Not to mention that he missed one very important difference between hacking my system and blocklists.
Choice.
I don't have to subscribe to a blocklist. I can choose to accept all e-mail or to use the list and block the servers listed on it. Even on free e-mail sites, such as Yahoo!, I can turn the spam filter on or off, at my discresion. The filtering of e-mail through the use of block lists is a very good way of exercising my rights. Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to listen to you.
There is nothing being done, with blocklists, that prohibits, or detracts from free-speech. All it does is provide a ready-made filter that removes content which the subscriber does not want to hear.
On the other hand, Lessing brings up the Berman bill. Which, as we all know, allows people to access your system, without your consent, or knowledge. And protects them from liability if they do any damage in the process. I don't have any choice in the matter, they decide they want to format my hard-drive, they can do it.
The article is comparing two completly disseparate things. Apples and oranges, as the saying goes. A service that I can pay for if I want it, and a free license to DoS someone.
Though, on a side note, if Berman's bill does pass, anyone up for starting a group that holds patents, and then goes around the net cracking un-protected systems and deleting the entire contents of people's hard-drives. Maybe start off poking around the RIAA's and MPAA's networks. Afterall, they might have had some of the copyrighted works on thier system, and we would not be held liable for losses or damages if Berman get's his way.
One thing about the Nazi seizure of power: it was all completely legal. The German government voted to "give it up to Hitler" in 1933, if I'm not mistaken.
Just to have some more phun with parallels..
Hitler instituted 'Hitler's Youth' in order to indoctrinate children into the beliefs of the Nazi party. They would march an shout "Heil Hitler".
In the US we have the now constant Pro-US propaganda streamed into our lives on the TV and Radio. And we have our children saying the pledge of alligence in school.
Hitler began instituting programs to fight the economic ression in post WWI Germany. Many of which killed personal freedoms.
The current US government is instituting programs to fight terrorism. Many of which are killing personal freedom.
Hitler made the trains run on time.
The US government is making us "safe" from terrorism.
Going a bit further along in history...
Post WWII East Germany set up the Stazi, which spied on the population for anyone who didn't tow the party line. They used secrecy and brutal tactics to keep the people in line.
We have the FBI.
The only saving grace was that the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was re-united under a free-er (compared to the east) government.
Maybe with some luck the US people will put a stop to this thing.
Though I have to admit, one thing that will suck if something breaks loose in the next 18 years, I had $100 bucks saying that the US people are too apathetic (or was it pathetic) to do anything until, at least, 2020.
If you have publicly accessable ports on your computer, I would say that you HAVE given them permission.
So to take this to its logical extreme, if a person has 139 open and the guest accout enabled on an NT based machine, is it ok for me to browse the files on thier hard drives? They have, afterall, left the door wide open for anyone to connect to thier system and view all of thier files.
I personally disagree with this. Just because the port is open, doesn't make it right to use it. If we start allowing people to hack systems, and get away with it, because the system was not properly secured, we are going to end up with a lot of problems.
Consider it from another angle, if I install IIS, and don't download any of the updates for it, it has numerous well know security holes. If I don't patch it, does that make it ok to hack my server? No, admitadly I would be an idiot to do this, but I should still have an expectation of privacy. And I feel that this open ports problem is the same type of thing, just beacuse you can connect to a port and look at a person's files, doesn't give you the right to do so. Sure, they should take better care, but it still is not right.
Really it sounds like they're doing the same thing that web crawlers do...or a p2p client for that matter. They just takes what they find and run it through a database to see if you're infringing on someone's copyright.
I guess it depends on how far they are going with it. When you install most p2p clients you accept the fact that you will have a publicly accessable area, you have given up your expectation of privacy, for that portion of your system. However, I should still be able to expect that the rest of my system is still private. If I publish a web site, again, I have willfully given up my privacy in that location, and on that port. However, If I buy a Dell and it comes with port 21 open, and I don't know it, then I didn't willfully give up my expectation of privacy. For many users they don't even know what a port is, let alone, what port is for what. Are we now to enforce upon every person that buys a computer that they must be a networking expert? That is simply ridiculious. This sort of thing has got to be stopped, just because they are hacking to enforce the current laws, doesn't mean it should be allowed.
They better have some type of Speaker system that coincides with the throttle to blast out a throaty exhaust note.
And somewhere to mount my shotgun so that I can take a few pot-shots at those annoying people that think its "kewl" to stuff a trumpet up the tail-pipe of thier toyota.
Am I alone in this, or does anyone else think that those things sound like a lawn mower being pushed to its limits?
If there's no rigor to the surveys in question here, then the very data that/. uses to support the claim that filesharing doesn't hurt is suspect. If the survey has no rigor, then your opinion is meaningless anyway.
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear in what I was getting at. I'm not after proving anything. The only surveying (and I do use the term loosely), I was refering to, was the collection of marketing data, for use by the company selling a product, to target further advertisments.
I don't want to prove or disprove anything about file-sharing. In order to figure out what type of add to send to an area, I don't need to have a bullet-proof scientific study. There's no need to prove causality, or even really a strong corolation. Commonality is enough for someone to say, hey lets send a few more [insert music type here] ads to that area.
No more Time-Drivel or Holo-Dork Episodes!
on
Star Trek: Pick A Plot
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I personally would pay Berman/Braga et al $20 if they never have a holodeck or time-travel-based plot ever again.
Stop right there. This is not Psych research. I do understand the principals behind scientific studies, yes they need the ability to ensure that there were no double votes or the like. What I'm talking about isn't research in the scientific sense of the word. Its collecting of aggergate listening data to get a feel for what people listen to. It has no need to be scientifically valid.
