I live in NY state in the US, and here it IS illegal due to state law. I still see people doing it all the time unfortunately.
If you're really worried about bad drivers, you should press for realistic standards for driving licenses. In the United States, you basically have to be breathing to get and retain a license. I suspect that I am a better driver talking on a cell phone than at least three quarters of the people on the road, because I understand that vehicle control is my primary task. If I feel I'm overloaded cognitively, I just put it down until I have a little attention to spare again. The folks on the other end just have to deal with the dead air.
In my state, it's a rare red light that doesn't have several cars blow through it. It's a rare emergency vehicle that doesn't have some wankmaster fail to pull over. I don't see what's inherently more distracting about a cell phone than a converstation with a front-seat passenger. Or for that matter, than listening to a talk show on the radio. The real problem is people that can't split their attention between several tasks, and while we'd be a lot safer if we eliminated them from the road, it's never going to happen.
Also, in re the "we must save people" argument that I hear justifying ridiculously-low blood alcohol standards, cell phone bans, etc.--remember that we could reduce traffic fatalitites to nearly zero by lowering the speed limit to seven miles per hour. We're talking what? Fifty thousand lives a year? Nah--let's bad cell phones!
That gravity that's holding your ass to the seat, that's called "real estate". Underneath your fat ass is dirt and that is where the gravity comes from.
Technically, the dirt under your ass contributes only a tiny fraction of the gravity you're using. Most of it comes from the majority of the earth that isn't under you, but is off to one side or another. More communism! Bill was right!
That's so far from a legitimate comparison it's not even funny. Businesses pay for electricity, to use it would be increasing their costs.
Next thing you know, they're going to be wanting free toilet paper in the
bathrooms. They're all communists, like Bill sez.
It's not different than your neighbor hooking up his christmas lights to an external power plug on the outside of your house. It's stealing.
It's different because I'm not paying my neighbor. I am paying
the restaurant. If they don't want me doing it, they can say so, and then I can take my business elsewhere if I don't like it.
The plane was on approach to a nearby airport and was at very low altitude.
The report I saw said the plane was on an approach to Teterboro. At 3000 feet. According to my sources, KTEB is at elevation 9 feet. That means, if
the guy stretched his hand over his head, the plane was still pretty far above
him.
Most instrument approaches start on the order of ten miles from the airport at up to 5000 feet AGL.
I doubt that you can see down more than 30 degrees from the horizontal out the side of a Citation cockpit without sticking your head over. The slant range was
probably at least a mile if they were at 3000 feet. Note: I can't find an authoritative report of the altitude, but one report states the citation was 11 miles out, so they certainly wouldn't be at "a very low altitude."
[...] excluding the biometric scanner (which is awesome). I'd buy one just for that.
I'm don't do PDAs, but if I did, I don't see why I'd want to pay aything for
a "biometric scanner" (which I think is some kind of fingerprint thingus). The only reliable way to keep my data safe if someone steals my PDA is . . . well, I don't know if there *is* any reliable way. Certainly the fingerprint scanners I've heard about don't sound like it.
If you're concerned with data compromise, a nontrivial passphrase combined with encryption seems much more secure. Aren't there applications for these boxes that do something like that? Something like Password Safe? (In fact, that probably would just work on the Windows-based PDAs, but there are still a lot of Palms out there...).
I'm assuming that the passwords you store on your PDA are the things you really don't want compromised. If you have bigger stuff, then you can just plain encrypt it, then save the passwords securely. Possibly more trouble, but a lot more secure than the iPaq Rectal Scan Unit (tm).
The other possibility is that it was a stupid, stupid person who wasn't really thinking about the consequences of what they were doing at the time and there was no premeditated intent to cause a plane to crash. If that is the case, I think 25 years is a bit extreme.
If distracting someone running a vehicle is chargable under the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. (tm) act, then they should bung all the store owners with those big animated roadside signs in jail immediately. (Note: I would be in favor of this--if that's the only way they can get business, they should just quietly go bankrupt). They are a lot more distracting than a diffuse laser pointer
from thousands of feet away. I can't believe you can hand-hold a pointer on target from a thousand feet away, either. And brief consideration shows that if it was hitting a pilot's eye it couldn't have been much closer than that unless they were on airport property. After all, airplanes are supposed to be a minimum of 1000 feet above a populated area unless they're landing or taking off, and you can't see even close to straight down from the cockpit.
Likewise, they might as well arrest people for skipping rocks when there's an ocean liner passing by. "You can _kill_ somebody with a rock!" Sheesh.
I score this as a typical application of what I call The Stupid Person's Syllogism:
We must do something about X.
Y is something.
Therefore, we must do Y.
