Practically, the screen on a 1 DIN unit would be too tiny for navigation and not likely optimized for viewing position and angle. That's one of the reasons that these systems moved to 2 DIN units (which still aren't big enough) and ultimately ditched DIN altogether. Those motorized screens that come out of the 1 DIN units are crap, btw (they break, cover important stuff like climate control and still aren't in the right place to be easily interacted with. Touch interfaces on them are especially horrible because of the flimsy mount).
Many (most?) OEM car stereos aren't made by the car company anyway. I've had quite a few Hondas and they've all used Honda badged Alpine units (going back into the late 80s).
Firstly, beyond laws forbidding the desecration of corpses, the dead don't actually have any rights. The estates of deceased people, as legal entities, have certain rights, but not the deceased themselves.
Secondly, how did you manage to read from my post that I don't believe in psychological harm or think such victims are weak minded? I neither said, nor implied, anything of the sort. My post solely concerned the supposed rights and dignity of the dead and my desire to put the needs of the living over the dignity of the dead.
I suppose if you want to extend my argument to child rape, it gets trickier, since I was specifically talking about the dead. While I have no interest in seeing any of this, including beheadings, I do think that censorship is a greater crime against society (and the individuals that it is composed of) than witnessing something that is "distasteful". I don't have a problem with keeping videos from the public in order to protect the privacy of living victims (breaching the privacy of living victims is a greater crime against them than censorship is against society), but the right to privacy doesn't extend to the dead.
I would rethink that rider, though. Bringing kittens into this will reignite the old dog/cat rivalry and the whole thing will devolve into partisan bickering.
Dignity is an imaginary concept and there is nobody keeping tally of it. The people in the videos aren't "people with rights and human dignity" because they're dead. "We can't know for sure her feelings on the subject", because she doesn't have any feelings because she has been murdered. Keeping her brutal murder a secret "to preserve her dignity" only empowers her killers. Crimes like this need to be in the public eye, in all of their gory horror so that we can't sit back and ignore them. We should be more worried about the human rights of actual living humans than the "dignity" of the dead.
Her cause will be better served by actual exposure and people being aware of what happened to her. A video like that will impart far more impact on people than a news headline would, even if there was a news headline (which there apparently wasn't). Censoring "affronts to human dignity" is just a euphemism for sweeping distasteful realities under the rug. It doesn't make the world a nice place; it just makes it easier for people to feel ok about not doing anything to make it better.
The first country that offers verifiably secure email and VPN services to the world will enjoy an economic boom and the love of billions. And if it's a country like Iceland, it could go a long way toward making them wealthy. And if the US decides to invade Iceland, then at least the gloves can come off and the world can declare the United States a rogue state. But I don't see that happening, because at some point, if the rest of the world really starts to turn sour on the US, you'll start to see things change over here. But as long as we have to cover of the EU and Asia as our allies, the US spymasters can pretend that all is well. But with every week there's a new revelation about a president of a free country having their email hacked by the NSA, maybe we're closer to a worldwide shunning than we think.
There's no such thing as "verifiably secure". One of the key elements in good security is minimizing the number of people you need to trust (and being able to thoroughly vet the people that you have no choice but to trust). Why would you trust an operation in Iceland, owned and run by people you don't know, shrouded behind the typical corporate veil, housed in locked facilities that you can't visit, and run on code you can't audit (or be certain that the available code what is actually running)? You have no reason to trust these strangers and the system you design for yourself shouldn't need you to.
They could be a great operation or they could be an NSA front. Why gamble with that chance, when it's not necessary to?
If you're going to move yourself and your contacts to a system incompatible with plain old email, why not just start using GPG (or even S/MIME)? Why choose a "solution" where you have no choice but to trust a third party (who you've never even met, in a foreign country, with opaque practices and facilities)?
