Bingo, the "punishment" for shouting fire in a crowded marketplace should simply be "recompense the State (i.e. the public) for trying to trick it into acting as your enforcer, and then we'll let the market decide."
Maybe they should have to compensate the company that they falsely accused as well, as the false accusation has damaged their reputation.
The chip that the original article mentions has a PLL and an integrated transmitting antenna and produces 2 mW. That IS safe, but not useful for doctor's office scanners. To be useful for scanners, they're going to have to amp it up by at least 20 dB (probably a lot more) and irradiate the part of you they want to examine. And they'll have to add an array of terahertz receivers tuned to the emitter's frequency if they want to do imaging, and the waveform captured by all those receivers is going to have to be downconverted and processed by a computer comparably powerful to the ones they use for ultrasound. And it will have similar resolution to ultrasound, but will be differently reflected within the body because it's an electromagnetic wave not an acoustic one. And it will dissipate rapidly as it passes through the body because its skin depth is going to be about the thickness of your skin. So they'll have to blast the living hell out of you if they want to look at your spleen or inside your head and you'll be wishing they used something that didn't burn your skin quite so much.
Because even that is a distortion. We should call such technologies "new" and anybody who calls them "safe" should be required to either produce evidence that says it is so or a bond that will be paid to whoever eventually suffers harm due to them.
Look, you want to cook your cojones with terahertz scanners, go right ahead. But don't try to persuade me that it's "completely safe" or even safer than competing technologies like MRI and ultrasound without a large body of evidence.
That's absolute rotation or sidereal rotation, neither of which defines a day. Nor is a day a fixed number of atomic seconds. A day is one rotation relative to the sun. Jesus, don't they teach ANYTHING in school any more?
Presumably something made from an animal they would have had to hunt, maybe complete with tool marks showing they ate the meat. But maybe these two STOLE the ornament and really came from a robber-gatherer culture. Minus 50th century gangsters.
Pretty tricky for Satan to plant those skeletons before God created the world. For that he'd have had to have the plans for human beings before God made them. Did he steal the plans and that's what got him in trouble with the Almighty? Or did he invent us and God had to wait for his patents to expire before he could create his own people?
I was thinking something similar... taken a step farther... if the system registers that the voter voted against one system, and the actual vote group to another system, with no correlation data between the two available, it would be reasonable to have online voting... would just need to ensure that both the registration that the person voted, and the record of the vote are separate... give the voter a token, that can be checked against their own vote record, but doesn't tie that token to their id, or that they have voted.
Once we go to on-line voting, it will solve everything. The NSA already knows how you intend to vote. You don't even need to bother logging in, they'll do it for you. Verification of their totals will be via contracts to Facebook and Google.
ATMs are NOT secure. You think a four digit code and a card that can be readily copied are secure? People come up with schemes to steal these all the time. Banks just absorb whatever losses the users notice and complain about.
That's only a small part of the problem. Some of the reported problems on voting machines:
Number of votes recorded on machines exceeds number of voters who used them
Votes recorded for candidate the voter did not intend to choose
Machines wouldn't work on election day
Machines not producing verifiable tallies
Machines allowing the same voter to vote multiple times
Also, the voting machines do not solve and if not well designed can make problems worse with regard to chain-of-custody as compared to paper ballots. The science of making sure a physical box is empty at the beginning of the day and contains N ballots at the end of the day is quite easy to manage. Then you physically seal it and deliver it to the counting venue where the first thing they do is validate the seal and the second thing they do is make sure that box 2351 has N ballots exactly. You have all the same problems with a voting machine but to most people the idea of having an erase procedure at the end of the day and a shutdown procedure that secures the machine's non-volatile memory is not natural. If engineers ran the election, they could ensure that all these operations are carried off without a hitch, but there's not enough technically savvy people to do it, so you have to have non-technical people performing these technical functions and they have to be able to do it without a hitch, because any hitch could result in you having to throw out or having thrown out a whole machine's vote tally.
"That's because the Earth's average rate of rotation is just a little slower than one solar revolution per day."
You're confusing the need for leap seconds with sidereal time. But note, the Earth actually rotates faster than one solar revolution per day.