Identification of X and Y is left as an exercise for the reader. I think you'll find the SPS explains a lot about modern society.
In some cultures, sacrificing a goat to the spirits is a truth that may help you survive the famine, if only by making your neighbours afraid enough of you so you can steal their food.
It might help because eating the goat keeps you from starving to death, too, hmm?
Different truths can be in direct conflict (quantum vs. classical mechanics) and yet both be suitable tools.
I think you confuse the notion of truth with the notion of model. Classical mechanics is a simplification that works with large collections of particles moving relatively slowly. Quantum mechanics would work in classical situations too, but it would be hideously complex to apply it (or so my understanding goes).
Even religion is a truth that helps navigate certain kinds of reality... it's a kind of fuse box for the mind, so to speak. When logic and science can't explain why the wave hit you, perhaps religion can.
If everything that makes you feel better or helps you is "truth," then it follows that a lie is "truth" if it makes you feel better or helps you. That appears to diverge radically from my notion of "truth." Perhaps we should call it something else to avoid confusion?
"Ability for travellers to self-police. If some guy is driving 60mph+ over the speed limit, likely you could have people report this driver.. Enough complaints and an officer will know where to respond."
Hmm..yup, and help generate more revenue for the cops. Heck, let them earn it themselves...
I see this as the #1 reason to 'hack' the system...or at least opt out of the communication network.
Unfortunately (or not, as you like), someone opting out of the net will
probably not prevent others from reporting his poor driving. The only exception would be if only that vehicle was available to route the information.
You would have to either trust every node your traffic passed through, or have some pretty interesting crypto. Otherwise, when you report someone for speeding, you may end up reporting yourself....
I hate to bring up that unpleasant "science thing", but can he cite any empirical evidence of a lifeform that has survived by colonizing multiple planets?
To adopt the postion that we will not consider things like "what is the future of humanity?" until we have a statistically valid sample of intelligent alien races is fatuous.
His position that human lives are threatened by cosmic impacts is supported by a considerable body of evidence--see for instance the Impact Database. Given the extreme brevity of the interview, I don't think labeling him a "nut job" is reasonable. He may have a good point if allowed to expand on it. The interview was so short it was hardly worth a mention on Slashdot.
What if there were a sort of connection between all the ants, or birds, or creatures that show this sort of behavior, like there was with the buggers in his book. What if there is some sort of connection there that we with current tools cannot detect. Or as George Lucas put it, sort of like the Force. It's there, it allows birds/ants to communicate in a method that we can't detect. Is that possible?
Sure. It's also possible that they're all intelligent beings who are conspiring to act like mindless automata. Or that they're all really cans of Pringles. Or that we're all dreams in the mind of Scruffy the janitor.
But unless you can think of a way to test any of these hypothesese, there isn't much point in thinking about them (unless you want to start a new religion, which I understand has some rather significant tax advantages along with getting you laid fairly regularly).
He is a dolt and must count on other dolts to purchase make believe land from him. If he is successful and does sell his land, it simply means he is not as much as a dolt as the people that bought from him. That of course could mean he becomes less of a dolt or the people that bought are simply bigger dolts in the first place.
Interesting point of view. Here's another one: is anyone that trades in
a commodity that's overvalued because they expect its price to go up a dolt?
If so, then by definition everyone that owns stocks (or mutual fund shares)
is probably a dolt, since there are always stocks that trade at values
above what you'd expect just because people have been willing to pay a price that trends upwards with time. This is automatically true for stocks that don't pay dividends, regardless of their price . . . .
Some of the applicants have a BS in CS from places like Berkeley, but it doesn't really matter because they got it ten years ago...with an emphasis in cobol.
Do they (or did they ten years ago) actually have a COBOL class
at Berkeley?
You people need to get a life. The Networks generate their revenue off of sponsorship (read: commercials). Commercials are how the networks pay for all these shows you're watching! What don't you understand?
The Tarzan version: Me buy Tivo. Me pay Tivo. Tivo not network. Network business model separate from me and Tivo relationship, and not my problem.
If the network goes under because people don't watch their ads . . . tough tootie. I'd be happy to pay for the one to three shows I watch every week, and if the vast sea of reality TV, sports, gameshows, and soap operas sinks beneath the waves it will only be good for the country and the world. Many of these so-called "actors," "writers," and other "talent" should be competing as baristas and shoe-store clerks anyway.
As for getting a life, I can't think of much of a crusade to get people to watch commericals so the poor networks can make their nut. I mean, UNICEF can always use some help. Wouldn't your leverage be more helpful there?
Well, I don't know about Iowa, but I noticed a sign for off-airport
parking in Albuquerque NM for $2.88 per day. And they drive you to
the airport and pick you up. Zowie.
