Which tells me that it all WILL be fixed... but not until the current stockpiles are depleted and the price returns to it's "natural" level. Once again, free market works, but the government stepped in and screwed it all up for all of civilization.
I can speak for Motorolla... the updates are completely idiot proof. so much so that they don't ever allow you updates for fear that some idiot might use it as an excuse not to buy their latest phone... As far as I am concerned Motorolla makes the absolute best Android phones out there from a hardware and accessory stand point (phones with HDMI output ports, USB host ports, slide out keyboards, rock solid design and excellent audio and radio quality, and proper desktop docking stations with multiple USB ports as well as dedicated audio and video jacks, car mounts with audio outputs built in, etc). Unfortunately they are among the worst from a software/firmware/bootloader/upgrade stand point. My only hope is that being a subsidiary of Google will change some of that. even if just enough to get some of their high end devices supported by cyanogenmod officially...
Before the update, Apple did not have voice routing on the iPhone.
another in an increasingly long list of features that apple fans have been willing to live without for many years after the same feature became standard on every other phone out there... For such an "innovative" company they sure are a long way behind their competition on pretty much everything...
And the fact that it has turn-by-turn nav, which Google maps didn't may make many people prefer it. So it may very well prove very popular.
This is the thing that constantly astonishes me, the things that Apple users put up with... iphone seriously hasn't had turn by turn directions until now????? just one more of a very very long line of features that come to iphone only many years after being available on every other platform. Why do iphone users put up with always being so far behind the curve on every feature?
Problem is, these companies are honouring it just enough to make it difficult to figure out which ones are honouring it or not. Better solution is to assume, as I have always done, that everyone will track given the opportunity, and simply not give anyone the opportunity. I block all ads.
I'm doing similar right now, but instead of a hosts file I set up a DNS server to do it for me, that way I can have every one of my devices get the same one without having to keep hosts updated on more than one machine. I also don't send it to 127.0.0.1, I direct it instead to my own server which serves up a blank page (eliminates the ugly error messages in what would be the ad boxes)
Exactly, I have though since day 1 that adding a flag to the browser was at best a waste of effort and bandwidth (albeit very very small amounts of bandwidth) I never for one second thought that a polite request would make any difference what so ever.
Yes, privacy is when you block every attempt to identify you, track you, or send you any information you don't want. Spite is when you start sending them hate mail, having their executives tailed every minute of the day, or generally treat them the same way they normally treat us.
Interesting... BMO mastercard doesn't have those rules, my BMO mastercard has a reasonably strong password (though the PIN is not as much, but at least I know they need my card to do much with that)
how often does the average user fvisit the offical distro website. How often does that same user use the dash. I think that should answer which one I'd prefer. (hint, I don't care what they advertise on their offical site, I only will likely see that once)
long wavelength terrahertz? frequency and wavelength are related, and I don't know anyone who would describe terrahertz frequencies as having a long wavelength...
A bank I have had dealings with uses a 4 digit purely numerical password for online banking. They've recently allowed you to use a 6 digit one instead. And in a twist of irony, their mail-out newsletter recently had an article about online security telling you to use strong passwords for all online accounts...
This is what surprised me so much when facebook started. Before facebook the general rule of thumb was to never ever use your real information online. It's what all parents were supposed to tell their kids, it's what the police told people, it's what any sane person did. Suddenly facebook came along and nobody batted an eyelash to the complete reversal of one of the most basic safety rules of the internet. If you want to know why I don't have a facebook account this is it. I still remember the internet where we were warned specifically never to do this, and I know the internet hasn't changed.
If an employer wants to know about my internet identities in a job interview, then I don't want to work for that employer. (I guess there are exceptions, If I were doing a job interview for Slashdot knowing that I am Green1 might be appropriate) I know it's all too common these days for corporations to try to over reach in every way possible, but certain things are just none of their business, and that includes everything and anything I do on my own time (unless directly related to their business)
The problem is that it is possible to demonstrate that there is a signal that is being absorbed by the antenna and will move a meter connected to the antenna feed.
The suggestion I was given was to not even put up the antennas, just the tower, for the first few months. Most of these idiots can't tell the difference anyway, and your tower should be well grounded anyway. After you've weeded out those people put up antennas, but no coax or equipment, to weed out the remaining few, and a few months later finish your install and enjoy without fear of those sorts of people.
