The secretive "accident reconstruction community" currently hides behind closed mailing lists, etc. But some trivial Googling from before they realized that everyone can read things posted on the web will reveal that they're pretty much for sale to those who can afford expert witnesses. That would be insurance companies and the rich.
Any government-mandated black box should be readable using open standards and protocols, and not require paying an "accident reconstructionist" to read out the data as is currently the case.
OK, Mr. AC (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not the OP trying to preserve your precious karma when making a throwaway post.)
Let me help you out in this simple exercise of understanding which is apparently beyond your ability. The OP argues that there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. I then replied to that argument with the logical conclusion that it must be then OK for comprehensive monitoring (such as that associated with having a policeman follow one while on the public right-of-ways).
I'm sorry you have difficulty with simple reasoning and thus assumed that "I can't see the difference between a black box and a copy tailing youm [sic]."
So you're telling me you wouldn't object to the government forcing the residents of an entire city to provide DNA samples as part of a rape investigation? If that's true, please renounce your citizenship and make room for someone who does give a good goddamn about freedom.
Your not having encountered one doesn't mean that there are places that perform the authorization on a separate machine from the cash register. And even if you catch the error and don't sign the slip, once the authorization is through, the money in your account is unavailable to you.
Or you could avoid the whole issue by using a credit card and paying it off every month. What's so silly about that? I know enough about how the systems work to consider it more prudent to do that. If you're willing to deal with the extra vigilance and risk involved, feel free to use your debit card.
Both of those can be addressed with a secured credit card, which shouldn't be as hard to get as an unsecured one. Then you have the advantages of having a spending limit equal to what you have in the bank, along with the consumer protections built into the credit card system.
No, it's not ridiculous. Not all places require PIN entry--some process them on the same authorization network as credit cards, and don't have PIN terminals. That, and as the other poster pointed out, debit cards don't have the built in legal protections (e.g. Fair Credit Billing Act) that credit cards do.
The idea of having my checking account cleaned out because a clerk hit a couple of extra zeroes on the authorization machine has always scared me away from use of debit cards at point of sale. I prefer to use a credit card and just pay for it at the end of the month.
Why do you think there have been a flood of massively multiplayer online games of late? Because you can't play if you don't pay. No easy way around that.
Exactly--the MM people are selling a service, because they've figured out the software is commoditized. Now these things aren't my cup of tea--if I'm going to buy a game, I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay a monthly fee on top of it. But the fact that this razor blade marketing has been shown to work in games provides hope for the other segments of the software industry. Unless . . . OpenOffice.org doesn't charge a monthly fee and $DOMINANT_WORD_PROCESSOR does. Therein lies the real threat.
Although a "p2p buzz" chart apparently doesn't yet exist, once it does, you can bet the labels will be manipulating it by having paid agents download the latest crap to generate buzz.
Makes perfect sense. The P2P community says what the public really wants. Now, though, with the P2P monitors, we'll have corporations astroturfing the P2P networks downloading crap to generate hits so that songs/albums will look "popular" on the P2P networks. Truly bizzare the way the world works.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . when the rightful owner threatened to sell katie.com to a "barely legal" pr0n site :).
Best. Euphemism. Ever. :)
Any government-mandated black box should be readable using open standards and protocols, and not require paying an "accident reconstructionist" to read out the data as is currently the case.
Surely you don't believe that they'll decrease rates for anyone.
Let me help you out in this simple exercise of understanding which is apparently beyond your ability. The OP argues that there is no expectation of privacy on public roads. I then replied to that argument with the logical conclusion that it must be then OK for comprehensive monitoring (such as that associated with having a policeman follow one while on the public right-of-ways).
I'm sorry you have difficulty with simple reasoning and thus assumed that "I can't see the difference between a black box and a copy tailing youm [sic]."
So you're telling me you wouldn't object to the government forcing the residents of an entire city to provide DNA samples as part of a rape investigation? If that's true, please renounce your citizenship and make room for someone who does give a good goddamn about freedom.
That being the case, I assume you wouldn't mind having a police officer follow you everywhere you go while walking or driving about the public roads.
We should do it like in Spartacus. Have two spammers fight. The winner is to be crucified.
Obviously, I meant "doesn't mean that there are not" in the above. Oops.
Or you could avoid the whole issue by using a credit card and paying it off every month. What's so silly about that? I know enough about how the systems work to consider it more prudent to do that. If you're willing to deal with the extra vigilance and risk involved, feel free to use your debit card.
Yes. If you present your debit card and sign the charge slip, no PIN is needed. This is in the U.S.--don't know how things work elsewhere.
Both of those can be addressed with a secured credit card, which shouldn't be as hard to get as an unsecured one. Then you have the advantages of having a spending limit equal to what you have in the bank, along with the consumer protections built into the credit card system.
No, it's not ridiculous. Not all places require PIN entry--some process them on the same authorization network as credit cards, and don't have PIN terminals. That, and as the other poster pointed out, debit cards don't have the built in legal protections (e.g. Fair Credit Billing Act) that credit cards do.
The idea of having my checking account cleaned out because a clerk hit a couple of extra zeroes on the authorization machine has always scared me away from use of debit cards at point of sale. I prefer to use a credit card and just pay for it at the end of the month.
Actually, no, a bubblehead squid who has always been very good to the doc but who is not afraid to poke some good natured fun :).
Why do you think there have been a flood of massively multiplayer online games of late? Because you can't play if you don't pay. No easy way around that.
Exactly--the MM people are selling a service, because they've figured out the software is commoditized. Now these things aren't my cup of tea--if I'm going to buy a game, I'll be buggered if I'm going to pay a monthly fee on top of it. But the fact that this razor blade marketing has been shown to work in games provides hope for the other segments of the software industry. Unless . . . OpenOffice.org doesn't charge a monthly fee and $DOMINANT_WORD_PROCESSOR does. Therein lies the real threat.
And a pecker checker, by chance, going by the "Doc?"
That analogy is more apt than you realize. Information is a weapon, and those who would rule know it.
. . . the U.S. Department of Justice has a foreign lobbyist database that should be big enough to test with.
I'm not surprised it's been there--heck, if anything could benefit from a compile farm, it's Gentoo!
Thanks--I had no idea it had already happened!
Although a "p2p buzz" chart apparently doesn't yet exist, once it does, you can bet the labels will be manipulating it by having paid agents download the latest crap to generate buzz.
Makes perfect sense. The P2P community says what the public really wants. Now, though, with the P2P monitors, we'll have corporations astroturfing the P2P networks downloading crap to generate hits so that songs/albums will look "popular" on the P2P networks. Truly bizzare the way the world works.
No, but it gives you a nice affirmative defense against any copyright "crime" that requires the prosecution to prove intent.
Nice one--would C++ be equal to or slightly less than D :)?