-old used car with rain-sensor wipers. They work great. It's kinda hard for an optical sensor in the passenger compartment to go bad. Even if it does, the rain-sensing wiping is an option; you can always just turn it off and use the regular wiper settings.
So it's bad enough replacing that with separate low-res cameras directly fed into a medium-res screen.
Simple solution: use high-res cameras and a high-res screen. Dirt-cheap smartphones now have ultra-high DPI screens and 10+ megapixel cameras; there's no reason to use low-res screens and cameras in $25k+ cars.
[The low speed sensor is meant to detect when the treadmill-belt is jammed/overloaded and shut off juice to the motor before the motor is fried. Sounds good. But no way to override it when it is the point of failure. Instead the entire treadmill becomes an inert lump. And you can't replace the sensor, you have to replace the entire control board. Guess what the most common fault is when I google my model of treadmill? (Or other treadmills, for that matter.)]
Can you not buy a new sensor from Digi-Key? Or if it's not easily available like that, perhaps modify it so the sensor isn't needed (replace the sensor with a circuit that always shows good output)?
You don't have to replace the whole control board, as long as you can use a soldering iron.
What happens when every car has these ultrasound sensors? With a limited number of mfgrs, and probably an even smaller number of ultrasonic sensor suppliers, won't we have ghosting or some other interference problems on crowded roadways?
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me, what's it like to be a moron?
I'm not the one advocating for a group of people to have rights denied to them based on genetics.
You think that if Ford found that their CEO was a KKK member, they shouldn't be able to fire him?
You can not force people out of their jobs because they have a different set of beliefs that guide their actions.
Yes, actually you can. Back in 2008, many conservative employers fired employees who had Obama bumper stickers on their cars.
No, you don't have a fundamental right to express yourself without repercussion. Discrimination is NOT protected by law, unless it's against certain specially-protected classes, under certain circumstances (e.g. having a place of business open to the general public, but refusing to serve black customers is illegal, whereas having a private club and refusing to allow black members is completely legal). Employers have every right to discriminate against employees for political reasons, as long as a jury isn't convinced they're doing it for racist or sexist reasons.
It's really weird how much the social conservatives will twist things around to try to justify their bigotry and then criticize people for calling them out on it, as if they should have absolute freedom of speech but also freedom from criticism.
There is a cost to developing OSS: either time or money. Paid programmers don't work for free.
A fair amount of OSS has been developed by the government or was funded by government efforts. TCP/IP was developed with government funding, as was Tim Berners-Lee's work. That stuff has had an enormous impact on society, all without royalty costs.
No, it's not different. What you're describing is the current system of university-owned patents. If it were like open-source software, you might pay a little in taxes for the research grant, but after that the knowledge is in the public domain and anyone can make blue LEDs without paying royalties, so blue-LED stuff is cheaper (since all competitors can use it, not just patent-fee-payers).
No one's denied Eich any freedom at all. He can spout his bigoted views as much as he wants. The rest of us are allowed to complain loudly about it, and call for his resignation. Mozilla obviously asked for him to step down, since they certainly don't want the bad publicity or to be associated with his bigoted views.
The Dem voters didn't seek to harm you. If the ACA really did, that's unfortunate, but that certainly wasn't the aim of the people who voted for it. (Lots of government programs have unintended side-effects, or just plain don't work out like people envisioned.) Even if they did think it would harm some people, they thought it would make things better overall (this remains to be seen I suppose) for everyone, and did not single out a particular group of people, based on some genetic trait they had no control over, for bad treatment.
Prop 8 did exactly that: it sought to deny rights and privileges to a select group of people merely because they were genetically different, and treat them as second-class citizens. The people who voted for it (shame on you California voters) therefore are people who actually wanted to oppress other people, and can rightfully be called "bigots".
At really, really biased places (i.e. companies that slather themselves in religion) you shouldn't expect to get a job.
Exactly. If you're an outspoken supporter of LGBT rights, you can probably forget about getting a job at Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil-A. On the other hand, if you're an outspoken opponent of LGBT rights, you can forget about getting a job at companies that oppose such bigotry.
He's no libertarian. Libertarians believe in absolute liberty for everyone, rather than holding bigoted views and promoting discriminatory laws. Libertarians have their problems (usually related to the feasibility of the principles they promote, and this depends on how extreme their views are), but socially-conservative ideas like this are not usually part of their credo.
This guy's just another Tea Party moron who calls himself "libertarian" because it's fashionable these days.
You're an idiot. Censorship is something done by the government, and that's it. If I refuse to buy your products because I don't like your public stance on something, that's my right. You sound just as bad and moronic as the Australian government.
Answer this one: if your local (independently-owned) family restaurant posted a big sign saying "black people should be returned to slavery!", would you think it's wrong to boycott them?
Exactly. Eich could shave his head and start calling for the return of slavery, and the government isn't going to do anything to him. But he's going to have a hard time finding a job after that. Some people seem to forget that we also have freedom of association, and that means we don't have to be nice to or accept bigots or other people we don't like.
Don't be retarded; you and Eich both have freedom of speech. The rest of us are free to voice our disagreement and call you bigots, and to demand his removal as CEO. Since an organization like Mozilla isn't going to last long with a lot of negative publicity and accusations that it's headed by a shameless bigot, they did the rational thing and got rid of him.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the rest of us have to put up with you or accept you; we're all free to denounce you and shun you. Somehow, the people who shout "freedom of speech!" always seem to forget that.
Turns out the law on turn signals is somewhat complicated, but I'm not seeing anything that requires turn signal markers on the mirrors/side, simply that they have to be visible on the side. Wrapping the head/brake lights around so the turn is visible from the side should be sufficient to meet the law's requirements.