Does that make everyone there rich? Hmmm. I'm trying to decide
if I'm being sarcastic or not. I doubt the rest of the cost of
living varies as much as that, since it isn't all a function of
the scarcity of land....
They aren't making much of a profit selling you that copy of WC3 for only $30 to begin with, and they probably LOST money on the sale once you factored in the time that you spent nagging the sales clerk and manager for your discount.
Interesting point of view. Did they hire another manager? Did they hire another clerk? Their incremental cost was . . . zero, right?
Being a simple geek, I sometimes don't understand the subtleties of business, but I think that the usual marginal cost argument is flawed. Frequently providing good service doesn't increase your costs at all. If the clerk had the authority to actually honor their "low price pledge" or whatever they call it, it would take zero extra time, since there would be no "nagging" and no need to call in the Overdrone for consultation.
Granted, you might not make a big profit on a particular sale, but for each careful shopper like the previous-but-one poster, you'll get a dozen people that he/she recommended the place to. I guess this reveals why I don't run a store....
Like ants, science isn't quite sure how the bees communicate (pheremones of some sorts) but the end effect is that they can guide many others to far away flowers, organize a defense of the hive, keep the hive core temperature habitable from 40 below (F) to 120+ (F), neglecting un-needed bees to death in times of drought, and a lot more.
It's been well-known for many years that honeybees communicate directions to sources of nectar using dance. Here's a brief reference.
Replying to myself, I see I did. I used 2e3 instead of 3.474e3, so I
should have gotten 9.05 light years instead of 5.2. But I still think
you dropped a factor of ten....
As a matter of fact, landing a helicopter without motor assistance is called "the sycamore landing".
As another poster mentioned, it's usually called an autorotation. I didn't
find a single instance of this on Google, which is strange (almost any random phrase seems to be somewhere on the web). Perhaps I should be looking in something other than English? If you can give a pointer I'd be grateful, though I have a feeling a German page on helicopters will be . . . interesting . . . when run through Babblefish.
Samsung has a small laser printer that's about the size of your typical inkjet that can be had for less than $100 or so. I got mine at a Sam's Club for ~$85.
That was a nice little laser. We used one at home for quite a while (it was an earlier model, I think a 1650)--until we upgraded to Mac OS X. Oops. The printer wouldn't work any more. And didn't work for two years. I don't know if they ever released working drivers, but the printer is no more and we have an HP 1300, which is also a swell little laser printer. Of course, it costs a bunch more....
but we've had it for two years and are still using the first cartridge.
What's needed is the ability to take pictures or video, have it transmitted wirelessly to a trusted third party who can attest as to content and time stamp.
the problem is, it's not symmetrical. if you exercise your right to produce "some unregulated IR signals," then it infringes on others right to watch the TV. others watching TV will not infringe on your right to produce such signal. so the burden falls on you to not take such action since you will be affecting others, while the reverse is not true.
Seems a little too symmetric to me. What about my right not to be subjected to the flood of photons and noise? Aren't they infringing my right to a relatively quiet and peaceful environment? Are you saying that the photons from the TV are somehow more privileged than those from the remote?
Of course, I'm taking this position because my theory is that there are three hours of good TV every week (the same as in 1960), but of course that means that there is a 99.982% chance a TV turned on at random is showing complete dreck (estimate based on 100 24-hour channels). My empirical sampling of television in public places hasn't disproved my theory yet. What the real "right" and "wrong" of the issue is is likely to require legislation.
you might be annoyed by TVs in restaurants and airports... but who's giving you the right to turn it off on behalf of everyone?
I guess I'd phrase it a little differently: who's restricting my right to produce some unregulated IR signals? If people want it on, they can duct tape over the IR window and use the buttons. I suspect the majority of people (as the inventor implied) don't care if the TV is on or off anyway. Should we hold a vote before turning it on (or off)?
Anyway, it's only a matter of time before there's the "TV B On" for
the tubeoholics. Then the "IR remote detectors" and "anti-IR radiation micromissles" and so forth.
There are 4 targets that need to be hit to completely blind the pilot and copilot. Doesn't sound like an easy task to me.
And it doesn't accomplish all that much. Those planes can land by themselves.
I'm afraid you'll find that they're not voice controlled. If the pilots can't
see the switches and more importantly the displays, they're going to have a heck of a time controling things. I guess they'd have to fall back on having someone come up to the cockpit and trying to talk them through things.
