Commonly stated theory, which falls on its face when you consider that you can easily bring an empty container through security, or buy a beverage container or souvenir type item after passing through.
Good point... once upon a time I enjoyed installing and tweaking for its own sake. Now I have kids to play with, work to do, and a whole lot of more important things than trying to find the perfect window manager... Especially for something that *might* prove to be a useful interaction paradigm, I'm a lot less likely to play around with it than I used to be.
And to the AC who responded to you: you're not thinking about a guru, you're thinking about a guru who has no deadlines or responsibilities.
Yeah, but try explaining that to a non-technical user. Good luck getting past the definition of a window manager.... getting it into the default install is a crucial step to making it "real" in the sense that non-gurus actually use it.
Except the limits that kept that diet workable aren't in place any more. First of all, if you're an average citizen of an industrialized nation, you can easily obtain far more food than you require without exerting significant physical effort. That's different from only eating what you can catch and/or collect. Second, you probably expect to live a lot longer than your distant ancestors. You are therefore susceptible to a lot of consequences of malnutrition or obesity that an ancient hunter/gatherer would never survive long enough to face.
For some people, the limit of "satisfaction" is probably ok. For others, it doesn't work.
Yeah. Despite all the promises of fraud protection, if something goes wrong, your bank account is empty until things get sorted out. I have the discipline to pay off my card every month. I'd much rather be temporarily cut off from my credit than my cash while a dispute is resolved.
Maybe that's true, but I think the purpose of the class actions are more to punish the defendant than to "reward" (really, repay a loss) the plaintiffs. In that regard, it's generally reasonable for a large fraction of the compensation to go to the lawyers-- after all, they are assuming a lot of risk in the event that they lose the case. Also, there's some risk that an individual potential plaintiff is not identified, but generally the sorts of problems that lead to class actions are so minor that no individual plaintiff would find it worthwhile to pursue the case. Thus it's not so catastrophic if you don't hear about it-- you were unlikely to be compensated in any case.
I have mixed feelings about blocking out those who neither opted in nor opted out of the class. On the one hand, it seems generally reasonable to provide some protection to the defendants against repeated class action cases or a flurry of non-class cases using a settlement or decision in support of additional claims. It's a lot more efficient for the legal system to combine all those into a single action, and it provides an incentive for the defendant to seriously consider a settlement-- further reducing the burden on the justice system. On the other hand, it doesn't feel right on an individual basis.
I completely agree that the coupon/discount/whatever "remuneration" is utter bullshit. I've been a member of a number of class actions concerning credit cards and cell phones, mostly. I did get a free renewal (or fraction of one) for a domain name registration. That was usfeul. The two one-hour long distance cards I got from sprint are still sitting unused. Oh well.
Yep. Sometimes (probably quite often) they intersect. The number of audiophiles who do not appreciate music is probably small. There are quite a few people who like music but aren't obsessed with the reproduction once it reaches the adequate level.
I'm not challenging your appreciation for music, merely the implication that it's the only way one can appreciate music.
It's great to hear technically accurate reproduction, and (if you stay away from the snake oil bullshit) is a fine hobby that is independent of whether you appreciate the musical qualities of the sound you're reproducing. But it's far from necessary to convey the power of good music, and there are plenty of people who profoundly appreciate music without being concerned about technically faithful reproduction.
Anyone who does care about music will immediately recognise the quality in the sound.
Correction: Anyone who does care about music in the same particular technical fashion that you care about it will recognize it. Plenty of us care about music just fine without worrying about minute details of its reproduction. Audiophilia and music appreciation are two very different things.
I think asking is a mistake here, unless the "ask" is an option that you need to actively seek out, rather than just a dialog popping up.