This can be a serial number that is bound to nothing but that particular set of responses, but without a system to ensure that each set of responses--and each respondent--is unique, no credible institution or journal will accept the data.
Again, true enough for a scientific study. Though this means that there must be some relationship between respondent and serial number, to avoid issuing more than one number. So the serial number is linked to the person.
If you want your opinion to be heard, you'll have to accept the fact that your opinion will be uniquely identified, even if measures are taken to prevent revealing who, exactly, "you" are.
Not always true, just because my opinion isn't in a scientific journal, doesn't mean that it won't be heard. I'm not talking about trying to get a paper published, I'm talking about marketing weasles getting a feel for thier market. Moreover, the measures to prevent identifications become doomed to fail at this point. They have my answers, linked to a serial number, in a separte table in thier database that serial number is linked to me. An SQL join command is really simple.
Re:DMCA already prohibits collecting that data
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 2
The DMCA (17 USC 1201(i)) exempts from the circumvention ban any copy-protection system that collects personally identifying information about a user and doesn't tell the user about it.
But is doing so a punishable offense? And, if so, is it a useful punsihment, or just a slap on the wrist?
Strange, I look at the RIAA members knowing what I like to listen to as a good thing.
It'll give them added incentive to stop putting out crap.
Point taken, I guess its just a bit of a knee jerk reaction on my part, I really don't like being tracked. Realisticly, I wouldn't mind them getting aggergate data, which has no serial numbers, no names, no individuality to the data. That is as much as they need, and keeps info about me happily lost in the noise.
I realize that, as things currently stand, that privacy and amnomitity are basicly dead, I still don't have to like it. When it comes to privacy/amnominity I really feel that every inch of ground should be fought for. Maybe I'm just parinoid, but on the other hand I'm sortta glad that I'll be dead in 70 years or so and no longer care about where some of this stuff might go.
Re:Piracy Police
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"If the MP3 file that Brad King encodes shows up on a system, we will know where it comes from. We call it lightweight DRM, but it won't prevent you from doing anything." And then what? If one of my MP3's shows up on somebody else's system, is sombody going to make me justify the exchange? Err... No officer I never gave cooldude76 any MP3 files, he must've stolen it!
Moreover, this system will have to have a way of collecting information, and storing it as part of the DRMP3 (Suggestion for an acronym for SuperMP3's). Do they think that no one is going to figure out how to modify them to change the owner? So suddenly someone who dislikes me manufactures a bunch of Britney Spears DRMP3's with my name attached and dumps them on the web. Now, not only do I have to prove that I'm not the one releasing them, worse, I have to try and prove that I really never bought one of her CDs, to the world at large, to rebuild my little bit of reputation.
...doesn't restrict fair uses, allows copyright holders to identify those who break the laws so that prosecution can begin.
And, of course, the tracking information embeded into songs would never be used for anything other than tracking down pirates. After all, the RIAA would never want to track users listening habits.
Sarcasm aside, it wouldn't be easy to track people's listening habits. Especially in a car CD-player, but on a computer, it gets eaiser. And assuming Gates and his ilk are right, we are going to end up with more of our entertainment equipment on our network, and eventually internet.
I admit it may be a bit parinoid at this point, but its something to keep in the back of the mind. Personally, I wouldn't mind this "squishy DRM" idea much, as long as there are some strict regulations preventing collecting any of this sort of data. And, of course, those regulations would have to require a fine large enough to cripple the biggest business in the event they are broken, lets say aroung $5 billion inflation adjusted from 2002 dollars. In the end though, I have a feeling that we are going to have something like this forced upon us, and we are not going to be given the protection that should come along with it.
Re:Too late. The cat is out of the bag.
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 2
You're looking at the small picture. Would you rather be like Nelly and make recyclable music which will die in a year and live in luxury? Or would you rather live in poverty, make beautiful music and become a legend, having billions of people after your death play and enjoy the music you created? There lies the question.
Money and luxury, thank you very much. Same reason I get out of bed before God and go to work in the morning.
So in your opinion it was ok for Al Quada to attack that US destroyer and Pentagon?
From a military stand-point, yes.
Both of those are valid military targets. While I don't like the idea of our soldiers being killed, in a war-time situation those are acceptable targets. Mind you, the use of a civilian plane, with civilians on-board is questionable as a vaild way to perform an attack. Though I will grant that under the logic of what is a blatant attack on civilians and what is collateral damage, the civilans on the plane could be viewed as collateral damage. Though in counter-argument to that conclusion there would be the question of, could the goal have feseably been acheived without the substantial loss of civilian life? If the goal was simply to create terror, then that answer is no, and thus the use of the airliner was a blatant attack on civilians. Again, it comes down to intent. What was the goal of the attack, and why were the methods choosen?
Let us go out on a limb for a second and assume that the goal of the attack on the Pentagon was intended to disrupt the US Military Command and Control, and prevent a quick response. Further we have to accept the, probably false, assumption that the loss of the Pentagon would cripple US Military C&C. So, what were the options? An air strike was out, the likelyhood of a bomber penetrating US airspace and getting inside the DC area is low, it would have been perceived as a threat and shot down by the time it got over the land. A land based bomb might have stood a better chance, but it would have been too small to do any real damage. Flying an airliner into the Pentagon is a pretty attractive choice at this point, if its fuel tanks are full it might cause a lot of damage, not to mention that its unlikely to be perceived as a threat until far too late. Only downside to this is the high civilian casualties, if you don't care about this problem, this is where you might stop thinking. But there was another option that they missed. Ok, they have accepted that the pilot is going to be lost, and they want to cause a good sized explosion. Buy a small jet, pack it with explosives and fly that into the target. It would have had the same benifit of suprise, and might have provided for a bigger bang, plus fewer civilians killed.