This was the biggest advice I was given when discussing with other hams before putting up a tower. I was told that step 1 is to put up tower with no antennas then wait a few months, this will weed out most of the worst neighbours as they usually start complaining about the RF interference even though there are no antennas (they can't usually tell the difference between a well grounded tower and an antenna) and it's easy to prove that you haven't done anything yet. Next step is the antennas. don't hook them up to anything, don't even run the coax up the tower, just mount the antennas. now wait a couple more months. This will eliminate the people that CAN tell an antenna from a tower but still think RF is a problem. Next step is to connect everything up and enjoy, now when someone complains it's actually worth taking seriously, most likely it will be "every so often when you're home in the evenings my TV goes rather wonky for a few seconds" technically, and legally that's their problem not yours (part 15 if you're in the US, similar regulations in many other countries) but as a good neighbour it's worth trying to help figure out filtering and such to help (or realizing that maybe all 1500w shouldn't be used with that particular rotor direction...)
My favourite is the people who buy a house in the flight path to the airport, and get a substantial discount on the property value due to this fact, and then complain that it's too loud and lobby to move the airport, or curtail flights at night, etc. We also had one that made the paper a few weeks ago who bought a house adjacent to a proposed train line, with big signs and maps all over the neighbourhood showing where the train line would go, then went to the media and forced the city to buy the house from them because of the noise of the trains... They got such a good deal on the house originally because of it's proximity to what was going to be a rail line, then they forced me, the taxpayer, to buy the house!
I'm a ham radio operator, I've been looking in to putting up a tower in my yard, the biggest suggestion I have received from all other hams is to put up the tower and the antennas several months before putting up any coax to connect anything. This allows you to deal with all the RF complaints quickly and easily so that by the time you actually connect anything the nutters have already been shut up.
I'll start off by staying that I agree with you fully, however I do have to point out something.
Human nature STILL mis-represents the risk, further diluting the deterrent value of a punishment.
The best deterrent is decreasing the chance you'll get away with it, which is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Unfortunately you show the problem with this statement in your own post. the best deterrent is decreasing the *perceived* chance you'll get away with it. Which is quite different from decreasing the *actual* chance you'll get away with it. The statistics on solved murder cases show that the odds of getting away with it are much lower than almost anyone would gamble on (especially with the stakes as they are (even when the death penalty isn't involved, most people wouldn't choose life in prison if given the option of freedom)) And yet people still commit the crime. It's an interesting psychological and sociological problem, I suspect even if we caught 100% of all murderers, there would still be murders because people would still think that they could beat the system.
The thing about capitol punishment is that the alternative (life in prison) isn't something people aspire to either. So it's not like people commit a murder because they know it will get them life in prison instead of death. People don't commit any crime by thinking that they are ok with the punishment, they commit the crime thinking that they won't get caught. As far as deterrents go, studies have shown that the perceived odds of being caught have a far larger impact than the punishment itself. So much so that people are more concerned about a guaranteed slap on the wrist, than a possible major punishment. Unfortunately though, it's not easy to increase the perception that people will be caught simply because people aren't really rational about these things (the statistics on solved murder cases is good enough that you'd have to be a fool to think you would get away with it, but you won't likely find a convicted murderer say they knew they'd get caught but committed the crime anyway).
In general I actually approve of the idea of a death penalty. However I do have some major concerns on the practical side of things, and the lack of a 100% reliable justice system is prime among them.
However, as to your point. Locations with the death penalty in general have a higher murder rate than locations without it. Now this is correlation and not necessarily proof of a lack of deterrent, however it does imply that the deterrent factor is not working as intended. Beyond that, when it comes to deterrents, studies have shown that the severity of the punishment has a very low impact, however the perceived likelihood of being caught has a substantial impact.
Basically people don't murder because they think they'll only get life in prison instead of the death penalty. They murder because they think they'll get away with it. If they thought they'd be caught, they probably wouldn't do it, even if the penalty for murder was ridiculously low. Unfortunately it is difficult to increase that perception of the risk of being caught because human nature is to think that you are better than average, and therefore if anyone can get away with it, you will. (statistically the success rate on murder investigations says otherwise, but humans are not rational enough to factor that in)
Actually we are very good at in between. We have the lawless wild wild west for the big players, and the police state for everyone else... or is this not quite what you had in mind?
Slashdot Mirror
Which tells me that it all WILL be fixed... but not until the current stockpiles are depleted and the price returns to it's "natural" level. Once again, free market works, but the government stepped in and screwed it all up for all of civilization.
