Frankly, since Fox ownes a sports channel the FCC should fine Fox for putting non-entertainment shows (that are best served on a owned niche channel) on the general entertainment channel.
Course I also think Football is a really lame 'sport' since I've started watching rugby (padding? nope. stopping play for no reason? nope. insane level of rules and exceptions? nope. continuous play? yep. reasonably close to real-time-clock? yep. Teams that really suck ? one - USA)...
The real reason Futurama isn't more popular? Because Fox keeps pre-empting the show for football (what is the FOX Sports channel for? Knitting?) and because it is on too early. Having that that lame 'King of the Hill' on between Futurama and Simpsons is a really bad scheduling error that FOX should have corrected long ago.
he solution for the networks is obvious. They should just embed the commercials in the TV show, in the same way that movies do with product placement.
Actually, if you remember back a few years some major network was airing some major soccer (US, football everywhere else) event and had trouble with commercial placement. The network figured on putting the commercials under or over the play video. Worked rather well, I recall.
Another idea is with some networks airing shows in letterbox or widescreen format they could easily use the blank top/bottom areas for banner type ads. Of course they would still keep the normal commercials they have now and seeing that commercials are more important than content it would all be legal and just...
If Bush really did have anything (even very remotely) to do with this decision impeachment hearings should start immediately. It is bad enough that he [very obviously] bought his way into the presidency, but to interfere with the justice system and pass judgements can not possibly be legal (unless the US gov has changed from pseudo-democracy to monarchy/dictatorship).
I thought there was a law (or somesuch) that stated that private citizens and corporations cannot enforce any existing laws. I believe the law forbids being a vigilante.
The car rental company is violating this law if they issue fines, warnings, etc. to others (incl. customers). Any contract that violates law is [IMHO] void and cannot be enforced.
Some examples...1) You buy a gun from a shop. Kill someone. The shop fines your estate several million dollars. 2) You own a tow truck service and see someone illegally park in a hanicap spot. You jack the car up and park nearby. When the owner returns you demand $500 to drop the car.
Now, what the car rental place can do is this - report the speeding to the drivers car insurance company. The insurance co. would, naturally, jack up the premiums. With any sort of luck the driver would call the insurance co. to complain.
BTW, this could also work with guns. You buy a gun and someone (shop, government, etc) would notify your home/life insurance co.'s. Rate increase time.. ---
Upgrade the browser or stay off our site...OK, idiots, I'll stay off your damn site!
Just for note - Microsoft refuses to let me upgrade my browser (from 5.0 to 5.5). The upgrade application takes an hour to download the files then comes back and says my version already is current and stops. Guess I have to wait for XP...
AOL isn't making things any easier with Navigator. I've got Communicator 4.6, and what I've heard about 6.xx why would anyone bother to 'upgrade'? Adware? bah! Incompatible 'standards' applied? bah!
Don't want me to visit, than don't promote/market/advertise your damn site!
Wow! Blew a big ol' hole in that one. This is an article that should be sent to whatever dept is in charge of voting on this system.
I still like my system better. Short range roadside transmitters with direction control, sending out encrypted speed limit info. There would need to me millions of the damn things, but does law enforcement want to control the speed of vehicles or continue with the sporadic and braindead methods currently in place?
Its all about control. Either limit yourself and try to educate others to limit themselves or face the facts that speed limiting devices will be mandatory in future vehicles.
Although the Guardians article was seriously short on specifics (and who knows if this Guardian is fiction or non-fiction news source), we should still have enough info to punch significant holes in the operation of this thing and figure out ways to defeat it.
How about some of these:
1) Have a mechanic change the ratio on the speedometer pickup. Speedometer and governer display/sense speeds 10 to 20 [k]mph slower than actual speeds.
2) Where are the maps stored that dictate speeds and GPS coords? The system has to be designed to be updated by an idiot. A simple hack and the entire area has a speed limit of 200 [k]mph...
What are others thoughts on defeating this should other governments start reviews?
Those cases of justifiable speeding would be rare. In most (~99.9%) cases emergency vechicles are transporting people to hospitals. There would have to be some VERY unusual circumstances to warrant speeding by a private vechicle.
Your second paragraph is dead-on correct. Only problem? Privacy groups would raise too much of a ruckus to get that system even out of the think-tank state. Hell, look at the discussion that erupted from the superbowl face scanning event. Too many overly paranoid people.
