I'll only consider such a technology if/when law enforcement has been exclusively using such devices for years and data on false negative/positives is available.
No sane cop is going to give anyone an automatic 1/3 second firing advantage voluntarily. If they are forced to carry these weapons, you can expect the rates of officer involved shootings to go way up. Either officers will break training and keep their fingers on the trigger when holding their weapon, or they'll try to make firing decisions 1/3 or more second sooner than they ought to.
Now, since I didn't RTFA, I don't know how the weapon reacts to a trigger pull, but if the trigger won't pull until the computer says ok you've just ruined any smooth pull of a trigger, turning a smooth pull into a pull/jerk action -- taking you off taget. Or the trigger will pull smoothly and the firing pin won't fire until the computer says ok. That leaves you holding a gun with a pulled trigger on target for 1/3 second or more waiting for the bang. And you're going to look pretty dead if your CPU fails and you're left standing with an otherwise functional gun pointing at a bad guy while you hope it actually fires.
Just in case I was lacking any clarity in my post: My point was to cause outrage about our LE needing 100% reliable, always ready for defense weapons - to which my response is "me too".
WRT the article, it doesn't really say how the tech works... trade secret or some such nonsense... BUT, I got the feeling when reading the article that the sensor is in a natural position which is NOT on the trigger. My guess would be along the right side of the frame below the slide - which is where I put my finger until I'm ready to engage the trigger. I'd expect some sort of grip safety which kept the gun in an engaged state once authorized until grip was lost on the gun.
And I STILL want nothing to do with interjecting software blocks into a purely mechanical process. Ask AT&T whether it's possible to have a catastrophic software bug regardless of how careful you are. Unfortunately, the person who finds this bug is quite likely to be able to report it.
what's the false negative rate and the response time?
From the article:
Once an authorized user places his or her finger on the scanner, which is located in a natural position on the gun's grip, it activates the gun's enabling mechanisms in about one-third of a second, he said.
I'll only consider such a technology if/when law enforcement has been exclusively using such devices for years and data on false negative/positives is available. If such technology is too burdensome for someone who KNOWS they're going into a situation where their weapon can mean the difference between life and death, it's too burdensome for me in defense of myself and family.
In the interest of informed purchasing decisions, From Apple's technical specs:
Slot-loading SuperDrive with double-layer read support (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW): writes DVD-R and DVD+R discs at up to 4x speed, writes DVD-RW and DVD+RW discs at up to 4x speed, reads DVDs at up to 8x speed, writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed, writes CD-RW discs at up to 10x speed, reads CDs at up to 24x speed
It looks like it will read DVD+R DL, but write only DVD+/-R(W)
How exactly would you get into a good university without a computer?? What if you have kids and you want them to actually go to a real college instead of a community college? A computer is a requirement if you want to be an elite student. (emphasis added)
I deem it more important for my children to be of strong moral character than to have something they want. I certainly wouldn't want them to have to try to use elite student status to overcome something as negative as a police record.
If it was something you wanted badly enough, you'd be willing to work for the money. Even if it was only a paper route for the summer that would probably earn enough.
The other thing you'd be willing to do if you truly thought it was important is to accept something less than new. Hand-me-downs, Goodwill stores, and garage sales are all sources of inexpensive computers.
I'd love to play paintball with real guns if I could back my brain up beforehand (and limit my pain receptors when I got hit) in the case my reinforced skull was destroyed before I could merge the experience back with my main-self.
None of this comment should be construed to mean that I agree with or condone the RIAA's behavior or indicate my feelings on P2P, but...
Yeah, the fourth amendment only restricts the government...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...
That at least suggests that private entities shouldn't be able engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, either.
...and they obey relevant laws against trespass, unauthorized computer access, etc.
I enjoyed your analysis of the 4th ammendment. I would like to add that the RIAA's search is not "unreasonable". Nor would it be "unreasonable" if a government agency were to do it. They are (at the current time at least) scanning the lists of files that people are advertising that they have available.
You can hardly expect to say "Hey! Here's a list of files I'm sharing come look... except you RIAA bozos should respect my privacy."
In other words, if you put out an invitation for people to come look at your files, you really shouldn't be too surprised when people (or even RIAA reps) accept your offer.
