Yep, the shrapnel-risk speed was determined to be 56x or higher, with 52x being the max truly safe speed. This is probably why after a brief spate of 56x drives, the industry dropped back to 52x; also why there is a shrapnel shield in the front of newer/faster drives. That ten cents worth of metal could prevent a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Be sure to also watch the companion piece by a veteran cop, who explains a number of the social engineering ploys that cops routinely use to get information:
It's a lot like calling something a "civil penalty" or "civil asset forfeiture" instead of criminal, because "civil" actions don't seem to fall under Constitutional protections, thus giving the gov't carte blanche.
And on that note, don't be so sure the FBI is incompetent. It's a lot easier to catch maldoers (and malcontents) who live in fear than those who have nothing to fear. Incompetence breeds fear, as in "you never know if you might be the next wrongful victim". I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I'm sure Machiavelli would find it old hat.
I did ask my local librarian, a couple years ago when this sort of nonsense first started. I'd never seen a librarian actually BRISTLE before!! and for the record, the Los Angeles County Library system follows a "kill data when book is returned" policy.
Imagine if the Feds changed the law and libraries were required to keep full records. The "Librarians Revolt" isn't a great name for a resistance movement, but I think we'd see it -- at least among the older set, who as a group are remarkably strong-minded about this sort of thing. (You should have seen the spines raised when I asked a local librarian about such record-keeping!)
Having grown up during the Cold War, and having had college roommates from behind the Iron Curtain -- I agree with you absolutely. Just because you don't have jackbooted thugs roaming the streets doesn't mean it's not a police state. Rather, the measure is what citizens have the right to do, and more to the point, what they FEEL they have the right to do (rights that you are afraid to exercise don't exist).
If you feel that anything you do at the library could be subject to gov't scrutiny, you'll soon stop using the library, and the fact that you still have a "right" to use the library has been made irrelevant (and perhaps even incrimantory).
Someone once pointed out that the measure of a police state is not its overt restrictiveness, but rather, the degree to which it TRACKS its citizens (not only directly, but via paper trails like credit card use, or in this case, library use). We're approaching 100% tracked status.
And it's sad for the individual who gets caught in a corner case, like the drowning victim in your story. But it's a lot sadder when the corner case is expanded to cover everyone. What if libraries were required to identify all patrons all the time?? that's what your corner case expands to.
Ah, yes, for that sort of money involved and up-front investment, a different thing entirely than a music CD, which can now be done for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost.
Tho when did an hour of TV get THAT expensive? When I was doing bits and extras, 20 years ago, it was running about $1M/hour... but even back then there was no need for costs to run that high (and frankly, the sheer =waste= in the industry is horrific, or maybe that should be spelled "graft"). I worked on one show where the regular weekly budget was just $80k.... the difference being that rather than wasting a studio's money, it was all coming out of the producer's own pocket. The vastly lower budget didn't seem to have any negative impact on production *quality* (in fact, for us underlings, it was a superior show to work on!!)
As to making money with patronage -- who needs an escrow account? Remember NIN and RadioHead's free downloads? I forget which of 'em it was, but the conservative estimated sales of OPTIONAL merchandise over the first couple weeks of the FREE download came to over $6 MILLION, all of which went to the artist and none to any distribution racket.
But that only works for big or existing stars, you say? Consider the case of Jonathan Coulton, who made enough money as a side effect of giving away his quickie songs to quit his day job and go into music full time. And this is a "little guy", whom no one had ever heard of before.
The internet, serving as a ubiquitous and essentially free advertising network, makes it possible for the little guy to get noticed and make money, whereas without the net, he'd need a contract with a label and their "star-making machinery", and unless he's one of the hot 100, still won't make a living from it.
Well, I'd say that defeating them for their slimey tactics is in fact defeating them on the LACK of merits of their cases (since if their cases had any merits, they wouldn't need slimey tactics). So for practical purposes, it's one and the same.
"Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time."
That's a very good point. How is this different from retroactive punishment for a crime that didn't exist when you committed the act? A: it's not -- the only difference here is that the PUBLIC, rather than an individual, is being "punished" by a retroactive penalty which did not exist at the time the "crime" (creation of copyrighted work) was "committed".
So -- extending copyright extends the "punishment" the public endures for allowing content owners their limited monopoly (ie. copyright).
(That didn't come out as clear as I'd hoped, but you get the idea...)
Dear Britain: It's a deal. We'll even throw in the plane ticket.
Now, as to the rest of the Royal Family -- I know Queen Elizabeth is getting a bit long in the tooth, but we might still get a few years out of her, if only as a good example. In exchange, I offer you one President in almost pristine condition, with the proviso that you include the Queen's hunting dogs and her pheasant feather hat. We need the reminder of what Real Life is all about, and I hear you're not using them any more anyway.
"The correct action today is to unburden the lower class and the economy with the cost of gasoline by increasing oil supply."
Good point. But too many people who are NOT being financially pinched can't see that when you're being squeezed to where you have to decide between gas to get to work, and food on the table, you don't have anything left over to spend on "alternatives". Alternatives nearly always cost more than mainstream, and the larger the cost differential, the longer they take to become mainstream.