Leap seconds are needed because when we changed the definition of a second from 1/86400th of a day to one based on a characteristic of the Caesium atom, a poor value was chosen, and the Earth is slowing down over time, primarily due to tidal acceleration by the moon.
No I'm not confusing anything. You're confused. Sidereal time is rate of absolute rotation (relative to the "fixed stars"). The day is based on the rate of rotation relative to the SUN. That's called solar time.
If the Earth rotated faster than one solar revolution per day we would have to skip seconds to keep the atomic second count synchronized with the Earth's rotation. We have to (only) add leap seconds because the Earth rotates a smidge slower than one rotation per 86400 atomic seconds.
Over short time scales, such as between 1967 and now, tidal acceleration is not the dominant factor, although it is over much longer periods.
I don't really see another way around this. The same problem plagues computer OSs also, look at windows.
The only way I see to do this is to either force the updates directly or to have a short cutoff point for support and compatibility. (thus forcing them indirectly)
A lot of consumers won't like this.
Yeah, it's MY PHONE. I was happy with it when I bought it and I DON'T TRUST YOU to decide what software I should be running on MY PHONE.
Carriers sees it as a phone is running on THEIR NETWORK and they DON'T TRUST YOU to decide what software should have access to THEIR NETWORK.
The manufacturer sees it similarly as well. The phone carries THEIR BRANDING and is under THEIR WARRANTY. You have no business screwing with the way it works if it could tarnish THEIR REPUTATION and cost them money.
Any of those reasons alone is sufficient why there should be no forced upgrades.
ICS simply can't run on budget Android devices. The Android makers that are making money (Samsung) are targeting a much wider market then just the high end subsidized North American market. Samsung is able to turn a profit because they're spreading their costs over a much wider net with both mid range phones like the Ace line and a lot of super-low end ones (Y, Mini, Pocket) that compete directly with feature phones and in emerging markets. ICS is never going to run on those and Samsung and others won't try - they're still releasing brand new phones, 8 months later, running Gingerbread with no hope for an upgrade.
Android will continue to be 'fragmented' between Gingerbread and whatever the latest and greatest is for a long time, at least as long as the gulf exists between heavily carrier subsized phones in a few countries (allowing iPhones, Samsung Galaxy Ss and HTC One Xs to sell in any quantity) and full cost phones in other countries where (Gingerbread) Android's price point is the biggest selling point against more expensive smart phones and increasingly identically priced feature phones.
There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it's a good thing to have cheap low-end choices, as long as you're told up front when you buy the phone that it's not capable of upgrade because of its limited hardware capability, and you pay more for a more powerful phone that can support the latest, most powerful and prettiest Android.
They do. More recent phones have more capable hardware. The new iOS is written to make use of the latest phones' hardware and sometimes the older ones just can't do everything the new ones can. Apple would rather make a feature contingent on having newer hardware than have their brand tarnished by a touted new feature running poorly.
Android has a lot more phones, multiple manufacturers and more carriers to deal with. In principle they can and I think "they" do, using the term "they" to include Google (who knows what ICS is supposed to do and how it's supposed to look), the manufacturer (who knows the hardware capability best and has to ensure that it complies with radio emissions and operation rules) and finally the carrier (who's responsible for making sure the phone is fully interoperable with their network and runs their proprietary apps.).
If either the carrier or the manufacturer isn't happy with the way ICS works on a particular phone model, (Is sluggish, doesn't support popular features well, is crashy, or doesn't look good and doesn't make their company look good, they're never going to release it, even if you the user might be satisfied with it.
As long as phone makers want to control the experience and Google doesn't provide its own EASY way to bypass that, they're going to have to deal with a fragmented base.
That's what I get for posting from my phone. Apparently it thinks Bern is more likely to be what I intended to type than been, even though I live in the USA and have my phone set for English.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo, the "punishment" for shouting fire in a crowded marketplace should simply be "recompense the State (i.e. the public) for trying to trick it into acting as your enforcer, and then we'll let the market decide."
Maybe they should have to compensate the company that they falsely accused as well, as the false accusation has damaged their reputation.
It should be even more resellable. Your software hasn't been degraded by your having used it.
Just try getting your money back for software after you've opened the package, installed it and concluded it's not with the money.