The problem is that it is bad for the many users who won't have a clue what the question is asking. Mac OSX does a similar thing when you archive files -- it adds a bunch of.__MACOS (or similar) files in the structure that contain the metadata. It does this by default and AFAIK there's no way to turn it off. While this was annoying to me when I first found it, it's probably a reasonable compromise. People who care about this will be capable of getting around it, while for most users, things will just magically work whenever the receiving system understands the convention.
It runs into trouble, of course, when you go to a system that neither understands the convention nor the method for marking a file hidden. Then the recipient wonders where all these funny looking files come from......
I think you're making it too complicated. The state has (or should have) a responsibility to notify you of a suspension. That step should require actual notification -- i.e., they should be able to demonstrate that they at least sent a letter to the correct address on file. Just proving they sent something to someone is hardly sufficient if you had no other way to know of the suspension. There's still the non-negligible chance of misdelivery which is why I think positive evidence of notice should be required.
Of course, it's not often that a notice is your only way to know of the suspension. If the rules say you must pay by X date and you pay at X+1, it's fair to say that you have broken a rule and can be responsible for knowing that you will be suspended. In that case, the notice is merely a courtesy.
The things we deem cruel and unusual seem far less so to me. Far less expensive as well. Cut off toes, fingers, and other non-essential parts as punishment for crime and escalate for repeat offenders up to and including death.
Sorry, that's ridiculous. Mutilation is not an acceptable punishment within a civilized society. I agree that disproportionate prison sentences are a major problem and that conditions in some prisons may rise to the degree of cruel and/or unusual. However, that's an argument for fixing those problems, not for upping the bar on what degree of cruelty is acceptable.
I also strongly disagree with EVER trying minors as adults. [...] As is stands someone who shoplifts a pack of gum at 17 will be tried as an adult. They will be required to do community service, get probation for a year, and more importantly they will have a record for life.
In some cases I think it's appropriate. Do you have any actual examples of a minor being tried as an adult for the sort of petty larceny you describe? I've certainly never seen it. The instances I know of concern only the most serious, usually violent, crimes. In that sort of case, I think you can make a reasonable argument that the nature of the crime was far beyond what could be considered "youthful indiscretion." A teenager shoplifting is very different in nature from, to use an actual case in the news this week, dousing a guy with alcohol and setting him on fire. The standard for escalating to trial as an adult should rightfully be a high one, but there are some crimes that simply don't fit within the minor designation.
We need to decriminalize very minor crimes like drug possession and distribution, to free space in our prisons. We need to criminalize drug use destroying the demand side of the market.
Dude! Wait.. what?!
Think your logic through again here. Even ignoring the highly debatable questions of whether drug use should be illegal or is a cause of violent crime, that makes no sense. Criminalize use while decriminalizing possession and distribution? "No officer, I didn't use any of it, I was just holding those three kilos for my, uh, friend." "Ok, move along." Sorry, either drugs are a problem that should be criminalized or they're not. Splitting hairs like this is not going to improve anything for anybody.
Generally speaking, if the DMV sent it to the address that's on file and didn't get it returned in the mail, the court is going to side with the prosecution. You have a responsibility under law in most states to notify the DMV if you move precisely to prevent this sort of thing from happening. If the DMV doesn't have a current address on file, and a court notice or ticket goes missing in the mail, then that is your fault.
It didn't sound like the case described was a result of an actual change in address. It sounds like the DMV was not sending it to the address on file. In that case, whether or not they receive it back, it should be their fault entirely. Mailing a notice to the correct address on file should be the only act that constitutes a fulfillment of their responsibility to notify the offender (and, really, they should need to use a delivery method with proof of delivery, but that's a whole 'nother story...).
Of course, I'm presuming that there wasn't a duty on his part to follow up as was described above, etc...
There seem to be a lot of software patents that are interesting as an interface widget or as a solution to a problem, but are rarely technically complicated. To use my example, if you merely use a word processor or a spreadsheet, you know it is a useful tool. You don't need the source code or a detailed patent application to develop another. Similarly with the Microsoft patent in question-- it's clearly a simple UI extension (if even that) of a technical solution that's existed for decades. Any competent systems programmer who used the interface would have a pretty good idea how to reimplement it without any further assistance.