With GPG, nobody but you and your contact can decrypt the messages. If you add in a third party, they can now decrypt the messages too. You're adding points of failure this way, not making fewer of them! Why on earth would you even trust the provider? Why would you choose a system where you have to?
His point was that, at that time, the people showing up at Ellis Island were immigrating legally.
If we want to expand our labor force, we should make it easier to immigrate. Making it difficult to immigrate and then a) exploiting those who immigrate illegally by accepting their labor but denying them the pay and rights of a citizen, or b) rewarding those who bypass the legal process and whose first act in the country is breaking the laws isn't a rational solution to any problem.
Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Since the past was lawless and unjust, the present should be, too.
Or perhaps we just should hold all people responsible for the actions of their ancestors? Let's bring back blood feuds, too! Those were such great times.
I was going for the "lead a horse to water" approach here. If you read back through the thread, it's quite apparent.
To be honest, my argument of "both parties are authoritarian, why would I vote for them" has never been countered by "who cares? vote for them anyway" or "the existence of third parties is a myth", but I haven't argued much with any True Believers of a party.
What I've been getting at this entire time is that there are more than two parties. Voting for a D or an R is voting for the "second worst of many options". My individual vote won't decide an election, so I'm going to vote for someone I agree with more than D or R. I'm going to vote for the least of all possible evils. Restricting my choice to the two most evil choices is a ridiculous idea.
It's naive to think that continuously voting in authoritarian representatives won't result in an authoritarian government. I don't want one of those. Why would I vote for one?
tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving
So why would I want to show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office? My vote is for a representative to fill a public office, not for which 'team' I think is the coolest.
I'll agree that most people who self-identify as Democrats are perfectly reasonable people. You may be surprised to find out that most people who self-identify as Republicans are also perfectly reasonable people. Don't be fooled by the caricatures that the extreme members of either party paint. Barring the few, highly emotionally charged, issues that are used to divide and rule and distract the citizens, most people are willing to compromise and get along just fine.
Almost all of the career politicians in Washington are not like the "good guys" or the people that the parties claim to represent. They may claim to represent your view on one of the distraction issues, but they are solidly working against you in almost every other way. The wars, the Patriot Act (the original and the recent extension), and this NSA spying business are all good examples of this. No matter how good of a guy the Democratic party member on the street is, the ones in DC are not good guys. The folks in DC (R or D) have more in common with each other than you and they are not on your side.
tl;dr The scoundrels in DC are not at all like the ordinary members of political parties. Voting for an R or a D is (probably) voting for a scoundrel, not a "good guy".
I think I must be misunderstanding your position. Are we disagreeing because you dispute that the policy of Democrats is authoritarian (despite them being clearly represented that way in your political compass link) or because you think that it makes sense for people who dislike authoritarianism to vote for authoritarian representatives?
(I'm not trying to be rude here. I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. It sounds like the latter, which completely baffles me.)
She's right with regard to the passport thing. Why do you refuse to have a passport? What possible nefarious purpose could the government have for giving you a document that enables you to leave the country (or, more accurately, enter another country)? You're stuck here without one. Most totalitarian governments stop issuing them to ordinary citizens at some point.
I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. My problem with your post was that you say that anyone who isn't "strongly totalitarian leaning" should support the Democrats based on their policy, when the policy of Democrats is extremely authoritarian. To your credit, the Republicans are extremely authoritarian also, but that doesn't mean that someone who defines them self as libertarian (lowercase "L", as in the opposite of authoritarian) should logically vote for a party who's policy is still solidly authoritarian. In no way does that make sense.
This lesser of two evils business still involves a lot of evil. Voting against one's own interest will never turn out well, no matter what the "more evil" party represents.
All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***
Based on the link you provided, the Democrats are solidly in the authoritarian halfof the plot. Besides highly emotionally charged issues like abortion, guns, and gays (which never have sweeping or long-lived changes because that would deplete their divisive usefulness), the policy of both parties is extremely similar. Especially from a libertarian view... both major parties are highly authoritarian. The Dems may be less batshit right now, but they're still up to their necks in it.
