An actual connection is not required for those that are so defensive about the US healthcare reform failure that they have to make up such ridiculous assertions.
Reid singlehandedly tried to undermine the NRC from the top by appointing (via BO) Jaszko as NRC chair. Putting an incompetent political appointee in charge of an agency as important as the NRC is its own form of willful negligence. Thankfully he was driven out when it became clear he was not fit to hold such a position.
I've convinced more than one cop to let me off. You have to know what the line is and read the officer's demeanor. Sometimes nice guy approach, some times a tougher stance is needed, no guarantees either way. Thanks for your unsolicited advice though.
The point regarding privacy is not to make a case against using the cameras, its more to make sure the impacts and consequences are considered in advance. Doing so and taking steps to address them can help achieve a successful outcome a lot quicker than simply dismissing those concerns or rationalizing them away.
Or maybe, just possibly, cops are like almost every other human being and reject the notion of having their every move on tape. I would hate that, regardless of the benefits.
A step forward or backward? Do you want every encounter you have with an officer to be publicly available? Lets say you bet pulled for speeding, but felt it was not excessive and challenged the officer. The next week, you are at that job interview and here they have video evidence that you don't respect authority.
A very hypothetical case, I know, but as someone who has gotten his share of tickets, I will say I typically accept that I deserved the ticket and treat the officer with the appropriate respect and tone, but one or two cases I was quite upset and it probably would not have come off on camera very well even though there was nothing disrespectful said.
Another consequences might include the reluctance of some citizens to talk to police about certain things or people, or just have a simple friendly conversation. Everyone will feel the need to apply the "lawyer filter" to everything they say. That won't help trust one bit.
Licensee specific watermarks always seemed to me to be a logical path to take, even with other DRM in place, just to help track and find sources of distribution.
Of course, you forgot to mention that the actual levels/concentrations of the will be insignificant with respect to human health risk for almost that entire area in a relatively very short period. (Actually, it is already safe in most areas, but logistics, conservatism, and validation efforts all prevent a quicker return). And, have you ever even thought about the relative risks associated compared to the overall benefits we have gained from offsetting "mind-numbing" masses of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Or is your whole position based on your fear of radiation, lack of risk perception accuracy due to the ongoing anti-nuke FUD, which the oil and gas industry thank who wholeheartedly for supporting.
So, it seems you think its quite OK for those entities that decided tsunami walls were sufficient protection for towns and villages, and those that designated safe elevations for villages and told people it was OK to build their homes, not to worry, and turned out to be wrong.... to not be held to account, even though many lives were lost due to that mistake. And somehow, only the nuclear site presented a case of negligence and collusion. Despite the fact that the actual plant itself saved the lives of some people that were able to make it to the main plant structures in time. Yeah, its OK for thousands to die and lose their loved ones, but very small portion of land requiring remediation for a few decades is your outrage.
Making the phone useless is what I meant by lowering the return on theft. So your are saying the same thing as "3) Steal less as the return is not worth the effort."
There is no evidence that bricking phones will increase robberies..
There is no evidence on any effect of bricking phones, just a theory. So, proposing a possible unintended consequence that postulates an increase is as viable as simply assuming a decrease. Associating it with a poor example doesn't validate either of our assumptions. I understand your confidence in the logic that leads to a reduction in theft and thus willingness to strongly hold the assumption, it makes sense, but it still remains to be seen what really happens and to what extent.
Very "sequitur", from my viewpoint. If the premise is that the effort to steal has not changed, but the return on a theft has been lowered, then there are a couple of potential reactions. 1) steal more to get the same return, 2) steal the same number and settle for lower return, 3) steal less as the return is not worth the effort.
Those options play out differently if the theft itself is made significantly more difficult assuming the return has not changed. Option 1 becomes very problematic, for instance.
Phone lock does not make it any harder to actually steal a phone, its intention is to make it less lucrative. Auto theft made the act of stealing the car more difficult. Very different.
Anyhow, some of my 'unintended consequences' were mentioned in jest, so no big deal either way.
The thief will have to steal more phones in order to get one that has the feature disabled.
The thief will unfairly target older phone model owners.
The thief will have limited time to make a call on a stolen phone, so he'll need to steal another one to make another call. "Just in time theft."
Tracking of stolen phones will be disabled, so stolen phones will be harder to locate.
There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.
Can't they already cut off phone service without killing the phone itself? Seems like two different things mixed together. If the purpose of the kill switch is to erase data and render inoperable, and therefore prevent theft, there is little logical reason that not erasing a phone's data would somehow present a threat or prevent a criminal act. In fact, it may erase evidence.