To me, that does not rise to the degree of novelty/non-obviousness to warrant a patent. Sure, your implementation of the idea is yours through copyright.
I'm actually inclined to be a bit more sympathetic to more complicated technical achievements, but I still don't believe we benefit as a society from the technological Balkanization that occurs as a result of software patents. There's a murky muddy line between mathematical truths and software algorithms, and we're better off if we keep government-sponsored monopolies away from mathematical truths.
Finally, nice try with the "industrialized country" bit, but that really doesn't get off the ground. I'm not arguing against patents as an institution, just their (mis-)application to software and algorithms. Patents and copyrights are distinct concepts for a reason-- in a sense, one deals with "things" and the other with "ideas." Extending the rules for one into the milieu of the other is a dangerous endeavor.
No, software does not need more protection than just copyright. I don't see any aspect of your little scenario that suggests it does. If someone wants to reverse-engineer a piece of software, then more power to them. If I want to be protective, I am not going to send you the source code to "not copy."
We'd all be better off without the quagmire that is patented software and algorithms. Can you really pretend we'd be better off if the word processor or spreadsheet had been patented when they were first invented?
Such a defense should only work if the yellow light is shorter than some reasonable minimum for a typical vehicle. Usually I'd guess (as others have asserted) that there are state laws that specify the minimum as a function of speed limit. Otherwise it's up to the driver to drive at a speed that allows a safe stop within the yellow light time. Other than the minimum limits on some freeways, the speed limit is an upper limit, and if your vehicle cannot be safely operated at that speed, you need to drive more slowly...
I think it's the jiggle. Many of the interface responses are as if you're sliding things around on jello. It's cute, but I think it's also the key to the convincing physicality-- you don't notice little errors in tracking because you expect small deviations from your motion. If the code realizes it made a mistake, it can just smoothly jiggle itself to where it should have been. Definitely clever.
Umm, there's a word for people who are vegetarian except they sometimes eat meat products, and it's not "vegetarian." That's hardly what I'd call "militancy." If you can't agree on a place everyone is happy with, you can always split up and get back together after dinner...
Not sure "many" is a fair term-- it can mean different things. Do you mean "a large fraction of cases" or "more than 5"? It's definitely possible to do vegetarianism wrong, as you apparently discovered. It's also not that difficult to do it right. It's more difficult in the US in that you need to make some special efforts to ensure you get a proper diet. But, to be fair, it's not like non-vegetarians do all that well on average either-- just look at the obesity, etc, rates for evidence of that.
So yeah, it's more than just "stop eating meat," but there are plenty of people who do the little bit of research and do it right. Disclaimer: I'm not and have never been and will probably never been vegetarian.
The problem is not making an error. The problem is creating a situation where an error or malfunction can lead to a catastrophe.
The problem is choosing to ignore regulations in such a way that you're not paying attention to something as important as flying an aircraft and monitoring air traffic controller communications. That's not an error, that's a willful disregard for the possible consequences. In this case, they got lucky, but that does not excuse their behavior. It was clearly negligent.
I've heard several possible explanations for what happened, but I haven't heard a single one that leads me to having any sympathy if these guys lose their jobs. If there were a "good" excuse, I'm pretty sure that's the first one they'd be claiming...
I guess we'll just have to adopt the GNU/Linux naming convention. That way we can distinguish a Windows/PC from a GNU/Linux/PC from a GNU/BSD/PC from a GNU/Linux/Mac from a OSX/BSD/Mac from a.. oh wait, is that an OSX/BSD/Intel/Mac or an OSX/BSD/PPC/Mac? Argh! My head is going to explode!!
Slashdot Mirror
Commonly stated theory, which falls on its face when you consider that you can easily bring an empty container through security, or buy a beverage container or souvenir type item after passing through.