So in the end, yes, I think that the two attacks you put forward were valid military targets, though the method of attack choosen on the Pentagon was invalid. Though keep in mind, one shouldn't be suprised when the US military turns around and opens a can of whoop-ass on them.
You keep mentioning "these people" and how they all deserve death for "cheering" others death... Do you, in retrospect, also deserve death for cheering their death? One has to be very careful not to become just what they are fighting agasint.
I think that you are missing one small but important point on this.
Intent.
There is a large gap between targeting a military complex and catching a few innocent people and directly targeting innocent people, who have no military value. While I will grant that the death of a non-military target civilian is sad, it is sometimes unavoidable in war.
And please don't give me that crap about how we shouldn't be fighting wars, and there are no reasons for wars, that is bullshit. Because there are those humans that will try and subjigate others around them, it sometimes becomes necessary to take up arms and defend your soverigenty/freedom. I will grant that this is often taken too far, and that many wars are fought for some pretty bad reasons, but war is a necessity at times. If you are truly that against war, might I suggest that you go back to living your life as a serf for the Queen of England, and allow royalty to have full control over your life. Not I, thank you very much, I feel a lot of gratitude to the men and women that fought and died in the American Revolution.
As for the death of non-military target civilians in a war, this should be avoided as much as possible. In case you missed it, the US military does a lot of work to this end. Its actually a side effect of good military tactics. First, there is the military intellegence, jokes about this being an oxymoron aside, consider the number of bombs that are dropped that do hit valid military targets, its a large number. The only ones that get press though are the ones that either miss, or were mis-directed. The people in MI are human, they screw up, but at least they are trying. Second, dropping bombs on non-miltary targets is a waste of ordanace, it costs money. Not to mention the obvious poilitical ramifications. If the US didn't care about minimizing civilian casualties it would have given up on expensive Laser/TV/IR guided bombs. We can mass produce 500lbs bombs, load up B-52's and carpet bomb a good sized country out of existance. But its not done.
Am I cheering the deaths of the people that our military kills? No, I think its sad that mothers are losing thier sons. However, I am cheering the destruction of the organizations that they are fighting for. If there was an efficent way to bring this all to an end, and not have to kill anyone, I would be all for it. But, I haven't seen one. War, while undesirable, is often the quickest means to peace. If you have a better solution, post it. Diplomacy isn't working. Not getting involved in the Middle East? A nice idea, afterall the Kurds are of no concern to us, better to let the different tribes in the Middle East kill each other off, and then we can deal with the winners. Along the same lines, we should never have gotten involved in the war in Europe. We should have stood by the sidelines waited for the dust to settle, and then started working out trade agreements with the Third Riech. Isolationism, that's the ticket, the US says, "screw the rest of the world, we're not getting involved."
Personally I'd like to know real reasons on why the USA is so hated by so many people across the globe, and don't tell me its becasue "they hate our freedom", its a wonder every time i see GWB say that with a straight face.
I agree that the "they hate our freedom" excues is BS. If you're interested KFI AM640 actually interviewed a top member of a British group that is celebrating the positive outcomes of the 9/11 attacks today. It really was rather enlightening. According to the person interviewed, its not the US, freedom or any other such ideal that is under attack, but instead its any system of law created by man, and not god given. They usually keep some of thier stuff online for a while, and the interview may be there. Listening to this guy was really interesting, he was well spoken, and polite, he wasn't a screaming idiot.
I think this whole issue is a Lot more complex than having a simple "kill them all" solution. If we are supposed to be the most advanced and cultured society in the history of the earth, i'm sure we can do better than that.
Why is it that everyone seems to have this "Star Trek" view of what an 'advanced' society should be? Sometimes the old way of doing things is still the best. I would like to have a better solution than "kill them all", and I think there might be one, but I'm not for standing by and getting beaten up while trying to figure it out. Go back to the 80's the US was being attacked relentlessly by terrorists under Kadafi. It was decided that enough was enough and a couple of strike aircraft went to visit Kadafi's home. Shortly after that the attacks on US soil abated. It was brutal, but it stopped the attacks in a very short time span.
War has its place, and no amount of whining that we should be an 'advanced', ala "Star Trek", society is going to change that. If you aren't willing to fight for your rights, then you deserve to be a slave. I agree that a non-violent solution would be wonderful, but I haven't seen someone put one forward yet that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeding. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I don't like violence, but I do feel that when it comes time to use it, it should be as efficent as possible. The only deterent I have ever seen to a war is a strong show of force. Both the US and the USSR won in the cold war, neither side suffered the massive destruction that nuclear weapons promised. And that was because both sides knew that the other side was too well armed to attack. So for now, the only thing I can see that has a possibility of stopping the terrorist attacks on the US is to make it obvious that attacking the US is just going to get you killed. Especially the leaders and planners of the attacks. They are the ones that need to be killed. Most of the people that carry out the suicide attacks do not have the means to plan, and execute them on thier own, they have to rely on the people that sit in the background and send them to thier deaths.
Yes, I am all for targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. In the end its a very percise way of dealing with a military threat. Will it occasionally get the wrong person? Yes, that is a fact of war, it sucks, but its part of this whole war thing. But, it still beats the hell out of an all out war, it comes down to numbers at that point. In an all out war you are going to have pretty high non-military civilian casualties, in a bungled assassination, you will have only a handful.
So the matter should be brought to court, as least as far as showing that "John Doe" has a case to answer. The court should then order the ISP to reveal the identity of the John Doe(s) concerned so that the matter can be brought to trial.
