But after the first minutes, everyone in the road will be driving at the exact same speed as you, so the speed of "trafic" will be exactly your speed. How can someone be "obstructing trafic" and at the same time driving at the speed of trafic?
You mention bloggers like it is a bad thing. Well, it is not, and here is why: Bloggers can't stand on their name, so their content (and their sources) has to speak for itself.
Before the internet people had to blindly trust their news sources. Journalists had their "laws" regarding sources and biases (e.g. require two independent sources, etc), and a good journalist could produce good content. Unfortunately the reader had no way of knowing if a particular journalist followed the "laws", we had to thrust the "name" of the newspaper or of the journalist, that is, thrust that the newspaper wouldn't risk muddling its name by not fact-checking everything.
Now, with the internet, most of the sources are as available to the readers as they are to the journalists. So the new journalists (bloggers) can cite their sources in their articles, and we the readers can check those sources and compare them to the journalist's conclusions. Suddenly a journalist's bias and incompetence is not hidden any more, any reader can "see how the sausage is made" and point out when it is wrong.
Unfortunately the internet is still riddled with journalists who "graduated" in the old world and refuse to cite sources, those grew up on a world where their sources where their business secret, something they had to protect from other journalists who might steal their story. Those don't realize that all the sources are just a google search away, and that the real differential they bring is the analysis of the sources. Personally, I assume that any article not citing its sources is either lying or has errors, and just dismiss it.
Puting your glasses also don't change the distance from your eyes to the objects. Instead the lenses bend light so it is indistinguishble from light coming from another distance, and that is exactly what this solution does, in simple terms it is like putting the glasses on the device instead of on your face.
What about people who need "reading glasses". Those people navigate the rest of reality very well without their glasses (actually puting their glasses limits their reality navigation ability), those need their glasses only to read and I bet many would apreciate a phone that you can just pull out of the pocket and read instead of also pulling the glasses from the other pocket.
It won't ajust automaticaly. According to the video the solution has a hardware component and a software component. The software is configurable and can be setup to different prescriptions (or the lack off), but the hardware (a lensing film to be placed on top of the screen) is specific to one prescription.
But, even withtout the flexibility to ajust to other people's sights, I think this technology has a huge potential in very personal devices like mobile phones. I believe many people would gladly give up the avility to show their phone to other people, in exchange to the added ability to not have to fumble for their reading glasses every time they want to check something on the screen.
Exactly, since I bougth my digital TV I've been using an almost 30 year old indors UVF/VHF antenna that looks a bit like this http://www.severoroth.com.br/m... but much older.
With this broad definition of "retransmit", the most normal aerial setup is completely illegal because: the antenna captures the signal and then "retransmit" it trough a cable to a circuit inside the TV which then "retransmits" it to several other internal circuits before reaching the screen which then "retransmits" it again as light to my eyes.
With a "retransmit" definition as broad as the one used in this decision, just watching anything makes you a felon because your eyes are capturing the light signal and "retransmitting" it trough the optical nerve to the brain. It is clear that from now on every one of us needs either a broadcasting license or to close our illegal retransmitting setup (a.k. eyes).
So it is ilegal to watch TV at my office because I can't sleep in my office?
And a person living in a basement (you know, like the tipical slashdoter), can never legaly get aerial TV because that would entail puting an antena and running a wire on other person's roof?
They didn't "profit by selling everyone else's content", they profited by selling access to publicly available content to which the clients already had the right to watch but didn't have the tecnical means do do so. They where just a antena renting service.
The TV channels decided to distribute their content for free, it shouldn't be ilegal to provide means for people to reach this content. If a drive-in theater decides to screen films for free that doesn't make it ilegal for taxis and buses to charge to ferry people to the theater.
They will use locally administered MAC addresses (you know, those with the 7th bit set to 1 instead of the traditional 0) which are not assigned to any manufacturer. (source: image in the twit)
With phrases lake this one I'll go out on a limb and guess that you never left the USA (or that you didn't pay much attention when you did). Just because something in the USA works well, or even is the best in the USA, doesn't mean it is automaticaly the best in the world, or that people in other countries lay awake at night dreaming with such a marvel.