I can speak for Motorolla... the updates are completely idiot proof. so much so that they don't ever allow you updates for fear that some idiot might use it as an excuse not to buy their latest phone...
As far as I am concerned Motorolla makes the absolute best Android phones out there from a hardware and accessory stand point (phones with HDMI output ports, USB host ports, slide out keyboards, rock solid design and excellent audio and radio quality, and proper desktop docking stations with multiple USB ports as well as dedicated audio and video jacks, car mounts with audio outputs built in, etc). Unfortunately they are among the worst from a software/firmware/bootloader/upgrade stand point. My only hope is that being a subsidiary of Google will change some of that. even if just enough to get some of their high end devices supported by cyanogenmod officially...
Before the update, Apple did not have voice routing on the iPhone.
another in an increasingly long list of features that apple fans have been willing to live without for many years after the same feature became standard on every other phone out there...
For such an "innovative" company they sure are a long way behind their competition on pretty much everything...
And the fact that it has turn-by-turn nav, which Google maps didn't may make many people prefer it. So it may very well prove very popular.
This is the thing that constantly astonishes me, the things that Apple users put up with... iphone seriously hasn't had turn by turn directions until now????? just one more of a very very long line of features that come to iphone only many years after being available on every other platform.
Why do iphone users put up with always being so far behind the curve on every feature?
Problem is, these companies are honouring it just enough to make it difficult to figure out which ones are honouring it or not.
Better solution is to assume, as I have always done, that everyone will track given the opportunity, and simply not give anyone the opportunity. I block all ads.
I'm doing similar right now, but instead of a hosts file I set up a DNS server to do it for me, that way I can have every one of my devices get the same one without having to keep hosts updated on more than one machine. I also don't send it to 127.0.0.1, I direct it instead to my own server which serves up a blank page (eliminates the ugly error messages in what would be the ad boxes)
Exactly, I have though since day 1 that adding a flag to the browser was at best a waste of effort and bandwidth (albeit very very small amounts of bandwidth) I never for one second thought that a polite request would make any difference what so ever.
Yes, privacy is when you block every attempt to identify you, track you, or send you any information you don't want.
Spite is when you start sending them hate mail, having their executives tailed every minute of the day, or generally treat them the same way they normally treat us.
Interesting... BMO mastercard doesn't have those rules, my BMO mastercard has a reasonably strong password (though the PIN is not as much, but at least I know they need my card to do much with that)
how often does the average user fvisit the offical distro website. How often does that same user use the dash.
I think that should answer which one I'd prefer. (hint, I don't care what they advertise on their offical site, I only will likely see that once)
long wavelength terrahertz? frequency and wavelength are related, and I don't know anyone who would describe terrahertz frequencies as having a long wavelength...
A bank I have had dealings with uses a 4 digit purely numerical password for online banking. They've recently allowed you to use a 6 digit one instead. And in a twist of irony, their mail-out newsletter recently had an article about online security telling you to use strong passwords for all online accounts...
This is what surprised me so much when facebook started. Before facebook the general rule of thumb was to never ever use your real information online. It's what all parents were supposed to tell their kids, it's what the police told people, it's what any sane person did. Suddenly facebook came along and nobody batted an eyelash to the complete reversal of one of the most basic safety rules of the internet. If you want to know why I don't have a facebook account this is it. I still remember the internet where we were warned specifically never to do this, and I know the internet hasn't changed.
If an employer wants to know about my internet identities in a job interview, then I don't want to work for that employer. (I guess there are exceptions, If I were doing a job interview for Slashdot knowing that I am Green1 might be appropriate) I know it's all too common these days for corporations to try to over reach in every way possible, but certain things are just none of their business, and that includes everything and anything I do on my own time (unless directly related to their business)
The problem is that it is possible to demonstrate that there is a signal that is being absorbed by the antenna and will move a meter connected to the antenna feed.
The suggestion I was given was to not even put up the antennas, just the tower, for the first few months. Most of these idiots can't tell the difference anyway, and your tower should be well grounded anyway. After you've weeded out those people put up antennas, but no coax or equipment, to weed out the remaining few, and a few months later finish your install and enjoy without fear of those sorts of people.