And this is exactly how the current law handles this sort of thing. If I am acting anonymously and commit a crime, any crime, a "John Doe" case would be filed, and the records that prove my identity would be supeonaed, and I would be identified. However, this would all be done under the watchful eye of a judge, not at the whim of a company. Laws to this affect were enacted to protect people from a company that had become repressive.
If my current employer began doing illegal/immoral things and I give an anonymous interview and the press prints my statements, my employer is, very likely, going to want to find out who gave those statements and persecute me. With the way the law is supposed to work, they have no way to force the reporter to give up my name, unless they file a "John Doe" case in court. Then a judge gets to look at the case and either decide that I did do something illegal and need to be identified, or that my employer is just trying to get my name in order to get back at me. Its a good system, and protects whistleblowers and the like from the problems that usually come about from being such.
This idea of due-process is a good thing, it protects people from companies that might otherwise do some really nasty stuff to them.
Second, by using a computer they are encouraging hacking. It is true that a proprietary set-top-box could be hacked. But, if they make their own set-top-box, they can add all sorts of encryption in hardware and software.
They tried this, at least once, already. It was called Divx, available at Circut City. It failed miserably, and not really suprisingly. When they did Divx, the theroy was that I would buy a crippled DVD player, and spend just a little less to watch a moive a couple of times.
This new system smacks of the same mistake, its requiring me to pay too much for too small of a viewing window. Moreover, like many people, I like to keep the stuff I pay for. As such I will still buy the DVD rather than fiddle with this time limited junk. The only real use I can see for this is as a try-before-you-buy system. Much like video rentals at the local Hollywood store, I rent it, if I like it, I go buy the DVD, if not, I write it off. Moreover, having to wait 2 hours or so to download it, then futz with getting my PC hooked to my TV, which is not a natural state in my house, just to watch it like a rental is too much. Its far to easy to walk or drive the mile and a half to the store and rent it. I would be more receptive to it if they would allow me to download a non-crippled version, and burn it to VCD, then watch it on my TV. If I like it, I'm gonna buy it for the better quality and extras, if I don't, I'm going to format the CD-RW that I use for this sort of thing.
Is this a step in the right direction? I think that saying so is being a bit optimistic about it. While they are trying to move towards a digital delivery system via the internet, I think that this system is just as broken as anything else the MPAA/RIAA trusts have been trying.
This is not what the/. community has been asking for. I don't want Circut City's Divx V2.0. I didn't buy it then, I don't want to buy it now. I want to be able to pay a resonable price ($4 is ok) and download a copy of a movie I can put on VCD. $4 for a VCD quality movie seems like a resonable deal to me, but I have to be able to view it as many times and whenever I feel like it. If it really is that good, I'd buy the DVD anyway.
We need to give up on these fancy high-tech solutions that are so buggy and difficult for old people to use. Go with what they know, and what works...
Make the ballots like bingo cards. Give each voter a card and a daubber. I've seen grandmothers that can't work a toaster, but they can turn around and fill in 10 different bingo cards at a high rate. Not to mention that you almost never see them make a mistake filling out one of those cards.
This would solve the whole boot problem and software bugs. The logistics of it would be no different than the old punch cards, but with a lower chad pregnancy rate.
(interestingly, palladium.com is not a MSFT owned domain)
Ya, they'd have a real tough time screwing Kevin Siembieda out of that one.
For those that don't know, he's the guy who owns Palladium Games, e.g. Rifts, Robotech, TMNT. Funny that the current Palladium.Com site is not run by Palladium games, as I would have expected a company that is so intamtly intwined with Sci-Fi to try and be at the edge of technology. Somehow, I don't expect MS to try pulling a tradmark dispute type attack to get the palladium.com domain name. Between the prior existance of a trademark on that name, and palladium being an element, I doubt they could win (but then I am not a lawyer, and I don't even watch them on TV.)
I agree, the people that hang out in the left lane and travel slower than the traffic around them are a definate nusciance. I used to make a 50 mile commute, each way, and in the evening, after a long day, I just want to get home. The speed limit is 70mph on the freeway, and because of the people with the underpowered cars that can't or won't climb the pass, I get stuck doing 60mph most of the way. Ok, its not a huge difference, but dammit I want to get where I am going, if they don't, then get the hell out of the way! I really wish that the Highway Patrol would start ticketing these idiots for obstructing traffic. Yes, they are entitled to use the freeway, but they should use it in a resposible manner. Most freeways in this area have a tendancy to have faster traffic further to the left, it works, and when everyone plays along, it makes for a pleasent drive. But one idiot that wants to be in the "fast" lane, but is slower than the rest of the traffic in that lane, creates a problem, and needs to be told so, in no uncertain terms. If people are stacking up behind you, move out of the way. Its simple, and its just good manners.
There really are some easy answers to the problems that you had. Though, if you are happier without one, then good for you, but the emernegcy use is well, useful.
1) I drive a stick. My wife got angry with me because she would call me on my cell phone and I would put it down when I had to shift, traffic got tight, or I had to concentrate on the driving for some reason or another. I explained to her in the beginning that driving home safely is much more important than any conversion in the car.
Get a hands free unit. If you have a cell phone, and are going to talk while driving, get a hands free unit. It makes the experience similar to having someone in the passenger seat talking to you. You're quite right, the driving is more important than the conversation, but the problems can be mitigated.
2) I told everyone that the cell phone was for EMERGENCY USE ONLY. Suddenly emergency calls were "just checking up. Want to make sure you're OK" calls.
Sadly, this is impossible to avoid. A lot of people like to have immediacy, they want an answer now. This is part of what phones, in general, are all about. If there wasn't a desire for immediacy, we would still be using the pony express to communicate. Best you can do is re-train those people that call you, keep emphasizing that the phone is for emergecy use only, and be short with them when they call for another reason. Trust me, one valid use of the phone for an emergency is worth the headache of a thousand "are you ok?" calls.