The chip that the original article mentions has a PLL and an integrated transmitting antenna and produces 2 mW. That IS safe, but not useful for doctor's office scanners. To be useful for scanners, they're going to have to amp it up by at least 20 dB (probably a lot more) and irradiate the part of you they want to examine. And they'll have to add an array of terahertz receivers tuned to the emitter's frequency if they want to do imaging, and the waveform captured by all those receivers is going to have to be downconverted and processed by a computer comparably powerful to the ones they use for ultrasound. And it will have similar resolution to ultrasound, but will be differently reflected within the body because it's an electromagnetic wave not an acoustic one. And it will dissipate rapidly as it passes through the body because its skin depth is going to be about the thickness of your skin. So they'll have to blast the living hell out of you if they want to look at your spleen or inside your head and you'll be wishing they used something that didn't burn your skin quite so much.
DDT is pretty safe if you aren't a bird.
It's safe sex for birds of prey.
Because even that is a distortion. We should call such technologies "new" and anybody who calls them "safe" should be required to either produce evidence that says it is so or a bond that will be paid to whoever eventually suffers harm due to them.
Look, you want to cook your cojones with terahertz scanners, go right ahead. But don't try to persuade me that it's "completely safe" or even safer than competing technologies like MRI and ultrasound without a large body of evidence.
But note, the Earth actually rotates faster than one solar revolution per day.
.
You're confusing the need for leap seconds with sidereal time. But note, the Earth actually rotates faster than one solar revolution per day.
More precisely, 1 earth rotation takes about 23h56m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation#Stellar_and_sidereal_day
That's absolute rotation or sidereal rotation, neither of which defines a day. Nor is a day a fixed number of atomic seconds. A day is one rotation relative to the sun. Jesus, don't they teach ANYTHING in school any more?
No, I was explaining why forced updates should not exist, from various perspectives.
Presumably something made from an animal they would have had to hunt, maybe complete with tool marks showing they ate the meat. But maybe these two STOLE the ornament and really came from a robber-gatherer culture. Minus 50th century gangsters.
Pretty tricky for Satan to plant those skeletons before God created the world. For that he'd have had to have the plans for human beings before God made them. Did he steal the plans and that's what got him in trouble with the Almighty? Or did he invent us and God had to wait for his patents to expire before he could create his own people?
And there would be an instant free market for those tokens. It's the best of all possible worlds!
I was thinking something similar... taken a step farther... if the system registers that the voter voted against one system, and the actual vote group to another system, with no correlation data between the two available, it would be reasonable to have online voting... would just need to ensure that both the registration that the person voted, and the record of the vote are separate... give the voter a token, that can be checked against their own vote record, but doesn't tie that token to their id, or that they have voted.
Once we go to on-line voting, it will solve everything. The NSA already knows how you intend to vote. You don't even need to bother logging in, they'll do it for you. Verification of their totals will be via contracts to Facebook and Google.
ATMs are NOT secure. You think a four digit code and a card that can be readily copied are secure? People come up with schemes to steal these all the time. Banks just absorb whatever losses the users notice and complain about.
That's only a small part of the problem. Some of the reported problems on voting machines:
Number of votes recorded on machines exceeds number of voters who used them
Votes recorded for candidate the voter did not intend to choose
Machines wouldn't work on election day
Machines not producing verifiable tallies
Machines allowing the same voter to vote multiple times
Also, the voting machines do not solve and if not well designed can make problems worse with regard to chain-of-custody as compared to paper ballots. The science of making sure a physical box is empty at the beginning of the day and contains N ballots at the end of the day is quite easy to manage. Then you physically seal it and deliver it to the counting venue where the first thing they do is validate the seal and the second thing they do is make sure that box 2351 has N ballots exactly. You have all the same problems with a voting machine but to most people the idea of having an erase procedure at the end of the day and a shutdown procedure that secures the machine's non-volatile memory is not natural. If engineers ran the election, they could ensure that all these operations are carried off without a hitch, but there's not enough technically savvy people to do it, so you have to have non-technical people performing these technical functions and they have to be able to do it without a hitch, because any hitch could result in you having to throw out or having thrown out a whole machine's vote tally.
use the same system for slot machines they go under lots of testing to make them hard to cheat them even to the point of shocking them.