Most people running mail servers at home use their ISP's SMTP servers to send outgoing mail while receiving mail directly. This lets the ISP watch for (and control) spammy customers while still allowing the customers to manage everything else themselves.
Comcast has recently been cracking down on residential customers that do this, even if there is no spam involved. In many regions, they've started blocking inbound port 25, which has nothing to do with blocking spam.
Privacy implications not withstanding, I'd say Nest has succeeded in desiging a significantly better smoke detector.
If this is anything like their thermostat, I'd say that they haven't. This seems like just another device that needlessly offloads all of its functionality to "the cloud". There's no reason why all of the processing and reaction couldn't be handled locally, with only "extra" features requiring their servers. But without their servers, the thermostat for example doesn't even seem to have the functionality of a cheapy programmable thermostat. If your internet connection goes down, you stop paying them, they decide to obsolete your model, or they go out of business then you're left with less utility than a $20 thermostat.
Or maybe I'm missing something and this is what "The Internet of Things" really is: continuous reliance on third parties for even the most basic functional devices.
The gripe is not that consoles are less powerful than PCs. The gripe is that many games are designed around the limitations of consoles and don't take advantage of all of the power in a PC. Back in the days of yore, new games would be able to take advantage of cutting edge GPUs. Now they (often) don't.
I'm just restating the OP, who said it very clearly himself:
The problem is that PC games have been cripppled for years by being developed on consoles and ported to PCs. Some do take advantage of the extra power of PC GPUs, but the majority will run fine on a GPU that's several years old, because it's more powerful than the crap in the consoles.
It was used in that fashion for irony by overly dramatic characters or overly dramatic statemnts. It was supposed to be funny and point out how silly a situation was. I mean, look at the people he's quoting...
Firstly, Mark Twain. Need I say more? Mark Twain was a master of irony and plays on words. He says that "Tom 'was literally rolling in wealth.'" He's drawing a comparison to a pig rolling in filth and pointing out at the same time that Tom was literally not rolling in wealth (or literally wealthy).
The second (and last) example he gives isn't even using "literally", but "really" and is stated by none other than Meg from Little Women. She says, "I’m really dying for some amusement," which expresses the intensity of her boredom in an intentionally overly dramatic way.
This argument is weak. Using "literally" in place of "figuratively" for dramatic effect is ironic and funny. Using "literally" in place of "figuratively" because you genuinely think that they mean the same thing is just stupid and depressing.
At 20C, the change in the velocity of sound varies from 343.38 m/s (at 1% RH) to 344.6 m/s (at 99% RH). This super-cheap RH sensor is accurate to 1.8% RH and more accurate sensors are available. So, RH is not a real problem.
Besides RH, the only thing that will significantly affect the density of the air will be temperature or strong air currents.. Temperature will be relatively constant throughout the room, especially within 20 cm of the apparatus. Small variations in temperature will occur directly adjacent to the user's hands, but by that point a change at the array won't change the beam too much. These temperature differences can be accounted for, too, using the temperature of the room and the location of the hands (which are both known). That leaves air currents, which could end up being the biggest problem.
Overall, the problems aren't that big, as noted by their functional prototype.
We used to do that all the time to drive cars with fuel system problems into the shop. It works like a charm as long as you don't push the gas pedal (or you're really quick with the valve on the propane tank). It works on modern cars, too, you just poke the tube into the air intake.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically, the screen on a 1 DIN unit would be too tiny for navigation and not likely optimized for viewing position and angle. That's one of the reasons that these systems moved to 2 DIN units (which still aren't big enough) and ultimately ditched DIN altogether. Those motorized screens that come out of the 1 DIN units are crap, btw (they break, cover important stuff like climate control and still aren't in the right place to be easily interacted with. Touch interfaces on them are especially horrible because of the flimsy mount).