Good point... once upon a time I enjoyed installing and tweaking for its own sake. Now I have kids to play with, work to do, and a whole lot of more important things than trying to find the perfect window manager... Especially for something that *might* prove to be a useful interaction paradigm, I'm a lot less likely to play around with it than I used to be.
And to the AC who responded to you: you're not thinking about a guru, you're thinking about a guru who has no deadlines or responsibilities.
Yeah, but try explaining that to a non-technical user. Good luck getting past the definition of a window manager.... getting it into the default install is a crucial step to making it "real" in the sense that non-gurus actually use it.
Except the limits that kept that diet workable aren't in place any more. First of all, if you're an average citizen of an industrialized nation, you can easily obtain far more food than you require without exerting significant physical effort. That's different from only eating what you can catch and/or collect. Second, you probably expect to live a lot longer than your distant ancestors. You are therefore susceptible to a lot of consequences of malnutrition or obesity that an ancient hunter/gatherer would never survive long enough to face.
For some people, the limit of "satisfaction" is probably ok. For others, it doesn't work.
Yeah. Despite all the promises of fraud protection, if something goes wrong, your bank account is empty until things get sorted out. I have the discipline to pay off my card every month. I'd much rather be temporarily cut off from my credit than my cash while a dispute is resolved.
Maybe that's true, but I think the purpose of the class actions are more to punish the defendant than to "reward" (really, repay a loss) the plaintiffs. In that regard, it's generally reasonable for a large fraction of the compensation to go to the lawyers-- after all, they are assuming a lot of risk in the event that they lose the case. Also, there's some risk that an individual potential plaintiff is not identified, but generally the sorts of problems that lead to class actions are so minor that no individual plaintiff would find it worthwhile to pursue the case. Thus it's not so catastrophic if you don't hear about it-- you were unlikely to be compensated in any case.
I have mixed feelings about blocking out those who neither opted in nor opted out of the class. On the one hand, it seems generally reasonable to provide some protection to the defendants against repeated class action cases or a flurry of non-class cases using a settlement or decision in support of additional claims. It's a lot more efficient for the legal system to combine all those into a single action, and it provides an incentive for the defendant to seriously consider a settlement-- further reducing the burden on the justice system. On the other hand, it doesn't feel right on an individual basis.
I completely agree that the coupon/discount/whatever "remuneration" is utter bullshit. I've been a member of a number of class actions concerning credit cards and cell phones, mostly. I did get a free renewal (or fraction of one) for a domain name registration. That was usfeul. The two one-hour long distance cards I got from sprint are still sitting unused. Oh well.
Yep. Sometimes (probably quite often) they intersect. The number of audiophiles who do not appreciate music is probably small. There are quite a few people who like music but aren't obsessed with the reproduction once it reaches the adequate level.
I'm not challenging your appreciation for music, merely the implication that it's the only way one can appreciate music.
It's great to hear technically accurate reproduction, and (if you stay away from the snake oil bullshit) is a fine hobby that is independent of whether you appreciate the musical qualities of the sound you're reproducing. But it's far from necessary to convey the power of good music, and there are plenty of people who profoundly appreciate music without being concerned about technically faithful reproduction.
Anyone who does care about music will immediately recognise the quality in the sound.
Correction: Anyone who does care about music in the same particular technical fashion that you care about it will recognize it. Plenty of us care about music just fine without worrying about minute details of its reproduction. Audiophilia and music appreciation are two very different things.
I think asking is a mistake here, unless the "ask" is an option that you need to actively seek out, rather than just a dialog popping up.
The problem is that it is bad for the many users who won't have a clue what the question is asking. Mac OSX does a similar thing when you archive files -- it adds a bunch of .__MACOS (or similar) files in the structure that contain the metadata. It does this by default and AFAIK there's no way to turn it off. While this was annoying to me when I first found it, it's probably a reasonable compromise. People who care about this will be capable of getting around it, while for most users, things will just magically work whenever the receiving system understands the convention.