No, not a trucker. But I couldn't believe that law enforcement could actually put this together and make it work.
If they did get this to work then my idea of hanging cameras on the underside of overpasses (side roads overpassing interstates, freeways, etc.) would work. The cameras capture the image of car going by, someone enters this into a database, a computer makes match-ups and issues tickets (with photos) to drivers. Someone could rack-up thousands of dollars in fines just driving to work one day...
I always figured that something like this would come out eventually. Either make the car limit itself or make the car continuously transmit its speed (roadside receiver would pickup and local law enforcement would mail a ticket).
Governing the speed of the car by receiving signals from roadside mounted short-range transmitters would (IMHO) be somewhat more accurate (said transmitters simply sending out a scambled/variable (date/time based) that tell the cars computer what the local speed limit is).
I could see that we could use more details on how this system works. The only way that I can see it working right now would to have the cars computer have an internal map and use that with the GPS to determine where the car is and what is the speed limit. The problem with this is how to update that map for new speeds and roads (although I suppose a default speed for an unknown road would work). I wouldn't think that the local dept in charge of this would provide free map updates for people to install (and even if they did, maybe 10% could install it (and that 10% would also hack the damn thing to change all limits)).
Another point to make, how are you going to fit these governing devices into existing vechicles. Might be simple for all those point-and-scoot auto trainee cars that the braindead populace loves, but putting one of them in a car with a stick-shift and significantly smarter driver would be trouble. Then again, law enforcement has time on its hands, so maybe only new cars would have governors and silly autotrans. Older cars would eventually die out and get replaced.
Oh, well. It isn't like we haven't been asking for this. We (the general we) have been driving helter-skelter and willie-nillie far above the speed limits for along time. This is just the government and law enforements way of saying "you win, drive whatever speed you want. We'll put governors in your cars and see how fast you go." We asked for it, they are giving it to us...
---
Re:Old arguement: security vs. privacy
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
Damn it Slashdot!!!
I would have thought that you would know how to take CRLFs from the original post.
Do you want security or privacy? Shoud have thought of that before the elections, because the republicans are back in power and since this tech concerns two items that the republicans like (security/law enforcement and the economy) personal privacy will be dumped pretty damn quick.
This tech will be perceived as a boon for the security/law-enforcement industry as well as [slighly] helping the economy. Imagine if these systems were put to good use; at airports, bording crossings, and various security check-points. The company(ies) putting out these systems would get rich, the law-enforcement industry would get a kick in the ass (after locating all sorts of minor criminals (ticket scalpting is as a bullsh*t charge as resisting arrest (what reasonable U.S. citizen wouldn't) and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution (again, who wouldn't)), and the company(ies) selling the tech would obviously contribute to the political party that helped them squash those irritating privacy right advocates.
I'm hopeful that this event was just to test the systems. To see how well the systems handle a heavy load. I'm also hopeful that these systems can be self-regulated (the republicans in power certainly won't interfere). As long as the faces being scanned aren't stored in a database (they should be kept in memory and discarded if a match isn't made), there shouldn't be a problem.
Yes, it is the old 'if you aren't a criminal, what the hell are you worried about' arguement. A little paranoia isn't bad, but the level that you (a non-criminal) are worried about a camera taking a quick shot is a bit over the edge. I can somewhat see this point of view, as I disliked being caught on video, but you have to get over it. Just as people get over fear of snakes by handling them, maybe you should get over being camera shy. My advice for that - a trip to Las Vegas, where you will be on video nearly full-time. From the hundreds of cameras on a casino floor to the camera atop the traffic lights, somebody is watching you, taping your every movement. The place made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end for the first month. Then I got used to it; hell I'm not a criminal, what do I have to worry about? Nothing. End of story.
As soon as the algorith is tweaked to get the minimum false matches these systems will be all over the place. Until a Gattaca like DNA scanner is built, this is what we will have to put up with. Will this system be a pain to put up with? Initially, yes. Given a few years, no. As long as you keep your nose fairly clean, you have little to worry about (and a quick finger-print scan should take care of any false matches).