You wan't to see a postal service to be envy of? Check the Brazilian one, it is at least as good and reliable as the USPS and that includes delivering mail to tiny vilages in the middle of the Amazon jungle.
They share a network, it is called the Internet. Comcast customers are not paying just for access to Comcast subnet (do they think they are a BBS?), customers are paying to access to the whole Internet at the contracted speed.
Now, I understand that Comcast cannot be blamed for slow speeds when connecting to a 3rd party if the slowdown, the funnel, is inside the 3rd party network, but that is not the case here. The slowdowns where caused because Comcast failed to contract a fast enough link (or peering agreement) to a specific part of the internet. The funnel was at their network border and consequently their responsability. They failed to provide a service that their customers are paying for.
If Comcast doesn't have to provide full bandwidth to 3rd party networks then I found a new business model: I'll set-up a small ISP providing gigabit internet for hundreds of customers and then contract a single gigabit link upstream (or even a slower one, maybe a 54kbps dial-up), after all I cannot promise full bandwidth to a 3rd party.
These surgeries are safer and less painful than traditional gut-opening ones....
So while some are no doubt botched, overall people are better with than without, a net gain.
You cannot say that all robot surgeries are better and safer because that is not true. This new surgical technique has different pros and cons, reduces some risks but increases others, so it's use needs to be evaluated (epidemiological studies) for each kind of surgery in order to assert if it is beneficial for that kind of surgery. New things are not better just because they are new, they need to be tested and proven.
An example from a couple of years ago, some studies shown that robot prostate cancer surgery decreased the risk of in-hospital complications, but increased the risk of impotence and incontinence. So in this case (prostate cancer) robot surgery does not shows a clear net gain.
I'm not sure about this nyt thing, but in the top gear debacle, Tesla was 100% correct to complain. Clarcson pushed a Tesla to the garage pretending it had run out of juice wille it still had half full batteries, that is highly anti-etical.
The big difference is that in Netherlands they can trust law enforcement to destroy the samples after that investigation was done. In the other hand, in NYC you can be fairly certain that law enforcement would hold on to those samples and resulting DB, breaking promises and maybe the law with impunity.
What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.
A mall is a privately owned public place. If you invite the public into your privately owned property it is a public place and there is a limit to the crap you can throw at them.
First, no human can know all the effects of all the ingredients of all the products someone consumes, not even a phd in medicine or bioquemestry. So no, I'm not saying consumers are retards, I'm saying they are only human.
And Second, yes, there is a concept of reputation, but it is something that, without oversight, can be easily manipulated by unethical advertising, fake reports/certifications, astroturfing, etc.
Before there was such legislation you could still restrict yourself to only purchase from companies that voluntarily got certified and voluntarily informed ingredients. No one were making you buy food from producers who didn't list ingredients.
There are several flaws in your hypothetical no-legislation scenario:
- Companies can get "voluntary certified" by their own shell companies or other kind of fake/biased certification, and there is no way for the consumer to distinguish a serious/real certification from a fake/biased one.
- Companies can "voluntary inform" an incomplete list of ingredients and there is no way for the consumer to know which product have a real collectively exhaustive list or just the ones the producer wanted you to know.
- Competitors can band together to omit inconvenient truths together
This policy went too far, the cost to personal freedoms is too great to be justified.
Having said that, I can understand the rationale behind it. I wouldn't like to hire a smoker (even one who smoked only after hours) the same way I wouldn't like to hire an alcoholic (I mean a non recovery one). Hiring any addict has costs, he will always have times where the only thing he can think is “where is my next fix”.
As I said before, their guidelines are published, but their interpretation of the guidelines are not. So that is not an open and transparent process.
It would be the equivalent of a country having public laws, but having all case records and jurisprudence sealed for everyone but the judge and the prosecutor. Then, if you lose in court, they just say “you lost” without giving you details, so you have no base to mount your appeals.
... ban download limits for all wired service providers.
The fact that you, a consumer, is willing to let wireless carriers off the hook, and only demand just and descent service from wired carriers, only show that we all have been drinking too much of the wireless carriers' cool-aid.
Slashdot Mirror
But after the first minutes, everyone in the road will be driving at the exact same speed as you, so the speed of "trafic" will be exactly your speed. How can someone be "obstructing trafic" and at the same time driving at the speed of trafic?