A business major called the IT dept and claimed to be a professor who had forgotten her password. She then took her newly supplied pass and fixed her grade.
Social Engineering attacks will always be a danger regardless of the security of the system by other measures.
It's not my intention to get into an argument. Nor do I wish to defend anything Gord says. You clearly care more about game consoles than I do, and as such are probably more in tune with the market than I. I only wanted to add a data point to the discussion.
Disclaimer: I own a PS2, use it as a DVD player, and like it just fine.
At $1/song, if you consider the average CD to contain around 15 songs, that still $15.
Geez. I hear this a lot. It is, fortunately incorrect. Here's some information from someone that has actually used iTMS.
The price of most albums is $9.99, unless there are fewer than 10 tracks. In that case, the total for the album is adjusted down. The remaining case is for "double CDs" which typically cost 2*$9.99
Now, please quit with the "N_songs * $1 > cost_of_album" foolishness.
There is room for improvement with the selection. That having been said, the experience is very pleasant and purchases are smooth and easy.
The REAL accomplishment is that Apple has apparently figured out how to do Credit Card Micropayments.
The problem is determining whether the otherwise legit business was responsible for the spam.
Cripes.
Don't make it harder than it has to be.
Let's assume appropriate legislation is in effect.
So, the situations are:
Company listed in email is the spammer and can be filed against.
Company listed in the email is innocent and unaware. In this case it's likely they'll provide the name of the "marketing company" they used for the campaign, which can then be filed against. If not, see next situation.
Company listed is not the spammer, but is not forthcoming with details about the spammer. File suit against the company and use the opportunity for discovery to identify the "marketing company". Amend the suit to include the "marketing company".
The originator of this quote obviously didn't understand the philosophy behind "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". It's a little thing called "the punishment should fit the crime".
Right. The "eye" saying would more correctly be understood as "Only an eye for an eye." Biblical scholars tend to agree that the intent was to limit the severity of the retaliation to the severity of the offense.
OK, privacy issues mostly aside... since it's more of a privacy leak issue... children aren't entitled to privacy from their parents, but the expectation that records are only available to the parents/student is valid.
These situations are not necessarily evident to the parents, so they may think that little Timmy's calculated risk is merely playing hooky.
Possibly, BUT what is evident to the parents is Timmy's ability to correctly assess a situation and determine appropriate amounts of risk to accept. This is most likely based on little Timmy's track record.
At any rate, discussion with his parents about why he chose to take that risk, possibly even before taking the risk, should lead to better decision making by little Timmy and a higher degree of trust in Timmy's abilities. I can't see how this type of discussion can be anything but positive for all involved.
So, once I got the call, I taped it; then, using an acquired phone list [...] called and played this message back. Parents were furious that the school was calling them so late; [...] the credibility of the system was shot...
Pretty clever.
While that may have worked "back in the day", I'm not sure it'd work now with Caller-ID units all over the place.
I can imagine the message these days would have something added like:
"Your caller-id should indicate this call is from 555-1234, if it does not please notify the school of this discrepancy."
Well, operating costs are more than just money. If it takes 1000 seconds to send his bulk mail instead of 1 second, then his operating 'costs' have gone up.
Not that I disagree with you, but I'd just love for them to make that argument. After most of them poo-poo cries of the recipients that there's more to the cost than just the time to click delete, it would be quite ironic for them to gripe about the other costs like computing time, server load, etc.
get put on by some unscruplous marketer or the marketer gets fined by the government.
No, no, no, no.
I want legal recourse. I want a private
right of action. I want to be able to get their attention with regard to MY inbox. I don't want the government deciding when a transgression is bad enough to pursue or considering how it ranks in priority to other transgressions. I want the authority to let the spammer know he's made an error in judgement and make him feel the sting.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the person who finds this bug is quite likely to be able to report it.
Unfortunately, the person who finds this bug is quite likely to be UNABLE to report it.
I'll only consider such a technology if/when law enforcement has been exclusively using such devices for years and data on false negative/positives is available.
No sane cop is going to give anyone an automatic 1/3 second firing advantage voluntarily. If they are forced to carry these weapons, you can expect the rates of officer involved shootings to go way up. Either officers will break training and keep their fingers on the trigger when holding their weapon, or they'll try to make firing decisions 1/3 or more second sooner than they ought to.