It runs into trouble, of course, when you go to a system that neither understands the convention nor the method for marking a file hidden. Then the recipient wonders where all these funny looking files come from......
I think you're making it too complicated. The state has (or should have) a responsibility to notify you of a suspension. That step should require actual notification -- i.e., they should be able to demonstrate that they at least sent a letter to the correct address on file. Just proving they sent something to someone is hardly sufficient if you had no other way to know of the suspension. There's still the non-negligible chance of misdelivery which is why I think positive evidence of notice should be required.
Of course, it's not often that a notice is your only way to know of the suspension. If the rules say you must pay by X date and you pay at X+1, it's fair to say that you have broken a rule and can be responsible for knowing that you will be suspended. In that case, the notice is merely a courtesy.
Generalizations. The foundation of rational decision making with limited information.
The things we deem cruel and unusual seem far less so to me. Far less expensive as well. Cut off toes, fingers, and other non-essential parts as punishment for crime and escalate for repeat offenders up to and including death.
Sorry, that's ridiculous. Mutilation is not an acceptable punishment within a civilized society. I agree that disproportionate prison sentences are a major problem and that conditions in some prisons may rise to the degree of cruel and/or unusual. However, that's an argument for fixing those problems, not for upping the bar on what degree of cruelty is acceptable.
I also strongly disagree with EVER trying minors as adults. [...] As is stands someone who shoplifts a pack of gum at 17 will be tried as an adult. They will be required to do community service, get probation for a year, and more importantly they will have a record for life.
In some cases I think it's appropriate. Do you have any actual examples of a minor being tried as an adult for the sort of petty larceny you describe? I've certainly never seen it. The instances I know of concern only the most serious, usually violent, crimes. In that sort of case, I think you can make a reasonable argument that the nature of the crime was far beyond what could be considered "youthful indiscretion." A teenager shoplifting is very different in nature from, to use an actual case in the news this week, dousing a guy with alcohol and setting him on fire. The standard for escalating to trial as an adult should rightfully be a high one, but there are some crimes that simply don't fit within the minor designation.
We need to decriminalize very minor crimes like drug possession and distribution, to free space in our prisons. We need to criminalize drug use destroying the demand side of the market.
Dude! Wait.. what?!
Think your logic through again here. Even ignoring the highly debatable questions of whether drug use should be illegal or is a cause of violent crime, that makes no sense. Criminalize use while decriminalizing possession and distribution? "No officer, I didn't use any of it, I was just holding those three kilos for my, uh, friend." "Ok, move along." Sorry, either drugs are a problem that should be criminalized or they're not. Splitting hairs like this is not going to improve anything for anybody.
Generally speaking, if the DMV sent it to the address that's on file and didn't get it returned in the mail, the court is going to side with the prosecution. You have a responsibility under law in most states to notify the DMV if you move precisely to prevent this sort of thing from happening. If the DMV doesn't have a current address on file, and a court notice or ticket goes missing in the mail, then that is your fault.
It didn't sound like the case described was a result of an actual change in address. It sounds like the DMV was not sending it to the address on file. In that case, whether or not they receive it back, it should be their fault entirely. Mailing a notice to the correct address on file should be the only act that constitutes a fulfillment of their responsibility to notify the offender (and, really, they should need to use a delivery method with proof of delivery, but that's a whole 'nother story...).
Of course, I'm presuming that there wasn't a duty on his part to follow up as was described above, etc...
In a word, yes.
There seem to be a lot of software patents that are interesting as an interface widget or as a solution to a problem, but are rarely technically complicated. To use my example, if you merely use a word processor or a spreadsheet, you know it is a useful tool. You don't need the source code or a detailed patent application to develop another. Similarly with the Microsoft patent in question-- it's clearly a simple UI extension (if even that) of a technical solution that's existed for decades. Any competent systems programmer who used the interface would have a pretty good idea how to reimplement it without any further assistance.