You mention bloggers like it is a bad thing. Well, it is not, and here is why: Bloggers can't stand on their name, so their content (and their sources) has to speak for itself.
Before the internet people had to blindly trust their news sources. Journalists had their "laws" regarding sources and biases (e.g. require two independent sources, etc), and a good journalist could produce good content. Unfortunately the reader had no way of knowing if a particular journalist followed the "laws", we had to thrust the "name" of the newspaper or of the journalist, that is, thrust that the newspaper wouldn't risk muddling its name by not fact-checking everything.
Now, with the internet, most of the sources are as available to the readers as they are to the journalists. So the new journalists (bloggers) can cite their sources in their articles, and we the readers can check those sources and compare them to the journalist's conclusions. Suddenly a journalist's bias and incompetence is not hidden any more, any reader can "see how the sausage is made" and point out when it is wrong.
Unfortunately the internet is still riddled with journalists who "graduated" in the old world and refuse to cite sources, those grew up on a world where their sources where their business secret, something they had to protect from other journalists who might steal their story. Those don't realize that all the sources are just a google search away, and that the real differential they bring is the analysis of the sources. Personally, I assume that any article not citing its sources is either lying or has errors, and just dismiss it.
Puting your glasses also don't change the distance from your eyes to the objects. Instead the lenses bend light so it is indistinguishble from light coming from another distance, and that is exactly what this solution does, in simple terms it is like putting the glasses on the device instead of on your face.
What about people who need "reading glasses". Those people navigate the rest of reality very well without their glasses (actually puting their glasses limits their reality navigation ability), those need their glasses only to read and I bet many would apreciate a phone that you can just pull out of the pocket and read instead of also pulling the glasses from the other pocket.
It won't ajust automaticaly. According to the video the solution has a hardware component and a software component. The software is configurable and can be setup to different prescriptions (or the lack off), but the hardware (a lensing film to be placed on top of the screen) is specific to one prescription.
But, even withtout the flexibility to ajust to other people's sights, I think this technology has a huge potential in very personal devices like mobile phones. I believe many people would gladly give up the avility to show their phone to other people, in exchange to the added ability to not have to fumble for their reading glasses every time they want to check something on the screen.
Exactly, since I bougth my digital TV I've been using an almost 30 year old indors UVF/VHF antenna that looks a bit like this http://www.severoroth.com.br/m... but much older.
With this broad definition of "retransmit", the most normal aerial setup is completely illegal because: the antenna captures the signal and then "retransmit" it trough a cable to a circuit inside the TV which then "retransmits" it to several other internal circuits before reaching the screen which then "retransmits" it again as light to my eyes.
With a "retransmit" definition as broad as the one used in this decision, just watching anything makes you a felon because your eyes are capturing the light signal and "retransmitting" it trough the optical nerve to the brain. It is clear that from now on every one of us needs either a broadcasting license or to close our illegal retransmitting setup (a.k. eyes).
So it is ilegal to watch TV at my office because I can't sleep in my office?
And a person living in a basement (you know, like the tipical slashdoter), can never legaly get aerial TV because that would entail puting an antena and running a wire on other person's roof?
They didn't "profit by selling everyone else's content", they profited by selling access to publicly available content to which the clients already had the right to watch but didn't have the tecnical means do do so. They where just a antena renting service.
The TV channels decided to distribute their content for free, it shouldn't be ilegal to provide means for people to reach this content. If a drive-in theater decides to screen films for free that doesn't make it ilegal for taxis and buses to charge to ferry people to the theater.
They will use locally administered MAC addresses (you know, those with the 7th bit set to 1 instead of the traditional 0) which are not assigned to any manufacturer. (source: image in the twit)
..., the USPS is the envy of the world. ...
With phrases lake this one I'll go out on a limb and guess that you never left the USA (or that you didn't pay much attention when you did). Just because something in the USA works well, or even is the best in the USA, doesn't mean it is automaticaly the best in the world, or that people in other countries lay awake at night dreaming with such a marvel.
You wan't to see a postal service to be envy of? Check the Brazilian one, it is at least as good and reliable as the USPS and that includes delivering mail to tiny vilages in the middle of the Amazon jungle.