Many (most?) OEM car stereos aren't made by the car company anyway. I've had quite a few Hondas and they've all used Honda badged Alpine units (going back into the late 80s).
Firstly, beyond laws forbidding the desecration of corpses, the dead don't actually have any rights. The estates of deceased people, as legal entities, have certain rights, but not the deceased themselves.
Secondly, how did you manage to read from my post that I don't believe in psychological harm or think such victims are weak minded? I neither said, nor implied, anything of the sort. My post solely concerned the supposed rights and dignity of the dead and my desire to put the needs of the living over the dignity of the dead.
I suppose if you want to extend my argument to child rape, it gets trickier, since I was specifically talking about the dead. While I have no interest in seeing any of this, including beheadings, I do think that censorship is a greater crime against society (and the individuals that it is composed of) than witnessing something that is "distasteful". I don't have a problem with keeping videos from the public in order to protect the privacy of living victims (breaching the privacy of living victims is a greater crime against them than censorship is against society), but the right to privacy doesn't extend to the dead.
I would rethink that rider, though. Bringing kittens into this will reignite the old dog/cat rivalry and the whole thing will devolve into partisan bickering.
Dignity is an imaginary concept and there is nobody keeping tally of it. The people in the videos aren't "people with rights and human dignity" because they're dead. "We can't know for sure her feelings on the subject", because she doesn't have any feelings because she has been murdered. Keeping her brutal murder a secret "to preserve her dignity" only empowers her killers. Crimes like this need to be in the public eye, in all of their gory horror so that we can't sit back and ignore them. We should be more worried about the human rights of actual living humans than the "dignity" of the dead.
Her cause will be better served by actual exposure and people being aware of what happened to her. A video like that will impart far more impact on people than a news headline would, even if there was a news headline (which there apparently wasn't). Censoring "affronts to human dignity" is just a euphemism for sweeping distasteful realities under the rug. It doesn't make the world a nice place; it just makes it easier for people to feel ok about not doing anything to make it better.
The first country that offers verifiably secure email and VPN services to the world will enjoy an economic boom and the love of billions. And if it's a country like Iceland, it could go a long way toward making them wealthy. And if the US decides to invade Iceland, then at least the gloves can come off and the world can declare the United States a rogue state. But I don't see that happening, because at some point, if the rest of the world really starts to turn sour on the US, you'll start to see things change over here. But as long as we have to cover of the EU and Asia as our allies, the US spymasters can pretend that all is well. But with every week there's a new revelation about a president of a free country having their email hacked by the NSA, maybe we're closer to a worldwide shunning than we think.
There's no such thing as "verifiably secure". One of the key elements in good security is minimizing the number of people you need to trust (and being able to thoroughly vet the people that you have no choice but to trust). Why would you trust an operation in Iceland, owned and run by people you don't know, shrouded behind the typical corporate veil, housed in locked facilities that you can't visit, and run on code you can't audit (or be certain that the available code what is actually running)? You have no reason to trust these strangers and the system you design for yourself shouldn't need you to.
They could be a great operation or they could be an NSA front. Why gamble with that chance, when it's not necessary to?
If you're going to move yourself and your contacts to a system incompatible with plain old email, why not just start using GPG (or even S/MIME)? Why choose a "solution" where you have no choice but to trust a third party (who you've never even met, in a foreign country, with opaque practices and facilities)?
With GPG, nobody but you and your contact can decrypt the messages. If you add in a third party, they can now decrypt the messages too. You're adding points of failure this way, not making fewer of them! Why on earth would you even trust the provider? Why would you choose a system where you have to?
His point was that, at that time, the people showing up at Ellis Island were immigrating legally.
If we want to expand our labor force, we should make it easier to immigrate. Making it difficult to immigrate and then a) exploiting those who immigrate illegally by accepting their labor but denying them the pay and rights of a citizen, or b) rewarding those who bypass the legal process and whose first act in the country is breaking the laws isn't a rational solution to any problem.