---
Another item to try if you are getting annoying static from your stereo connected to your PC is a ground loop isolator. Radio Shack used to sell them fairly cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, since Fox ownes a sports channel the FCC should fine Fox for putting non-entertainment shows (that are best served on a owned niche channel) on the general entertainment channel.
Course I also think Football is a really lame 'sport' since I've started watching rugby (padding? nope. stopping play for no reason? nope. insane level of rules and exceptions? nope. continuous play? yep. reasonably close to real-time-clock? yep. Teams that really suck ? one - USA)...
The real reason Futurama isn't more popular? Because Fox keeps pre-empting the show for football (what is the FOX Sports channel for? Knitting?) and because it is on too early. Having that that lame 'King of the Hill' on between Futurama and Simpsons is a really bad scheduling error that FOX should have corrected long ago.
he solution for the networks is obvious. They should just embed the commercials in the TV show, in the same way that movies do with product placement.
Actually, if you remember back a few years some major network was airing some major soccer (US, football everywhere else) event and had trouble with commercial placement. The network figured on putting the commercials under or over the play video. Worked rather well, I recall.
Another idea is with some networks airing shows in letterbox or widescreen format they could easily use the blank top/bottom areas for banner type ads. Of course they would still keep the normal commercials they have now and seeing that commercials are more important than content it would all be legal and just...
If Bush really did have anything (even very remotely) to do with this decision impeachment hearings should start immediately. It is bad enough that he [very obviously] bought his way into the presidency, but to interfere with the justice system and pass judgements can not possibly be legal (unless the US gov has changed from pseudo-democracy to monarchy/dictatorship).
I thought there was a law (or somesuch) that stated that private citizens and corporations cannot enforce any existing laws. I believe the law forbids being a vigilante. The car rental company is violating this law if they issue fines, warnings, etc. to others (incl. customers). Any contract that violates law is [IMHO] void and cannot be enforced. Some examples...1) You buy a gun from a shop. Kill someone. The shop fines your estate several million dollars. 2) You own a tow truck service and see someone illegally park in a hanicap spot. You jack the car up and park nearby. When the owner returns you demand $500 to drop the car. Now, what the car rental place can do is this - report the speeding to the drivers car insurance company. The insurance co. would, naturally, jack up the premiums. With any sort of luck the driver would call the insurance co. to complain. BTW, this could also work with guns. You buy a gun and someone (shop, government, etc) would notify your home/life insurance co.'s. Rate increase time..
---
Upgrade the browser or stay off our site...OK, idiots, I'll stay off your damn site!
Just for note - Microsoft refuses to let me upgrade my browser (from 5.0 to 5.5). The upgrade application takes an hour to download the files then comes back and says my version already is current and stops. Guess I have to wait for XP...
AOL isn't making things any easier with Navigator. I've got Communicator 4.6, and what I've heard about 6.xx why would anyone bother to 'upgrade'? Adware? bah! Incompatible 'standards' applied? bah!
Don't want me to visit, than don't promote/market/advertise your damn site!
---
Wow! Blew a big ol' hole in that one. This is an article that should be sent to whatever dept is in charge of voting on this system.
I still like my system better. Short range roadside transmitters with direction control, sending out encrypted speed limit info. There would need to me millions of the damn things, but does law enforcement want to control the speed of vehicles or continue with the sporadic and braindead methods currently in place?
Its all about control. Either limit yourself and try to educate others to limit themselves or face the facts that speed limiting devices will be mandatory in future vehicles.
---
Although the Guardians article was seriously short on specifics (and who knows if this Guardian is fiction or non-fiction news source), we should still have enough info to punch significant holes in the operation of this thing and figure out ways to defeat it.
How about some of these:
1) Have a mechanic change the ratio on the speedometer pickup. Speedometer and governer display/sense speeds 10 to 20 [k]mph slower than actual speeds.
2) Where are the maps stored that dictate speeds and GPS coords? The system has to be designed to be updated by an idiot. A simple hack and the entire area has a speed limit of 200 [k]mph...
What are others thoughts on defeating this should other governments start reviews?
---
Those cases of justifiable speeding would be rare. In most (~99.9%) cases emergency vechicles are transporting people to hospitals. There would have to be some VERY unusual circumstances to warrant speeding by a private vechicle.
Your second paragraph is dead-on correct. Only problem? Privacy groups would raise too much of a ruckus to get that system even out of the think-tank state. Hell, look at the discussion that erupted from the superbowl face scanning event. Too many overly paranoid people.