Now, since I didn't RTFA, I don't know how the weapon reacts to a trigger pull, but if the trigger won't pull until the computer says ok you've just ruined any smooth pull of a trigger, turning a smooth pull into a pull/jerk action -- taking you off taget. Or the trigger will pull smoothly and the firing pin won't fire until the computer says ok. That leaves you holding a gun with a pulled trigger on target for 1/3 second or more waiting for the bang. And you're going to look pretty dead if your CPU fails and you're left standing with an otherwise functional gun pointing at a bad guy while you hope it actually fires.
Just in case I was lacking any clarity in my post: My point was to cause outrage about our LE needing 100% reliable, always ready for defense weapons - to which my response is "me too".
WRT the article, it doesn't really say how the tech works... trade secret or some such nonsense... BUT, I got the feeling when reading the article that the sensor is in a natural position which is NOT on the trigger. My guess would be along the right side of the frame below the slide - which is where I put my finger until I'm ready to engage the trigger. I'd expect some sort of grip safety which kept the gun in an engaged state once authorized until grip was lost on the gun.
And I STILL want nothing to do with interjecting software blocks into a purely mechanical process. Ask AT&T whether it's possible to have a catastrophic software bug regardless of how careful you are. Unfortunately, the person who finds this bug is quite likely to be able to report it.
what's the false negative rate and the response time?
From the article:
I'll only consider such a technology if/when law enforcement has been exclusively using such devices for years and data on false negative/positives is available. If such technology is too burdensome for someone who KNOWS they're going into a situation where their weapon can mean the difference between life and death, it's too burdensome for me in defense of myself and family.
Peace.
If I had mod points, this would get one.
If it was something you wanted badly enough, you'd be willing to work for the money. Even if it was only a paper route for the summer that would probably earn enough.
The other thing you'd be willing to do if you truly thought it was important is to accept something less than new. Hand-me-downs, Goodwill stores, and garage sales are all sources of inexpensive computers.
Good day.
DeanT
You can hardly expect to say "Hey! Here's a list of files I'm sharing come look... except you RIAA bozos should respect my privacy."
In other words, if you put out an invitation for people to come look at your files, you really shouldn't be too surprised when people (or even RIAA reps) accept your offer.
DeanT
Disclaimer: I own a PS2, use it as a DVD player, and like it just fine.
Cheers,
DeanT
Take it as you will.
DeanT
The price of most albums is $9.99, unless there are fewer than 10 tracks. In that case, the total for the album is adjusted down. The remaining case is for "double CDs" which typically cost 2*$9.99
Now, please quit with the "N_songs * $1 > cost_of_album" foolishness.
There is room for improvement with the selection. That having been said, the experience is very pleasant and purchases are smooth and easy.
The REAL accomplishment is that Apple has apparently figured out how to do Credit Card Micropayments.
DeanT
Don't make it harder than it has to be.
Let's assume appropriate legislation is in effect.
So, the situations are:
- Company listed in email is the spammer and can be filed against.
- Company listed in the email is innocent and unaware. In this case it's likely they'll provide the name of the "marketing company" they used for the campaign, which can then be filed against. If not, see next situation.
- Company listed is not the spammer, but is not forthcoming with details about the spammer. File suit against the company and use the opportunity for discovery to identify the "marketing company". Amend the suit to include the "marketing company".
Again, assuming appropriate legislation.DeanT
DeanT
At any rate, discussion with his parents about why he chose to take that risk, possibly even before taking the risk, should lead to better decision making by little Timmy and a higher degree of trust in Timmy's abilities. I can't see how this type of discussion can be anything but positive for all involved.
DeanT
While that may have worked "back in the day", I'm not sure it'd work now with Caller-ID units all over the place.
I can imagine the message these days would have something added like:
"Your caller-id should indicate this call is from 555-1234, if it does not please notify the school of this discrepancy."
He tells me iSync works with it and is quite pleased.
DeanT
DeanT
DeanT
It provides (among other things):
DeanT
I want legal recourse. I want a private right of action. I want to be able to get their attention with regard to MY inbox. I don't want the government deciding when a transgression is bad enough to pursue or considering how it ranks in priority to other transgressions. I want the authority to let the spammer know he's made an error in judgement and make him feel the sting.
DeanT
Just my thoughts.
DeanT