They share a network, it is called the Internet. Comcast customers are not paying just for access to Comcast subnet (do they think they are a BBS?), customers are paying to access to the whole Internet at the contracted speed.
Now, I understand that Comcast cannot be blamed for slow speeds when connecting to a 3rd party if the slowdown, the funnel, is inside the 3rd party network, but that is not the case here. The slowdowns where caused because Comcast failed to contract a fast enough link (or peering agreement) to a specific part of the internet. The funnel was at their network border and consequently their responsability. They failed to provide a service that their customers are paying for.
If Comcast doesn't have to provide full bandwidth to 3rd party networks then I found a new business model: I'll set-up a small ISP providing gigabit internet for hundreds of customers and then contract a single gigabit link upstream (or even a slower one, maybe a 54kbps dial-up), after all I cannot promise full bandwidth to a 3rd party.
Houses in the USA don't have their own water tanks insulating the house plumbing from the mains pressure?
This is not possible, LibreOffice code is licensed LGPL, it can't "join Apache/OpenOffice".
And just in case someone runs to the defence of the overlapping channels: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/technology/channel/deployment/guide/Channel.html
These surgeries are safer and less painful than traditional gut-opening ones. ...
So while some are no doubt botched, overall people are better with than without, a net gain.
You cannot say that all robot surgeries are better and safer because that is not true. This new surgical technique has different pros and cons, reduces some risks but increases others, so it's use needs to be evaluated (epidemiological studies) for each kind of surgery in order to assert if it is beneficial for that kind of surgery. New things are not better just because they are new, they need to be tested and proven.
An example from a couple of years ago, some studies shown that robot prostate cancer surgery decreased the risk of in-hospital complications, but increased the risk of impotence and incontinence. So in this case (prostate cancer) robot surgery does not shows a clear net gain.
I'm not sure about this nyt thing, but in the top gear debacle, Tesla was 100% correct to complain. Clarcson pushed a Tesla to the garage pretending it had run out of juice wille it still had half full batteries, that is highly anti-etical.
The big difference is that in Netherlands they can trust law enforcement to destroy the samples after that investigation was done. In the other hand, in NYC you can be fairly certain that law enforcement would hold on to those samples and resulting DB, breaking promises and maybe the law with impunity.
What the RCMP officers did VERY wrong was to blindly take sides in a dispute, helping an aggressor against his victim. They arrived to the scene where suspect A was assaulting, holding down and trying to destroy property of suspect B who was resisting the aggression and trying to protect his property. Then they proceeded to cuff suspect B (the victim), damage and confiscate his property, and arrest him; all while leaving suspect A (the aggressor) free.
A mall is a privately owned public place. If you invite the public into your privately owned property it is a public place and there is a limit to the crap you can throw at them.
They don't have “rape, beatings and stabbings” in Swedish prisons.
First, no human can know all the effects of all the ingredients of all the products someone consumes, not even a phd in medicine or bioquemestry. So no, I'm not saying consumers are retards, I'm saying they are only human.
And Second, yes, there is a concept of reputation, but it is something that, without oversight, can be easily manipulated by unethical advertising, fake reports/certifications, astroturfing, etc.
Before there was such legislation you could still restrict yourself to only purchase from companies that voluntarily got certified and voluntarily informed ingredients. No one were making you buy food from producers who didn't list ingredients.
There are several flaws in your hypothetical no-legislation scenario:
This policy went too far, the cost to personal freedoms is too great to be justified.
Having said that, I can understand the rationale behind it. I wouldn't like to hire a smoker (even one who smoked only after hours) the same way I wouldn't like to hire an alcoholic (I mean a non recovery one). Hiring any addict has costs, he will always have times where the only thing he can think is “where is my next fix”.
As I said before, their guidelines are published, but their interpretation of the guidelines are not. So that is not an open and transparent process.
It would be the equivalent of a country having public laws, but having all case records and jurisprudence sealed for everyone but the judge and the prosecutor. Then, if you lose in court, they just say “you lost” without giving you details, so you have no base to mount your appeals.
... ban download limits for all wired service providers.
The fact that you, a consumer, is willing to let wireless carriers off the hook, and only demand just and descent service from wired carriers, only show that we all have been drinking too much of the wireless carriers' cool-aid.