3) It's nice to be disconnected. It's really, really nice to be someplace where no one can reach you. No one can bother you. You're all alone. Obviously I'm in the minority with this opinion. People don't respect private time when you have a cell phone.
I agree with you, alone time, is very nice. And I still can have it when I want to. Every cell phone has an off button. Press it, and forget it. Let voicemail catch the calls for a bit, then later you can go back over the missed calls and see if you want to return them.
4) My wife seems to concentrate on anything except driving while she's driving. She almost rear-ended four people yesterday alone. Especially with the cell phone.
The problem isn't the phone, its the person. First, as said earlier, get a hands free set. Second, well, this is the tricky part, it sounds like she is not going to learn until she is in a horrible accident, sorry, but I don't think that this sort of problem can be fixed. Best I can say is, hope that she's ok, and so is the other person in the accident.
5) C-- You H--- -- -ow? Sentences MUST be short and sweet along with the conversations because you don't know when your cell phone is going to conk out on you.
Not a problem in my corner of the world. Might just be your area. Moreover, is there any reason to have a conversation longer than a few sentances on a phone of any sort? If you really want to sit and chat with someone, meet them somewhere, have a drink, get some real personal interaction.
I got it originally for the purpose of if I got stuck somewhere I could call for help. When I go to work there is a whole lotta nothing between home and work, and it's even worse for some of my side consulting jobs. The price wasn't worth it. To have the (what I consider) proper cell phone attitude is to be totally frustrated all the time with everyone you know.
Having used my phone in such situations, I really feel that it is worth the frustration and price. But, we all have our own opinions, I can see where cell phones could run afoul of your feelings. Consider my answers simply as a couter-point for anyone reading your post. I have a cell phone, and now rely on it heavily. I have ditched my land line for every purpose other than DSL. And when my car decides to die, it makes getting help easy (I have really bad luck with cars.)
I heard once that there would never be any accidents if everyone had a giant impaler rod mounted squarely on the steering wheel! Think about it, cause I betcha it'd be true.
I think there would still be accidents. But they certainly would do a lot more to keep the population down.
On the other hand, my idea has always been to give everyone a.45 and 1 bullet per day. You have to turn in the spent casing to get another bullet, so you can't save up. You may then proceed to shoot at anyone's vehicle that is being an idiot, in your opinion. Probably have to attach a cavet that you are not allow to kill the person. Now imagine that everyone is at a merge and is doing a very nice zipper type merge which allows everyone to move along, then the one idiot, who thinks that they are special, starts cutting around the side to get ahead. So half the people in the merge pull out their.45 and take their shot for the day. Assuming that the idiot survives it, I don't think he'll be too likely to do it again. Moreover, his car may be disabled on the spot, really making the point about not working with everyone else.
Of course, there would prbobably be quite a few deaths due to this, not many people are that good of shot and are as likely to hit as not, but I think it would go a long way to keeping people in line on the freeways.
All in all, it would be nice just to see some sort of system that punishes the people that create traffic snarls. The roads are a public resource that we have to share, and from a study I saw a while back, the best way to make everyone share is to allow for those that get screwed, by the one greedy bastard, to exact some sort of punishment upon the one idiot. Sadly, the police are streched too thin to do this effectivly, at least in my corner of the world, so the normal deterent isn't there. Plus, many of the little things that create the problems are not ticketable offenses anyway. Sure, its legal not to merge when you know that a lane is closed ahead, and try and get ahead of as many cars as possible, but by doing so you slow up everyone else. If everyone would just merge early, everyone would move faster. Conversly, when people are trying to merge early, try and let one in. Ok, so the merge thing is a pet peeve with me. But it is the one I have to deal with most often, and the solution is really rather simple.
I'm well enough aware of the Van Der Walls effect, thanks for the offer of the slide show though.
As for my response to the article, guess I just managed to miss the initial release of the info. Sorry, I actually have a life and spend most of my time living it, rather than reading stuff that rarely pertains to me. You might try it, its kinda fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that he missed one very important difference between hacking my system and blocklists.
Choice.
I don't have to subscribe to a blocklist. I can choose to accept all e-mail or to use the list and block the servers listed on it. Even on free e-mail sites, such as Yahoo!, I can turn the spam filter on or off, at my discresion. The filtering of e-mail through the use of block lists is a very good way of exercising my rights. Sure, you have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to listen to you.
There is nothing being done, with blocklists, that prohibits, or detracts from free-speech. All it does is provide a ready-made filter that removes content which the subscriber does not want to hear.
On the other hand, Lessing brings up the Berman bill. Which, as we all know, allows people to access your system, without your consent, or knowledge. And protects them from liability if they do any damage in the process. I don't have any choice in the matter, they decide they want to format my hard-drive, they can do it.
The article is comparing two completly disseparate things. Apples and oranges, as the saying goes. A service that I can pay for if I want it, and a free license to DoS someone.
Though, on a side note, if Berman's bill does pass, anyone up for starting a group that holds patents, and then goes around the net cracking un-protected systems and deleting the entire contents of people's hard-drives. Maybe start off poking around the RIAA's and MPAA's networks. Afterall, they might have had some of the copyrighted works on thier system, and we would not be held liable for losses or damages if Berman get's his way.
The Berlin Wall was the product of the *Soviets*, not Hitler. It wasn't even built until the late 60's.
I think you missed the following line in my post, about mid-way down, before the time period jump.
Going a bit further along in history...
One thing about the Nazi seizure of power: it was all completely legal. The German government voted to "give it up to Hitler" in 1933, if I'm not mistaken.
Just to have some more phun with parallels..