---
No, not a trucker. But I couldn't believe that law enforcement could actually put this together and make it work.
If they did get this to work then my idea of hanging cameras on the underside of overpasses (side roads overpassing interstates, freeways, etc.) would work. The cameras capture the image of car going by, someone enters this into a database, a computer makes match-ups and issues tickets (with photos) to drivers. Someone could rack-up thousands of dollars in fines just driving to work one day...
---
I always figured that something like this would come out eventually. Either make the car limit itself or make the car continuously transmit its speed (roadside receiver would pickup and local law enforcement would mail a ticket).
Governing the speed of the car by receiving signals from roadside mounted short-range transmitters would (IMHO) be somewhat more accurate (said transmitters simply sending out a scambled/variable (date/time based) that tell the cars computer what the local speed limit is).
I could see that we could use more details on how this system works. The only way that I can see it working right now would to have the cars computer have an internal map and use that with the GPS to determine where the car is and what is the speed limit. The problem with this is how to update that map for new speeds and roads (although I suppose a default speed for an unknown road would work). I wouldn't think that the local dept in charge of this would provide free map updates for people to install (and even if they did, maybe 10% could install it (and that 10% would also hack the damn thing to change all limits)).
Another point to make, how are you going to fit these governing devices into existing vechicles. Might be simple for all those point-and-scoot auto trainee cars that the braindead populace loves, but putting one of them in a car with a stick-shift and significantly smarter driver would be trouble. Then again, law enforcement has time on its hands, so maybe only new cars would have governors and silly autotrans. Older cars would eventually die out and get replaced.
Oh, well. It isn't like we haven't been asking for this. We (the general we) have been driving helter-skelter and willie-nillie far above the speed limits for along time. This is just the government and law enforements way of saying "you win, drive whatever speed you want. We'll put governors in your cars and see how fast you go." We asked for it, they are giving it to us...
---
Damn it Slashdot!!!
I would have thought that you would know how to take CRLFs from the original post.
Sorry about that people.
---
Do you want security or privacy? Shoud have thought of that before the elections, because the republicans are back in power and since this tech concerns two items that the republicans like (security/law enforcement and the economy) personal privacy will be dumped pretty damn quick. This tech will be perceived as a boon for the security/law-enforcement industry as well as [slighly] helping the economy. Imagine if these systems were put to good use; at airports, bording crossings, and various security check-points. The company(ies) putting out these systems would get rich, the law-enforcement industry would get a kick in the ass (after locating all sorts of minor criminals (ticket scalpting is as a bullsh*t charge as resisting arrest (what reasonable U.S. citizen wouldn't) and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution (again, who wouldn't)), and the company(ies) selling the tech would obviously contribute to the political party that helped them squash those irritating privacy right advocates. I'm hopeful that this event was just to test the systems. To see how well the systems handle a heavy load. I'm also hopeful that these systems can be self-regulated (the republicans in power certainly won't interfere). As long as the faces being scanned aren't stored in a database (they should be kept in memory and discarded if a match isn't made), there shouldn't be a problem. Yes, it is the old 'if you aren't a criminal, what the hell are you worried about' arguement. A little paranoia isn't bad, but the level that you (a non-criminal) are worried about a camera taking a quick shot is a bit over the edge. I can somewhat see this point of view, as I disliked being caught on video, but you have to get over it. Just as people get over fear of snakes by handling them, maybe you should get over being camera shy. My advice for that - a trip to Las Vegas, where you will be on video nearly full-time. From the hundreds of cameras on a casino floor to the camera atop the traffic lights, somebody is watching you, taping your every movement. The place made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end for the first month. Then I got used to it; hell I'm not a criminal, what do I have to worry about? Nothing. End of story. As soon as the algorith is tweaked to get the minimum false matches these systems will be all over the place. Until a Gattaca like DNA scanner is built, this is what we will have to put up with. Will this system be a pain to put up with? Initially, yes. Given a few years, no. As long as you keep your nose fairly clean, you have little to worry about (and a quick finger-print scan should take care of any false matches).
---
Another item to try if you are getting annoying static from your stereo connected to your PC is a ground loop isolator. Radio Shack used to sell them fairly cheap.