While that particular proposed solution may make no sense, it doesn't mean there isn't one, and the need for that solution is partially the result of poor overall planning. Yes, nukes can load follow quite easily if designed that way, but that was not a design need when this generation of plants was built. The fact that other sources are being put on line that needlessly offset or are not compatible with the characteristics of existing generation is more the result of a political push to renewables than an engineered and planned approach. Placing renewables on line without appropriately valuing the required backup assets, and making best use of already available power, causes unintended consequences like this as well.
With that said, your point is well taken and I don't presume that the green agenda is 100% to blame for anything. Canadian nuclear operators have done a poor job at reliably keeping those plants running over the years. That's not the example of how to do it.
Good points. The thought that utility designation is the best path enforce net neutrality confuses me. To me, its trading commercial influence on web traffic for government/political influence. I'll take commercial over those two evils. I'd much prefer to see net neutrality goals achieve without utility designation, and the maximum chance that competition will emerge. I'm stuck with TWC right now, no other reasonable options, although it appears Google may start emerging nearby. If they are designated as a utility, then I think I may be stuck forever.
Actually, there is not an official definition of "net neutrality", and there are certainly differing visions on what it means. That is actually a problem for those promoting net neutrality (me included), not being able to present a consistent vision. Recognizing the different contexts in how it is used is important.
Simply designating ISPs as utilities does nothing to ensure net neutrality of any kind, although it can be path to enforce net neutrality requirements. On the other hand, it could also enable its own brand of net restriction. If the government controls the ISPs, then politics might eventually begin to guide content, which IMO would be much worse than commercial influences.
I would prefer to see net neutrality goals achieved without "utility" designation if possible, and keep the door open for as much competition as possible.
The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation. If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done. In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data. None of this happened at Fukushima.
Slashdot Mirror
An actual connection is not required for those that are so defensive about the US healthcare reform failure that they have to make up such ridiculous assertions.
Reid singlehandedly tried to undermine the NRC from the top by appointing (via BO) Jaszko as NRC chair. Putting an incompetent political appointee in charge of an agency as important as the NRC is its own form of willful negligence. Thankfully he was driven out when it became clear he was not fit to hold such a position.
I've convinced more than one cop to let me off. You have to know what the line is and read the officer's demeanor. Sometimes nice guy approach, some times a tougher stance is needed, no guarantees either way. Thanks for your unsolicited advice though.
The point regarding privacy is not to make a case against using the cameras, its more to make sure the impacts and consequences are considered in advance. Doing so and taking steps to address them can help achieve a successful outcome a lot quicker than simply dismissing those concerns or rationalizing them away.
Or maybe, just possibly, cops are like almost every other human being and reject the notion of having their every move on tape. I would hate that, regardless of the benefits.
A step forward or backward? Do you want every encounter you have with an officer to be publicly available? Lets say you bet pulled for speeding, but felt it was not excessive and challenged the officer. The next week, you are at that job interview and here they have video evidence that you don't respect authority.
A very hypothetical case, I know, but as someone who has gotten his share of tickets, I will say I typically accept that I deserved the ticket and treat the officer with the appropriate respect and tone, but one or two cases I was quite upset and it probably would not have come off on camera very well even though there was nothing disrespectful said.
Another consequences might include the reluctance of some citizens to talk to police about certain things or people, or just have a simple friendly conversation. Everyone will feel the need to apply the "lawyer filter" to everything they say. That won't help trust one bit.
Licensee specific watermarks always seemed to me to be a logical path to take, even with other DRM in place, just to help track and find sources of distribution.
Of course, you forgot to mention that the actual levels/concentrations of the will be insignificant with respect to human health risk for almost that entire area in a relatively very short period. (Actually, it is already safe in most areas, but logistics, conservatism, and validation efforts all prevent a quicker return). And, have you ever even thought about the relative risks associated compared to the overall benefits we have gained from offsetting "mind-numbing" masses of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses. Or is your whole position based on your fear of radiation, lack of risk perception accuracy due to the ongoing anti-nuke FUD, which the oil and gas industry thank who wholeheartedly for supporting.
So, it seems you think its quite OK for those entities that decided tsunami walls were sufficient protection for towns and villages, and those that designated safe elevations for villages and told people it was OK to build their homes, not to worry, and turned out to be wrong.... to not be held to account, even though many lives were lost due to that mistake. And somehow, only the nuclear site presented a case of negligence and collusion. Despite the fact that the actual plant itself saved the lives of some people that were able to make it to the main plant structures in time. Yeah, its OK for thousands to die and lose their loved ones, but very small portion of land requiring remediation for a few decades is your outrage.
Your selective outrage is quite telling.
So, what will Netflix do when a customer can't get access to the data that they paid Comcast to deliver to said customer?