Frex, I'd love to put up a wind generator. But I don't have the $18k it costs out of pocket (nor the skills to build my own from scratch). If the economy had continued as it was a few years ago, I probably could afford it, but not as things stand today. -- And the more I'm forced to spend on rising costs of basic living, the further I get from any potential alternatives, even when the tech is available.
What I'm thinking is... how is deciding to take a vacation when the nation is in crisis responsible governance?? those who want to stay and WORK on the problem are being responsible; those who think they deserve a vacation, when We The People are struggling to make ends meet, deserve no such reward.
Dear Britain: I've heard you have a royal family you're not using, and I know they've got better sense than our politicos. So how about this: We'll take 'em off your hands, you won't have to subsidize them anymore, and we'll get someone with a modicum of common sense in charge. Thank you.
Whilst reading your excellent post, it occurred to me that to understand when something is trolling or not, one must have matured past being susceptible to trolling.
And as to newbies' dumb but honest questions, observationally, I'd estimate that newbies get flamed as trolls more often than actual trolls do.
A segment of TFA sums it up neatly, and this stands across every era and every level of trolling (including common stuff like kids teasing one another, or Socrates asking his contemporaries uncomfortable questions):
Fortuny proceeded to demonstrate his personal cure for trolling, the Theory of the Green Hair.
"You have green hair," he told me. "Did you know that?"
"No," I said.
"Why not?"
"I look in the mirror. I see my hair is black."
"That's uh, interesting. I guess you understand that you have green hair about as well as you understand that you're a terrible reporter."
"What do you mean? What did I do?"
"That's a very interesting reaction," Fortuny said. "Why didn't you get so defensive when I said you had green hair?" If I were certain that I wasn't a terrible reporter, he explained, I would have laughed the suggestion off just as easily. The willingness of trolling 'victims' to be hurt by words, he argued, makes them complicit, and trolling will end as soon as we all get over it.
I have a different problem. I have naturally very low muscle mass (I always look like a roadkill, even tho I'm not as thin as I look) and it takes more than the usual amount of exercise to build it up, plus when I'm doing real physical work I use an unghodly amount of calories (almost can't eat enough to keep up). Occurs to me that if this new drug works, it might balance out my situation and let me maintain normal muscle mass via merely normal exercise. Dunno what it would do with the energy deficit, tho.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, the shrapnel-risk speed was determined to be 56x or higher, with 52x being the max truly safe speed. This is probably why after a brief spate of 56x drives, the industry dropped back to 52x; also why there is a shrapnel shield in the front of newer/faster drives. That ten cents worth of metal could prevent a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Since no one has modded it up yet, here's the link again:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
Be sure to also watch the companion piece by a veteran cop, who explains a number of the social engineering ploys that cops routinely use to get information:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=&hl=en
It's a lot like calling something a "civil penalty" or "civil asset forfeiture" instead of criminal, because "civil" actions don't seem to fall under Constitutional protections, thus giving the gov't carte blanche.
And on that note, don't be so sure the FBI is incompetent. It's a lot easier to catch maldoers (and malcontents) who live in fear than those who have nothing to fear. Incompetence breeds fear, as in "you never know if you might be the next wrongful victim". I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I'm sure Machiavelli would find it old hat.
I did ask my local librarian, a couple years ago when this sort of nonsense first started. I'd never seen a librarian actually BRISTLE before!! and for the record, the Los Angeles County Library system follows a "kill data when book is returned" policy.
Imagine if the Feds changed the law and libraries were required to keep full records. The "Librarians Revolt" isn't a great name for a resistance movement, but I think we'd see it -- at least among the older set, who as a group are remarkably strong-minded about this sort of thing. (You should have seen the spines raised when I asked a local librarian about such record-keeping!)
Exactly so.
See also "Don't Talk to the Cops" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 and its supporting companion piece by a longtime city cop, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&q=source:013978398324611204467&hl=en
Having grown up during the Cold War, and having had college roommates from behind the Iron Curtain -- I agree with you absolutely. Just because you don't have jackbooted thugs roaming the streets doesn't mean it's not a police state. Rather, the measure is what citizens have the right to do, and more to the point, what they FEEL they have the right to do (rights that you are afraid to exercise don't exist).
If you feel that anything you do at the library could be subject to gov't scrutiny, you'll soon stop using the library, and the fact that you still have a "right" to use the library has been made irrelevant (and perhaps even incrimantory).
Someone once pointed out that the measure of a police state is not its overt restrictiveness, but rather, the degree to which it TRACKS its citizens (not only directly, but via paper trails like credit card use, or in this case, library use). We're approaching 100% tracked status.
"If you knew that going in, then your trip to the library would pretty much be "consent" wouldn't it?"
Yes. And is that the sort of society you wish to live in? Do you want information restricted by fear of being caught with the "wrong" publications?
Yeah, it's a thrill for kids to get away with it. But it can be life or death under a repressive government, a chilling effect beyond all others.