To me, that does not rise to the degree of novelty/non-obviousness to warrant a patent. Sure, your implementation of the idea is yours through copyright.
I'm actually inclined to be a bit more sympathetic to more complicated technical achievements, but I still don't believe we benefit as a society from the technological Balkanization that occurs as a result of software patents. There's a murky muddy line between mathematical truths and software algorithms, and we're better off if we keep government-sponsored monopolies away from mathematical truths.
Finally, nice try with the "industrialized country" bit, but that really doesn't get off the ground. I'm not arguing against patents as an institution, just their (mis-)application to software and algorithms. Patents and copyrights are distinct concepts for a reason-- in a sense, one deals with "things" and the other with "ideas." Extending the rules for one into the milieu of the other is a dangerous endeavor.
No, software does not need more protection than just copyright. I don't see any aspect of your little scenario that suggests it does. If someone wants to reverse-engineer a piece of software, then more power to them. If I want to be protective, I am not going to send you the source code to "not copy."
We'd all be better off without the quagmire that is patented software and algorithms. Can you really pretend we'd be better off if the word processor or spreadsheet had been patented when they were first invented?
Such a defense should only work if the yellow light is shorter than some reasonable minimum for a typical vehicle. Usually I'd guess (as others have asserted) that there are state laws that specify the minimum as a function of speed limit. Otherwise it's up to the driver to drive at a speed that allows a safe stop within the yellow light time. Other than the minimum limits on some freeways, the speed limit is an upper limit, and if your vehicle cannot be safely operated at that speed, you need to drive more slowly...
It's only a no-brainer if you're ignoring other people's costs that result from your misuse of the DNS protocol.
I think it's the jiggle. Many of the interface responses are as if you're sliding things around on jello. It's cute, but I think it's also the key to the convincing physicality-- you don't notice little errors in tracking because you expect small deviations from your motion. If the code realizes it made a mistake, it can just smoothly jiggle itself to where it should have been. Definitely clever.
Umm, there's a word for people who are vegetarian except they sometimes eat meat products, and it's not "vegetarian." That's hardly what I'd call "militancy." If you can't agree on a place everyone is happy with, you can always split up and get back together after dinner...
Not sure "many" is a fair term-- it can mean different things. Do you mean "a large fraction of cases" or "more than 5"? It's definitely possible to do vegetarianism wrong, as you apparently discovered. It's also not that difficult to do it right. It's more difficult in the US in that you need to make some special efforts to ensure you get a proper diet. But, to be fair, it's not like non-vegetarians do all that well on average either-- just look at the obesity, etc, rates for evidence of that.
So yeah, it's more than just "stop eating meat," but there are plenty of people who do the little bit of research and do it right. Disclaimer: I'm not and have never been and will probably never been vegetarian.
Can someone mod this guy -1: Blatantly Incorrect?
The problem is not making an error. The problem is creating a situation where an error or malfunction can lead to a catastrophe.
The problem is choosing to ignore regulations in such a way that you're not paying attention to something as important as flying an aircraft and monitoring air traffic controller communications. That's not an error, that's a willful disregard for the possible consequences. In this case, they got lucky, but that does not excuse their behavior. It was clearly negligent.
I've heard several possible explanations for what happened, but I haven't heard a single one that leads me to having any sympathy if these guys lose their jobs. If there were a "good" excuse, I'm pretty sure that's the first one they'd be claiming...
:-)
I guess we'll just have to adopt the GNU/Linux naming convention. That way we can distinguish a Windows/PC from a GNU/Linux/PC from a GNU/BSD/PC from a GNU/Linux/Mac from a OSX/BSD/Mac from a.. oh wait, is that an OSX/BSD/Intel/Mac or an OSX/BSD/PPC/Mac? Argh! My head is going to explode!!