I see fur in the future.
Making the phone useless is what I meant by lowering the return on theft. So your are saying the same thing as "3) Steal less as the return is not worth the effort."
Don't take it too seriously. I should have said "possible". I was made somewhat in jest.
1. Not understanding the intent in how I used 'theory', despite the incorrectness, speaks to your communication skills.
2. You should have cited your evidence sooner, rather than the misapplied car theft example.
wonder how much the recyclers will pay for a bricked vs non bricked phone.... i am guessing the same
That is a good question. For parts, the same, for re-use it depends on the effectiveness of the bricking.
There is no evidence that bricking phones will increase robberies. .
There is no evidence on any effect of bricking phones, just a theory. So, proposing a possible unintended consequence that postulates an increase is as viable as simply assuming a decrease. Associating it with a poor example doesn't validate either of our assumptions. I understand your confidence in the logic that leads to a reduction in theft and thus willingness to strongly hold the assumption, it makes sense, but it still remains to be seen what really happens and to what extent.
Very "sequitur", from my viewpoint. If the premise is that the effort to steal has not changed, but the return on a theft has been lowered, then there are a couple of potential reactions. 1) steal more to get the same return, 2) steal the same number and settle for lower return, 3) steal less as the return is not worth the effort.
Those options play out differently if the theft itself is made significantly more difficult assuming the return has not changed. Option 1 becomes very problematic, for instance.
Phone lock does not make it any harder to actually steal a phone, its intention is to make it less lucrative. Auto theft made the act of stealing the car more difficult. Very different.
Anyhow, some of my 'unintended consequences' were mentioned in jest, so no big deal either way.
Comparison to car theft is not a good one. Anti-theft devices in cars actually thwarted the theft itself, not so with phone-lock.
The thief will have to steal more phones in order to get one that has the feature disabled.
The thief will unfairly target older phone model owners.
The thief will have limited time to make a call on a stolen phone, so he'll need to steal another one to make another call. "Just in time theft."
Tracking of stolen phones will be disabled, so stolen phones will be harder to locate.
There are a lot of destroyed countryside, villages, and lives along the northern cost of Japan due to the tsunami. I find it interesting that so many people seem to care primarily about only the small percentage near the nuclear plant, simply because it gives them platform.
Can't they already cut off phone service without killing the phone itself? Seems like two different things mixed together. If the purpose of the kill switch is to erase data and render inoperable, and therefore prevent theft, there is little logical reason that not erasing a phone's data would somehow present a threat or prevent a criminal act. In fact, it may erase evidence.
While that particular proposed solution may make no sense, it doesn't mean there isn't one, and the need for that solution is partially the result of poor overall planning. Yes, nukes can load follow quite easily if designed that way, but that was not a design need when this generation of plants was built. The fact that other sources are being put on line that needlessly offset or are not compatible with the characteristics of existing generation is more the result of a political push to renewables than an engineered and planned approach. Placing renewables on line without appropriately valuing the required backup assets, and making best use of already available power, causes unintended consequences like this as well.
With that said, your point is well taken and I don't presume that the green agenda is 100% to blame for anything. Canadian nuclear operators have done a poor job at reliably keeping those plants running over the years. That's not the example of how to do it.
Good points. The thought that utility designation is the best path enforce net neutrality confuses me. To me, its trading commercial influence on web traffic for government/political influence. I'll take commercial over those two evils. I'd much prefer to see net neutrality goals achieve without utility designation, and the maximum chance that competition will emerge. I'm stuck with TWC right now, no other reasonable options, although it appears Google may start emerging nearby. If they are designated as a utility, then I think I may be stuck forever.
Actually, there is not an official definition of "net neutrality", and there are certainly differing visions on what it means. That is actually a problem for those promoting net neutrality (me included), not being able to present a consistent vision. Recognizing the different contexts in how it is used is important.
Simply designating ISPs as utilities does nothing to ensure net neutrality of any kind, although it can be path to enforce net neutrality requirements. On the other hand, it could also enable its own brand of net restriction. If the government controls the ISPs, then politics might eventually begin to guide content, which IMO would be much worse than commercial influences.
I would prefer to see net neutrality goals achieved without "utility" designation if possible, and keep the door open for as much competition as possible.
The fundamental flaw in your response is that the Fukushima units had no design features to deal with a tsunami from the start, so analysis was never part of the equation. If you postulate a tsunami that breaches the wall, then you must analyze the plant to ensure it can withstand, and this was never done. In the case of Diablo, they designed the plant with the ability to withstand an earthquake from the start. They postulated the earthquake, performed the analysis, then obtained new earthquake information and validated that the existing analysis enveloped the new data. None of this happened at Fukushima.