Hitler instituted 'Hitler's Youth' in order to indoctrinate children into the beliefs of the Nazi party. They would march an shout "Heil Hitler".
In the US we have the now constant Pro-US propaganda streamed into our lives on the TV and Radio. And we have our children saying the pledge of alligence in school.
Hitler began instituting programs to fight the economic ression in post WWI Germany. Many of which killed personal freedoms.
The current US government is instituting programs to fight terrorism. Many of which are killing personal freedom.
Hitler made the trains run on time.
The US government is making us "safe" from terrorism.
Going a bit further along in history...
Post WWII East Germany set up the Stazi, which spied on the population for anyone who didn't tow the party line. They used secrecy and brutal tactics to keep the people in line.
We have the FBI.
The only saving grace was that the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was re-united under a free-er (compared to the east) government.
Maybe with some luck the US people will put a stop to this thing.
Though I have to admit, one thing that will suck if something breaks loose in the next 18 years, I had $100 bucks saying that the US people are too apathetic (or was it pathetic) to do anything until, at least, 2020.
If you have publicly accessable ports on your computer, I would say that you HAVE given them permission.
So to take this to its logical extreme, if a person has 139 open and the guest accout enabled on an NT based machine, is it ok for me to browse the files on thier hard drives? They have, afterall, left the door wide open for anyone to connect to thier system and view all of thier files.
I personally disagree with this. Just because the port is open, doesn't make it right to use it. If we start allowing people to hack systems, and get away with it, because the system was not properly secured, we are going to end up with a lot of problems.
Consider it from another angle, if I install IIS, and don't download any of the updates for it, it has numerous well know security holes. If I don't patch it, does that make it ok to hack my server? No, admitadly I would be an idiot to do this, but I should still have an expectation of privacy. And I feel that this open ports problem is the same type of thing, just beacuse you can connect to a port and look at a person's files, doesn't give you the right to do so. Sure, they should take better care, but it still is not right.
Really it sounds like they're doing the same thing that web crawlers do...or a p2p client for that matter. They just takes what they find and run it through a database to see if you're infringing on someone's copyright.
I guess it depends on how far they are going with it. When you install most p2p clients you accept the fact that you will have a publicly accessable area, you have given up your expectation of privacy, for that portion of your system. However, I should still be able to expect that the rest of my system is still private. If I publish a web site, again, I have willfully given up my privacy in that location, and on that port. However, If I buy a Dell and it comes with port 21 open, and I don't know it, then I didn't willfully give up my expectation of privacy. For many users they don't even know what a port is, let alone, what port is for what. Are we now to enforce upon every person that buys a computer that they must be a networking expert? That is simply ridiculious. This sort of thing has got to be stopped, just because they are hacking to enforce the current laws, doesn't mean it should be allowed.
They better have some type of Speaker system that coincides with the throttle to blast out a throaty exhaust note.
And somewhere to mount my shotgun so that I can take a few pot-shots at those annoying people that think its "kewl" to stuff a trumpet up the tail-pipe of thier toyota.
Am I alone in this, or does anyone else think that those things sound like a lawn mower being pushed to its limits?
If there's no rigor to the surveys in question here, then the very data that /. uses to support the claim that filesharing doesn't hurt is suspect. If the survey has no rigor, then your opinion is meaningless anyway.
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear in what I was getting at. I'm not after proving anything. The only surveying (and I do use the term loosely), I was refering to, was the collection of marketing data, for use by the company selling a product, to target further advertisments.
I don't want to prove or disprove anything about file-sharing. In order to figure out what type of add to send to an area, I don't need to have a bullet-proof scientific study. There's no need to prove causality, or even really a strong corolation. Commonality is enough for someone to say, hey lets send a few more [insert music type here] ads to that area.
I personally would pay Berman/Braga et al $20 if they never have a holodeck or time-travel-based plot ever again.
Amen!
In psych research...
Stop right there. This is not Psych research. I do understand the principals behind scientific studies, yes they need the ability to ensure that there were no double votes or the like. What I'm talking about isn't research in the scientific sense of the word. Its collecting of aggergate listening data to get a feel for what people listen to. It has no need to be scientifically valid.
This can be a serial number that is bound to nothing but that particular set of responses, but without a system to ensure that each set of responses--and each respondent--is unique, no credible institution or journal will accept the data.
Again, true enough for a scientific study. Though this means that there must be some relationship between respondent and serial number, to avoid issuing more than one number. So the serial number is linked to the person.
If you want your opinion to be heard, you'll have to accept the fact that your opinion will be uniquely identified, even if measures are taken to prevent revealing who, exactly, "you" are.
Not always true, just because my opinion isn't in a scientific journal, doesn't mean that it won't be heard. I'm not talking about trying to get a paper published, I'm talking about marketing weasles getting a feel for thier market. Moreover, the measures to prevent identifications become doomed to fail at this point. They have my answers, linked to a serial number, in a separte table in thier database that serial number is linked to me. An SQL join command is really simple.
The DMCA (17 USC 1201(i)) exempts from the circumvention ban any copy-protection system that collects personally identifying information about a user and doesn't tell the user about it.
But is doing so a punishable offense? And, if so, is it a useful punsihment, or just a slap on the wrist?
Strange, I look at the RIAA members knowing what I like to listen to as a good thing.
It'll give them added incentive to stop putting out crap.
Point taken, I guess its just a bit of a knee jerk reaction on my part, I really don't like being tracked. Realisticly, I wouldn't mind them getting aggergate data, which has no serial numbers, no names, no individuality to the data. That is as much as they need, and keeps info about me happily lost in the noise.