This was the biggest advice I was given when discussing with other hams before putting up a tower. I was told that step 1 is to put up tower with no antennas then wait a few months, this will weed out most of the worst neighbours as they usually start complaining about the RF interference even though there are no antennas (they can't usually tell the difference between a well grounded tower and an antenna) and it's easy to prove that you haven't done anything yet. Next step is the antennas. don't hook them up to anything, don't even run the coax up the tower, just mount the antennas. now wait a couple more months. This will eliminate the people that CAN tell an antenna from a tower but still think RF is a problem. Next step is to connect everything up and enjoy, now when someone complains it's actually worth taking seriously, most likely it will be "every so often when you're home in the evenings my TV goes rather wonky for a few seconds" technically, and legally that's their problem not yours (part 15 if you're in the US, similar regulations in many other countries) but as a good neighbour it's worth trying to help figure out filtering and such to help (or realizing that maybe all 1500w shouldn't be used with that particular rotor direction...)
My favourite is the people who buy a house in the flight path to the airport, and get a substantial discount on the property value due to this fact, and then complain that it's too loud and lobby to move the airport, or curtail flights at night, etc.
We also had one that made the paper a few weeks ago who bought a house adjacent to a proposed train line, with big signs and maps all over the neighbourhood showing where the train line would go, then went to the media and forced the city to buy the house from them because of the noise of the trains... They got such a good deal on the house originally because of it's proximity to what was going to be a rail line, then they forced me, the taxpayer, to buy the house!
I'm a ham radio operator, I've been looking in to putting up a tower in my yard, the biggest suggestion I have received from all other hams is to put up the tower and the antennas several months before putting up any coax to connect anything. This allows you to deal with all the RF complaints quickly and easily so that by the time you actually connect anything the nutters have already been shut up.
wifi doesn't work in the terrahertz range...
I'll start off by staying that I agree with you fully, however I do have to point out something.
Human nature STILL mis-represents the risk, further diluting the deterrent value of a punishment.
The best deterrent is decreasing the chance you'll get away with it, which is pretty obvious when you think about it.
Unfortunately you show the problem with this statement in your own post. the best deterrent is decreasing the *perceived* chance you'll get away with it. Which is quite different from decreasing the *actual* chance you'll get away with it. The statistics on solved murder cases show that the odds of getting away with it are much lower than almost anyone would gamble on (especially with the stakes as they are (even when the death penalty isn't involved, most people wouldn't choose life in prison if given the option of freedom)) And yet people still commit the crime.
It's an interesting psychological and sociological problem, I suspect even if we caught 100% of all murderers, there would still be murders because people would still think that they could beat the system.
The thing about capitol punishment is that the alternative (life in prison) isn't something people aspire to either. So it's not like people commit a murder because they know it will get them life in prison instead of death. People don't commit any crime by thinking that they are ok with the punishment, they commit the crime thinking that they won't get caught.
As far as deterrents go, studies have shown that the perceived odds of being caught have a far larger impact than the punishment itself. So much so that people are more concerned about a guaranteed slap on the wrist, than a possible major punishment. Unfortunately though, it's not easy to increase the perception that people will be caught simply because people aren't really rational about these things (the statistics on solved murder cases is good enough that you'd have to be a fool to think you would get away with it, but you won't likely find a convicted murderer say they knew they'd get caught but committed the crime anyway).
In general I actually approve of the idea of a death penalty. However I do have some major concerns on the practical side of things, and the lack of a 100% reliable justice system is prime among them.
However, as to your point. Locations with the death penalty in general have a higher murder rate than locations without it. Now this is correlation and not necessarily proof of a lack of deterrent, however it does imply that the deterrent factor is not working as intended.
Beyond that, when it comes to deterrents, studies have shown that the severity of the punishment has a very low impact, however the perceived likelihood of being caught has a substantial impact.
Basically people don't murder because they think they'll only get life in prison instead of the death penalty. They murder because they think they'll get away with it. If they thought they'd be caught, they probably wouldn't do it, even if the penalty for murder was ridiculously low. Unfortunately it is difficult to increase that perception of the risk of being caught because human nature is to think that you are better than average, and therefore if anyone can get away with it, you will. (statistically the success rate on murder investigations says otherwise, but humans are not rational enough to factor that in)
Actually we are very good at in between. We have the lawless wild wild west for the big players, and the police state for everyone else... or is this not quite what you had in mind?
simple... bad guys: everyone else ;)
good guys: me
I'm not sure that "taking pictures on private property" is actually an offence (as much as most corporations would like you to believe it to be so)