Perhaps someone that's actually done an autoland can comment on whether it could be done if you couldn't see inside the cockpit. It would certainly be a challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
In my state, it's a rare red light that doesn't have several cars blow through it. It's a rare emergency vehicle that doesn't have some wankmaster fail to pull over. I don't see what's inherently more distracting about a cell phone than a converstation with a front-seat passenger. Or for that matter, than listening to a talk show on the radio. The real problem is people that can't split their attention between several tasks, and while we'd be a lot safer if we eliminated them from the road, it's never going to happen.
Also, in re the "we must save people" argument that I hear justifying ridiculously-low blood alcohol standards, cell phone bans, etc.--remember that we could reduce traffic fatalitites to nearly zero by lowering the speed limit to seven miles per hour. We're talking what? Fifty thousand lives a year? Nah--let's bad cell phones!
Most instrument approaches start on the order of ten miles from the airport at up to 5000 feet AGL. I doubt that you can see down more than 30 degrees from the horizontal out the side of a Citation cockpit without sticking your head over. The slant range was probably at least a mile if they were at 3000 feet. Note: I can't find an authoritative report of the altitude, but one report states the citation was 11 miles out, so they certainly wouldn't be at "a very low altitude."
If you're concerned with data compromise, a nontrivial passphrase combined with encryption seems much more secure. Aren't there applications for these boxes that do something like that? Something like Password Safe? (In fact, that probably would just work on the Windows-based PDAs, but there are still a lot of Palms out there...).
I'm assuming that the passwords you store on your PDA are the things you really don't want compromised. If you have bigger stuff, then you can just plain encrypt it, then save the passwords securely. Possibly more trouble, but a lot more secure than the iPaq Rectal Scan Unit (tm).
Likewise, they might as well arrest people for skipping rocks when there's an ocean liner passing by. "You can _kill_ somebody with a rock!" Sheesh.
I score this as a typical application of what I call The Stupid Person's Syllogism:
Identification of X and Y is left as an exercise for the reader. I think you'll find the SPS explains a lot about modern society.
You would have to either trust every node your traffic passed through, or have some pretty interesting crypto. Otherwise, when you report someone for speeding, you may end up reporting yourself....
His position that human lives are threatened by cosmic impacts is supported by a considerable body of evidence--see for instance the Impact Database. Given the extreme brevity of the interview, I don't think labeling him a "nut job" is reasonable. He may have a good point if allowed to expand on it. The interview was so short it was hardly worth a mention on Slashdot.
But unless you can think of a way to test any of these hypothesese, there isn't much point in thinking about them (unless you want to start a new religion, which I understand has some rather significant tax advantages along with getting you laid fairly regularly).
If the network goes under because people don't watch their ads . . . tough tootie. I'd be happy to pay for the one to three shows I watch every week, and if the vast sea of reality TV, sports, gameshows, and soap operas sinks beneath the waves it will only be good for the country and the world. Many of these so-called "actors," "writers," and other "talent" should be competing as baristas and shoe-store clerks anyway.
As for getting a life, I can't think of much of a crusade to get people to watch commericals so the poor networks can make their nut. I mean, UNICEF can always use some help. Wouldn't your leverage be more helpful there?
Does that make everyone there rich? Hmmm. I'm trying to decide if I'm being sarcastic or not. I doubt the rest of the cost of living varies as much as that, since it isn't all a function of the scarcity of land....
Being a simple geek, I sometimes don't understand the subtleties of business, but I think that the usual marginal cost argument is flawed. Frequently providing good service doesn't increase your costs at all. If the clerk had the authority to actually honor their "low price pledge" or whatever they call it, it would take zero extra time, since there would be no "nagging" and no need to call in the Overdrone for consultation.
Granted, you might not make a big profit on a particular sale, but for each careful shopper like the previous-but-one poster, you'll get a dozen people that he/she recommended the place to. I guess this reveals why I don't run a store....
I'm suprised how many people stop sheep-like when then ask, though.
Oh, and I agree--they stink.
Replying to myself, I see I did. I used 2e3 instead of 3.474e3, so I should have gotten 9.05 light years instead of 5.2. But I still think you dropped a factor of ten....
So which one of us made a mistake?
Of course, I'm taking this position because my theory is that there are three hours of good TV every week (the same as in 1960), but of course that means that there is a 99.982% chance a TV turned on at random is showing complete dreck (estimate based on 100 24-hour channels). My empirical sampling of television in public places hasn't disproved my theory yet. What the real "right" and "wrong" of the issue is is likely to require legislation.
Anyway, it's only a matter of time before there's the "TV B On" for the tubeoholics. Then the "IR remote detectors" and "anti-IR radiation micromissles" and so forth.
It's all good for the economy.
Perhaps someone that's actually done an autoland can comment on whether it could be done if you couldn't see inside the cockpit. It would certainly be a challenge.