You're forgetting that US laws do not apply worldwide. There's a reason European cars all have had side-marker lights for ages; they're required there. Wrapping corner-located light assemblies around does not satisfy that law.
Can you provide a link about them putting radar units in the side mirrors? Never heard of that, thought they generally mounted it on the grill/bumper.
After a bit of googling, it appears to depend on the system. Volvo's BLIS is in the mirrors, but it uses cameras rather than radar. Other systems use radar units mounted inside the front and rear bumpers.
http://www.zigwheels.com/news-...
http://www.frost.com/sublib/di...
http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
You mean robot, right?
No, a lot of things are still assembled in cars using humans, because they're easy to train to do fairly complex tasks rather than building a robot to do the same thing. For instance, I'm pretty sure installing carpet in cars is probably done by humans.
Oh please, what a load of crap. Yes, large companies will get the tech for free (though they'll only get the very basics, they'll still have to develop manufacturing techniques, which the university research isn't going to help them with that much). But it's not just one company, it's ALL companies that have a desire to use this tech. And then the rest of society benefits from having the knowledge, and the technology cheaply available since all competitors now have it.
It's no different than open-source software. Having it out there enriches everyone, even when big companies use it for their own purposes, or build products based on it. It advances the state of the art faster, increases quality, and reduces costs (resulting in reduced prices to end-users). You really think we'd be better off if all our consumer routers and various other devices had to pay $$$ for VxWorks licenses rather than having Linux and BSD available for free?
The University gets recognition for their invention.
and the possibility to build a company assembling blue LEDs without having to worry about patents. Well, I guess that's something.
That's a very big something; it's the whole idea. Patented tech with high license fees doesn't benefit us as much as freely-available tech.
As another poster said, you don't understand what a signature is. It doesn't have to be legible, it just needs to be a unique handwritten mark. It can be a quickly-drawn picture of an elephant if you want, as long as it looks much like all your other such pictures, and is hard for someone else to duplicate.
Thanks, that's the word I was looking for.
This is California you're talking about; smog is a big problem there. HOV lanes aren't just for congestion, they're to reduce smog. Driving electric and hybrid vehicles achieves that goal. (Also, last I heard, regular hybrids no longer got HOV privileges, because there were so many of them these days.)
Finally, yes, people actually do carpool. I used to live in Phoenix, which also has HOV lanes, and I saw people carpooling on the 101 all the time. And if the cops can make a bunch of money giving $500 tickets to assholes who ride in the HOV lane alone, I don't have a problem with that. It's a lot better than speeding tickets. Over in the DC area, they even have "stump lines" IIRC correctly, so it seems it works quite well there too.
No, almost no cars taper in the front.
He must be thinking of the Plymouth Prowler.
You can get replacement mirror glass on Ebay or other internet sites for very cheap prices, pre-cut for various vehicles.
And why would you go to a dealer for a replacement part for a Ford? Just go to Tasca parts.
Obviously the screen would need proper contrast and brightness to handle night viewing. However I wonder if LCD wouldn't work that well, since LCDs always have a backlight; perhaps some other screen technology would work better, like OLED?
Of course, we already have lots of cars on the road now with LCD screens on all the time, and I don't hear a lot of complaints about them.
The fancier cars (like my 9-year-old Volvo) have turn signals, mirror heaters, motors for adjustment, and also "puddle lights". The newest cars now add radar systems for warning you when someone's in your blind spot, plus an indicator light for this. There's a lot of stuff in a modern side-view mirror assembly. It actually seems like moving to these camera would increase costs, because of labor. With our current mirrors, the automaker gets all these handy features in two (L and R) pre-assembled units, and just has to have a guy slap them onto the sides of the car with three nuts each, and a cover plate. If they move to cameras and eliminate the side-view mirrors, now they have to put cameras somewhere (maybe higher up), always-on displays on the inside somewhere, turn signal lights on the sides somewhere (probably just ahead of the doors as in Euro cars), puddle lights somewhere for the more luxurious cars (maybe in the door sill?), and radar transponders somewhere along the sides. (Of course, motors wouldn't be needed any more, and the cameras would have heaters integrated. The blind spot warning light would be integrated into the display screens.)
My next car will inevitably have rain-sensor-wipers or something else which no longer works properly by the time I get it, and causes stupid, expensive and easily-avoided problems.
I just bought a 9-year-old used car with rain-sensor wipers. They work great. It's kinda hard for an optical sensor in the passenger compartment to go bad. Even if it does, the rain-sensing wiping is an option; you can always just turn it off and use the regular wiper settings.
So it's bad enough replacing that with separate low-res cameras directly fed into a medium-res screen.
Simple solution: use high-res cameras and a high-res screen. Dirt-cheap smartphones now have ultra-high DPI screens and 10+ megapixel cameras; there's no reason to use low-res screens and cameras in $25k+ cars.
[The low speed sensor is meant to detect when the treadmill-belt is jammed/overloaded and shut off juice to the motor before the motor is fried. Sounds good. But no way to override it when it is the point of failure. Instead the entire treadmill becomes an inert lump. And you can't replace the sensor, you have to replace the entire control board. Guess what the most common fault is when I google my model of treadmill? (Or other treadmills, for that matter.)]
Can you not buy a new sensor from Digi-Key? Or if it's not easily available like that, perhaps modify it so the sensor isn't needed (replace the sensor with a circuit that always shows good output)?
You don't have to replace the whole control board, as long as you can use a soldering iron.
Ever had to scrape off a mirror from the accumulated snow / ice / fog?
Heated mirrors made this practice obsolete years ago. Heating up a small camera lens is even easier.
What happens when every car has these ultrasound sensors? With a limited number of mfgrs, and probably an even smaller number of ultrasonic sensor suppliers, won't we have ghosting or some other interference problems on crowded roadways?