I realize that, as things currently stand, that privacy and amnomitity are basicly dead, I still don't have to like it. When it comes to privacy/amnominity I really feel that every inch of ground should be fought for. Maybe I'm just parinoid, but on the other hand I'm sortta glad that I'll be dead in 70 years or so and no longer care about where some of this stuff might go.
"If the MP3 file that Brad King encodes shows up on a system, we will know where it comes from. We call it lightweight DRM, but it won't prevent you from doing anything." And then what? If one of my MP3's shows up on somebody else's system, is sombody going to make me justify the exchange? Err... No officer I never gave cooldude76 any MP3 files, he must've stolen it!
Moreover, this system will have to have a way of collecting information, and storing it as part of the DRMP3 (Suggestion for an acronym for SuperMP3's). Do they think that no one is going to figure out how to modify them to change the owner? So suddenly someone who dislikes me manufactures a bunch of Britney Spears DRMP3's with my name attached and dumps them on the web. Now, not only do I have to prove that I'm not the one releasing them, worse, I have to try and prove that I really never bought one of her CDs, to the world at large, to rebuild my little bit of reputation.
...doesn't restrict fair uses, allows copyright holders to identify those who break the laws so that prosecution can begin.
And, of course, the tracking information embeded into songs would never be used for anything other than tracking down pirates. After all, the RIAA would never want to track users listening habits.
Sarcasm aside, it wouldn't be easy to track people's listening habits. Especially in a car CD-player, but on a computer, it gets eaiser. And assuming Gates and his ilk are right, we are going to end up with more of our entertainment equipment on our network, and eventually internet.
I admit it may be a bit parinoid at this point, but its something to keep in the back of the mind. Personally, I wouldn't mind this "squishy DRM" idea much, as long as there are some strict regulations preventing collecting any of this sort of data. And, of course, those regulations would have to require a fine large enough to cripple the biggest business in the event they are broken, lets say aroung $5 billion inflation adjusted from 2002 dollars. In the end though, I have a feeling that we are going to have something like this forced upon us, and we are not going to be given the protection that should come along with it.
You're looking at the small picture. Would you rather be like Nelly and make recyclable music which will die in a year and live in luxury? Or would you rather live in poverty, make beautiful music and become a legend, having billions of people after your death play and enjoy the music you created? There lies the question.
Money and luxury, thank you very much. Same reason I get out of bed before God and go to work in the morning.
So in your opinion it was ok for Al Quada to attack that US destroyer and Pentagon?
From a military stand-point, yes.
Both of those are valid military targets. While I don't like the idea of our soldiers being killed, in a war-time situation those are acceptable targets. Mind you, the use of a civilian plane, with civilians on-board is questionable as a vaild way to perform an attack. Though I will grant that under the logic of what is a blatant attack on civilians and what is collateral damage, the civilans on the plane could be viewed as collateral damage. Though in counter-argument to that conclusion there would be the question of, could the goal have feseably been acheived without the substantial loss of civilian life? If the goal was simply to create terror, then that answer is no, and thus the use of the airliner was a blatant attack on civilians. Again, it comes down to intent. What was the goal of the attack, and why were the methods choosen?
Let us go out on a limb for a second and assume that the goal of the attack on the Pentagon was intended to disrupt the US Military Command and Control, and prevent a quick response. Further we have to accept the, probably false, assumption that the loss of the Pentagon would cripple US Military C&C. So, what were the options? An air strike was out, the likelyhood of a bomber penetrating US airspace and getting inside the DC area is low, it would have been perceived as a threat and shot down by the time it got over the land. A land based bomb might have stood a better chance, but it would have been too small to do any real damage. Flying an airliner into the Pentagon is a pretty attractive choice at this point, if its fuel tanks are full it might cause a lot of damage, not to mention that its unlikely to be perceived as a threat until far too late. Only downside to this is the high civilian casualties, if you don't care about this problem, this is where you might stop thinking. But there was another option that they missed. Ok, they have accepted that the pilot is going to be lost, and they want to cause a good sized explosion. Buy a small jet, pack it with explosives and fly that into the target. It would have had the same benifit of suprise, and might have provided for a bigger bang, plus fewer civilians killed.
So in the end, yes, I think that the two attacks you put forward were valid military targets, though the method of attack choosen on the Pentagon was invalid. Though keep in mind, one shouldn't be suprised when the US military turns around and opens a can of whoop-ass on them.
You keep mentioning "these people" and how they all deserve death for "cheering" others death... Do you, in retrospect, also deserve death for cheering their death? One has to be very careful not to become just what they are fighting agasint.
I think that you are missing one small but important point on this.
Intent.
There is a large gap between targeting a military complex and catching a few innocent people and directly targeting innocent people, who have no military value. While I will grant that the death of a non-military target civilian is sad, it is sometimes unavoidable in war.
And please don't give me that crap about how we shouldn't be fighting wars, and there are no reasons for wars, that is bullshit. Because there are those humans that will try and subjigate others around them, it sometimes becomes necessary to take up arms and defend your soverigenty/freedom. I will grant that this is often taken too far, and that many wars are fought for some pretty bad reasons, but war is a necessity at times. If you are truly that against war, might I suggest that you go back to living your life as a serf for the Queen of England, and allow royalty to have full control over your life. Not I, thank you very much, I feel a lot of gratitude to the men and women that fought and died in the American Revolution.
As for the death of non-military target civilians in a war, this should be avoided as much as possible. In case you missed it, the US military does a lot of work to this end. Its actually a side effect of good military tactics. First, there is the military intellegence, jokes about this being an oxymoron aside, consider the number of bombs that are dropped that do hit valid military targets, its a large number. The only ones that get press though are the ones that either miss, or were mis-directed. The people in MI are human, they screw up, but at least they are trying. Second, dropping bombs on non-miltary targets is a waste of ordanace, it costs money. Not to mention the obvious poilitical ramifications. If the US didn't care about minimizing civilian casualties it would have given up on expensive Laser/TV/IR guided bombs. We can mass produce 500lbs bombs, load up B-52's and carpet bomb a good sized country out of existance. But its not done.