Ah, the "two wrongs make a right" argument. Since the past was lawless and unjust, the present should be, too.
Or perhaps we just should hold all people responsible for the actions of their ancestors? Let's bring back blood feuds, too! Those were such great times.
I was going for the "lead a horse to water" approach here. If you read back through the thread, it's quite apparent.
To be honest, my argument of "both parties are authoritarian, why would I vote for them" has never been countered by "who cares? vote for them anyway" or "the existence of third parties is a myth", but I haven't argued much with any True Believers of a party.
whats a cryptogeek to do?
Steganography. Hide your message in various misuses of you're/your, to/too, and capitalization!
It has the side effect of enraging the classically schooled cryptoanalysts. Win-win.
What I've been getting at this entire time is that there are more than two parties. Voting for a D or an R is voting for the "second worst of many options". My individual vote won't decide an election, so I'm going to vote for someone I agree with more than D or R. I'm going to vote for the least of all possible evils. Restricting my choice to the two most evil choices is a ridiculous idea.
It's naive to think that continuously voting in authoritarian representatives won't result in an authoritarian government. I don't want one of those. Why would I vote for one?
tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving
So why would I want to show them I approve of their actions and vote more of them into office? My vote is for a representative to fill a public office, not for which 'team' I think is the coolest.
I'll agree that most people who self-identify as Democrats are perfectly reasonable people. You may be surprised to find out that most people who self-identify as Republicans are also perfectly reasonable people. Don't be fooled by the caricatures that the extreme members of either party paint. Barring the few, highly emotionally charged, issues that are used to divide and rule and distract the citizens, most people are willing to compromise and get along just fine.
Almost all of the career politicians in Washington are not like the "good guys" or the people that the parties claim to represent. They may claim to represent your view on one of the distraction issues, but they are solidly working against you in almost every other way. The wars, the Patriot Act (the original and the recent extension), and this NSA spying business are all good examples of this. No matter how good of a guy the Democratic party member on the street is, the ones in DC are not good guys. The folks in DC (R or D) have more in common with each other than you and they are not on your side.
tl;dr The scoundrels in DC are not at all like the ordinary members of political parties. Voting for an R or a D is (probably) voting for a scoundrel, not a "good guy".
I think I must be misunderstanding your position. Are we disagreeing because you dispute that the policy of Democrats is authoritarian (despite them being clearly represented that way in your political compass link) or because you think that it makes sense for people who dislike authoritarianism to vote for authoritarian representatives?
(I'm not trying to be rude here. I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make. It sounds like the latter, which completely baffles me.)
The NRA type organizations are fighting this too. The NRA (and other gun rights organizations) joined the EFF in their suit against the NSA. Of course, the NRA's reasoning is entirely based on second amendment language, but that's excusable for a single issue organization like that.
She's right with regard to the passport thing. Why do you refuse to have a passport? What possible nefarious purpose could the government have for giving you a document that enables you to leave the country (or, more accurately, enter another country)? You're stuck here without one. Most totalitarian governments stop issuing them to ordinary citizens at some point.
I'm not Republican by any stretch of the imagination. My problem with your post was that you say that anyone who isn't "strongly totalitarian leaning" should support the Democrats based on their policy, when the policy of Democrats is extremely authoritarian. To your credit, the Republicans are extremely authoritarian also, but that doesn't mean that someone who defines them self as libertarian (lowercase "L", as in the opposite of authoritarian) should logically vote for a party who's policy is still solidly authoritarian. In no way does that make sense.
This lesser of two evils business still involves a lot of evil. Voting against one's own interest will never turn out well, no matter what the "more evil" party represents.
All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***
Based on the link you provided, the Democrats are solidly in the authoritarian half of the plot. Besides highly emotionally charged issues like abortion, guns, and gays (which never have sweeping or long-lived changes because that would deplete their divisive usefulness), the policy of both parties is extremely similar. Especially from a libertarian view... both major parties are highly authoritarian. The Dems may be less batshit right now, but they're still up to their necks in it.