But random results are acceptable to the user of the slot machine.
And how are they going to shine those lasers in my liver?
"That's because the Earth's average rate of rotation is just a little slower than one solar revolution per day." You're confusing the need for leap seconds with sidereal time. But note, the Earth actually rotates faster than one solar revolution per day. Leap seconds are needed because when we changed the definition of a second from 1/86400th of a day to one based on a characteristic of the Caesium atom, a poor value was chosen, and the Earth is slowing down over time, primarily due to tidal acceleration by the moon.
No I'm not confusing anything. You're confused. Sidereal time is rate of absolute rotation (relative to the "fixed stars"). The day is based on the rate of rotation relative to the SUN. That's called solar time.
If the Earth rotated faster than one solar revolution per day we would have to skip seconds to keep the atomic second count synchronized with the Earth's rotation. We have to (only) add leap seconds because the Earth rotates a smidge slower than one rotation per 86400 atomic seconds.
Over short time scales, such as between 1967 and now, tidal acceleration is not the dominant factor, although it is over much longer periods.
I don't really see another way around this. The same problem plagues computer OSs also, look at windows.
The only way I see to do this is to either force the updates directly or to have a short cutoff point for support and compatibility. (thus forcing them indirectly)
A lot of consumers won't like this.
Yeah, it's MY PHONE. I was happy with it when I bought it and I DON'T TRUST YOU to decide what software I should be running on MY PHONE.
Carriers sees it as a phone is running on THEIR NETWORK and they DON'T TRUST YOU to decide what software should have access to THEIR NETWORK.
The manufacturer sees it similarly as well. The phone carries THEIR BRANDING and is under THEIR WARRANTY. You have no business screwing with the way it works if it could tarnish THEIR REPUTATION and cost them money.
Any of those reasons alone is sufficient why there should be no forced upgrades.
ICS simply can't run on budget Android devices. The Android makers that are making money (Samsung) are targeting a much wider market then just the high end subsidized North American market. Samsung is able to turn a profit because they're spreading their costs over a much wider net with both mid range phones like the Ace line and a lot of super-low end ones (Y, Mini, Pocket) that compete directly with feature phones and in emerging markets. ICS is never going to run on those and Samsung and others won't try - they're still releasing brand new phones, 8 months later, running Gingerbread with no hope for an upgrade. Android will continue to be 'fragmented' between Gingerbread and whatever the latest and greatest is for a long time, at least as long as the gulf exists between heavily carrier subsized phones in a few countries (allowing iPhones, Samsung Galaxy Ss and HTC One Xs to sell in any quantity) and full cost phones in other countries where (Gingerbread) Android's price point is the biggest selling point against more expensive smart phones and increasingly identically priced feature phones.
There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it's a good thing to have cheap low-end choices, as long as you're told up front when you buy the phone that it's not capable of upgrade because of its limited hardware capability, and you pay more for a more powerful phone that can support the latest, most powerful and prettiest Android.
They do. More recent phones have more capable hardware. The new iOS is written to make use of the latest phones' hardware and sometimes the older ones just can't do everything the new ones can. Apple would rather make a feature contingent on having newer hardware than have their brand tarnished by a touted new feature running poorly.
Android has a lot more phones, multiple manufacturers and more carriers to deal with. In principle they can and I think "they" do, using the term "they" to include Google (who knows what ICS is supposed to do and how it's supposed to look), the manufacturer (who knows the hardware capability best and has to ensure that it complies with radio emissions and operation rules) and finally the carrier (who's responsible for making sure the phone is fully interoperable with their network and runs their proprietary apps.).
If either the carrier or the manufacturer isn't happy with the way ICS works on a particular phone model, (Is sluggish, doesn't support popular features well, is crashy, or doesn't look good and doesn't make their company look good, they're never going to release it, even if you the user might be satisfied with it.
As long as phone makers want to control the experience and Google doesn't provide its own EASY way to bypass that, they're going to have to deal with a fragmented base.
That's what I get for posting from my phone. Apparently it thinks Bern is more likely to be what I intended to type than been, even though I live in the USA and have my phone set for English.
They keep getting elected. For a politician, that's success.