And it's sad for the individual who gets caught in a corner case, like the drowning victim in your story. But it's a lot sadder when the corner case is expanded to cover everyone. What if libraries were required to identify all patrons all the time?? that's what your corner case expands to.
Ah, yes, for that sort of money involved and up-front investment, a different thing entirely than a music CD, which can now be done for a tiny fraction of what it used to cost.
Tho when did an hour of TV get THAT expensive? When I was doing bits and extras, 20 years ago, it was running about $1M/hour... but even back then there was no need for costs to run that high (and frankly, the sheer =waste= in the industry is horrific, or maybe that should be spelled "graft"). I worked on one show where the regular weekly budget was just $80k.... the difference being that rather than wasting a studio's money, it was all coming out of the producer's own pocket. The vastly lower budget didn't seem to have any negative impact on production *quality* (in fact, for us underlings, it was a superior show to work on!!)
As to making money with patronage -- who needs an escrow account? Remember NIN and RadioHead's free downloads? I forget which of 'em it was, but the conservative estimated sales of OPTIONAL merchandise over the first couple weeks of the FREE download came to over $6 MILLION, all of which went to the artist and none to any distribution racket.
But that only works for big or existing stars, you say? Consider the case of Jonathan Coulton, who made enough money as a side effect of giving away his quickie songs to quit his day job and go into music full time. And this is a "little guy", whom no one had ever heard of before.
The internet, serving as a ubiquitous and essentially free advertising network, makes it possible for the little guy to get noticed and make money, whereas without the net, he'd need a contract with a label and their "star-making machinery", and unless he's one of the hot 100, still won't make a living from it.
Well, I'd say that defeating them for their slimey tactics is in fact defeating them on the LACK of merits of their cases (since if their cases had any merits, they wouldn't need slimey tactics). So for practical purposes, it's one and the same.
"Hell, just extending the term of copyright is blatant theft from the public domain. The works were created under the terms of the social contract that existed at the time."
That's a very good point. How is this different from retroactive punishment for a crime that didn't exist when you committed the act? A: it's not -- the only difference here is that the PUBLIC, rather than an individual, is being "punished" by a retroactive penalty which did not exist at the time the "crime" (creation of copyrighted work) was "committed".
So -- extending copyright extends the "punishment" the public endures for allowing content owners their limited monopoly (ie. copyright).
(That didn't come out as clear as I'd hoped, but you get the idea...)
Dear Britain: It's a deal. We'll even throw in the plane ticket.
Now, as to the rest of the Royal Family -- I know Queen Elizabeth is getting a bit long in the tooth, but we might still get a few years out of her, if only as a good example. In exchange, I offer you one President in almost pristine condition, with the proviso that you include the Queen's hunting dogs and her pheasant feather hat. We need the reminder of what Real Life is all about, and I hear you're not using them any more anyway.
Heh, sometimes I think the slashdot collective has better sense than our politicos....
Lordy, now THERE'S a scary thought!!
Eeny, meeny, miney, moe,
Catch an AC by the toe,
If he hollers let him go ---
Oh wait. Aren't we supposed to flame trolls? Damn. Now I gotta light the BBQ. BRB.
[looking at chart]
Is it just my imagination, or does the unemployment rate have an inverse relationship with the rate of inflation??
"The correct action today is to unburden the lower class and the economy with the cost of gasoline by increasing oil supply."
Good point. But too many people who are NOT being financially pinched can't see that when you're being squeezed to where you have to decide between gas to get to work, and food on the table, you don't have anything left over to spend on "alternatives". Alternatives nearly always cost more than mainstream, and the larger the cost differential, the longer they take to become mainstream.
Frex, I'd love to put up a wind generator. But I don't have the $18k it costs out of pocket (nor the skills to build my own from scratch). If the economy had continued as it was a few years ago, I probably could afford it, but not as things stand today. -- And the more I'm forced to spend on rising costs of basic living, the further I get from any potential alternatives, even when the tech is available.
What I'm thinking is... how is deciding to take a vacation when the nation is in crisis responsible governance?? those who want to stay and WORK on the problem are being responsible; those who think they deserve a vacation, when We The People are struggling to make ends meet, deserve no such reward.
Dear Britain: I've heard you have a royal family you're not using, and I know they've got better sense than our politicos. So how about this: We'll take 'em off your hands, you won't have to subsidize them anymore, and we'll get someone with a modicum of common sense in charge. Thank you.
And while we have, per all the numbers I've seen, the largest surplus of gas and oil already in the pipeline EVER??
Whilst reading your excellent post, it occurred to me that to understand when something is trolling or not, one must have matured past being susceptible to trolling.
And as to newbies' dumb but honest questions, observationally, I'd estimate that newbies get flamed as trolls more often than actual trolls do.
[emphasis mine]
I have a different problem. I have naturally very low muscle mass (I always look like a roadkill, even tho I'm not as thin as I look) and it takes more than the usual amount of exercise to build it up, plus when I'm doing real physical work I use an unghodly amount of calories (almost can't eat enough to keep up). Occurs to me that if this new drug works, it might balance out my situation and let me maintain normal muscle mass via merely normal exercise. Dunno what it would do with the energy deficit, tho.