Most people running mail servers at home use their ISP's SMTP servers to send outgoing mail while receiving mail directly. This lets the ISP watch for (and control) spammy customers while still allowing the customers to manage everything else themselves.
Comcast has recently been cracking down on residential customers that do this, even if there is no spam involved. In many regions, they've started blocking inbound port 25, which has nothing to do with blocking spam.
Hmmm... It seems like you have a dog in this particular race...
The nation has always been divided by 2 extremist minorities with a large middle that dislikes both of them.
...but keeps voting for them anyway (even going so far as to defend them now and again).
So why exactly is the big stupid middle not to be reviled just like the extremes? The outcome of all three groups' actions is exactly the same.
Privacy implications not withstanding, I'd say Nest has succeeded in desiging a significantly better smoke detector.
If this is anything like their thermostat, I'd say that they haven't. This seems like just another device that needlessly offloads all of its functionality to "the cloud". There's no reason why all of the processing and reaction couldn't be handled locally, with only "extra" features requiring their servers. But without their servers, the thermostat for example doesn't even seem to have the functionality of a cheapy programmable thermostat. If your internet connection goes down, you stop paying them, they decide to obsolete your model, or they go out of business then you're left with less utility than a $20 thermostat.
Or maybe I'm missing something and this is what "The Internet of Things" really is: continuous reliance on third parties for even the most basic functional devices.
The gripe is not that consoles are less powerful than PCs. The gripe is that many games are designed around the limitations of consoles and don't take advantage of all of the power in a PC. Back in the days of yore, new games would be able to take advantage of cutting edge GPUs. Now they (often) don't.
I'm just restating the OP, who said it very clearly himself:
The problem is that PC games have been cripppled for years by being developed on consoles and ported to PCs. Some do take advantage of the extra power of PC GPUs, but the majority will run fine on a GPU that's several years old, because it's more powerful than the crap in the consoles.
So yes, learn to read.
It was used in that fashion for irony by overly dramatic characters or overly dramatic statemnts. It was supposed to be funny and point out how silly a situation was. I mean, look at the people he's quoting...
Firstly, Mark Twain. Need I say more? Mark Twain was a master of irony and plays on words. He says that "Tom 'was literally rolling in wealth.'" He's drawing a comparison to a pig rolling in filth and pointing out at the same time that Tom was literally not rolling in wealth (or literally wealthy).
The second (and last) example he gives isn't even using "literally", but "really" and is stated by none other than Meg from Little Women. She says, "I’m really dying for some amusement," which expresses the intensity of her boredom in an intentionally overly dramatic way.
This argument is weak. Using "literally" in place of "figuratively" for dramatic effect is ironic and funny. Using "literally" in place of "figuratively" because you genuinely think that they mean the same thing is just stupid and depressing.
At 20C, the change in the velocity of sound varies from 343.38 m/s (at 1% RH) to 344.6 m/s (at 99% RH). This super-cheap RH sensor is accurate to 1.8% RH and more accurate sensors are available. So, RH is not a real problem.
Besides RH, the only thing that will significantly affect the density of the air will be temperature or strong air currents.. Temperature will be relatively constant throughout the room, especially within 20 cm of the apparatus. Small variations in temperature will occur directly adjacent to the user's hands, but by that point a change at the array won't change the beam too much. These temperature differences can be accounted for, too, using the temperature of the room and the location of the hands (which are both known). That leaves air currents, which could end up being the biggest problem.
Overall, the problems aren't that big, as noted by their functional prototype.
We used to do that all the time to drive cars with fuel system problems into the shop. It works like a charm as long as you don't push the gas pedal (or you're really quick with the valve on the propane tank). It works on modern cars, too, you just poke the tube into the air intake.