Am I cheering the deaths of the people that our military kills? No, I think its sad that mothers are losing thier sons. However, I am cheering the destruction of the organizations that they are fighting for. If there was an efficent way to bring this all to an end, and not have to kill anyone, I would be all for it. But, I haven't seen one. War, while undesirable, is often the quickest means to peace. If you have a better solution, post it. Diplomacy isn't working. Not getting involved in the Middle East? A nice idea, afterall the Kurds are of no concern to us, better to let the different tribes in the Middle East kill each other off, and then we can deal with the winners. Along the same lines, we should never have gotten involved in the war in Europe. We should have stood by the sidelines waited for the dust to settle, and then started working out trade agreements with the Third Riech. Isolationism, that's the ticket, the US says, "screw the rest of the world, we're not getting involved."
Personally I'd like to know real reasons on why the USA is so hated by so many people across the globe, and don't tell me its becasue "they hate our freedom", its a wonder every time i see GWB say that with a straight face.
I agree that the "they hate our freedom" excues is BS. If you're interested KFI AM640 actually interviewed a top member of a British group that is celebrating the positive outcomes of the 9/11 attacks today. It really was rather enlightening. According to the person interviewed, its not the US, freedom or any other such ideal that is under attack, but instead its any system of law created by man, and not god given. They usually keep some of thier stuff online for a while, and the interview may be there. Listening to this guy was really interesting, he was well spoken, and polite, he wasn't a screaming idiot.
I think this whole issue is a Lot more complex than having a simple "kill them all" solution. If we are supposed to be the most advanced and cultured society in the history of the earth, i'm sure we can do better than that.
Why is it that everyone seems to have this "Star Trek" view of what an 'advanced' society should be? Sometimes the old way of doing things is still the best. I would like to have a better solution than "kill them all", and I think there might be one, but I'm not for standing by and getting beaten up while trying to figure it out. Go back to the 80's the US was being attacked relentlessly by terrorists under Kadafi. It was decided that enough was enough and a couple of strike aircraft went to visit Kadafi's home. Shortly after that the attacks on US soil abated. It was brutal, but it stopped the attacks in a very short time span.
War has its place, and no amount of whining that we should be an 'advanced', ala "Star Trek", society is going to change that. If you aren't willing to fight for your rights, then you deserve to be a slave. I agree that a non-violent solution would be wonderful, but I haven't seen someone put one forward yet that has a snowball's chance in hell of succeding. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I don't like violence, but I do feel that when it comes time to use it, it should be as efficent as possible. The only deterent I have ever seen to a war is a strong show of force. Both the US and the USSR won in the cold war, neither side suffered the massive destruction that nuclear weapons promised. And that was because both sides knew that the other side was too well armed to attack. So for now, the only thing I can see that has a possibility of stopping the terrorist attacks on the US is to make it obvious that attacking the US is just going to get you killed. Especially the leaders and planners of the attacks. They are the ones that need to be killed. Most of the people that carry out the suicide attacks do not have the means to plan, and execute them on thier own, they have to rely on the people that sit in the background and send them to thier deaths.
Yes, I am all for targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. In the end its a very percise way of dealing with a military threat. Will it occasionally get the wrong person? Yes, that is a fact of war, it sucks, but its part of this whole war thing. But, it still beats the hell out of an all out war, it comes down to numbers at that point. In an all out war you are going to have pretty high non-military civilian casualties, in a bungled assassination, you will have only a handful.
So the matter should be brought to court, as least as far as showing that "John Doe" has a case to answer. The court should then order the ISP to reveal the identity of the John Doe(s) concerned so that the matter can be brought to trial.
And this is exactly how the current law handles this sort of thing. If I am acting anonymously and commit a crime, any crime, a "John Doe" case would be filed, and the records that prove my identity would be supeonaed, and I would be identified. However, this would all be done under the watchful eye of a judge, not at the whim of a company. Laws to this affect were enacted to protect people from a company that had become repressive.
If my current employer began doing illegal/immoral things and I give an anonymous interview and the press prints my statements, my employer is, very likely, going to want to find out who gave those statements and persecute me. With the way the law is supposed to work, they have no way to force the reporter to give up my name, unless they file a "John Doe" case in court. Then a judge gets to look at the case and either decide that I did do something illegal and need to be identified, or that my employer is just trying to get my name in order to get back at me. Its a good system, and protects whistleblowers and the like from the problems that usually come about from being such.
This idea of due-process is a good thing, it protects people from companies that might otherwise do some really nasty stuff to them.
Second, by using a computer they are encouraging hacking. It is true that a proprietary set-top-box could be hacked. But, if they make their own set-top-box, they can add all sorts of encryption in hardware and software.
/. community has been asking for. I don't want Circut City's Divx V2.0. I didn't buy it then, I don't want to buy it now. I want to be able to pay a resonable price ($4 is ok) and download a copy of a movie I can put on VCD. $4 for a VCD quality movie seems like a resonable deal to me, but I have to be able to view it as many times and whenever I feel like it. If it really is that good, I'd buy the DVD anyway.
They tried this, at least once, already. It was called Divx, available at Circut City. It failed miserably, and not really suprisingly. When they did Divx, the theroy was that I would buy a crippled DVD player, and spend just a little less to watch a moive a couple of times.
This new system smacks of the same mistake, its requiring me to pay too much for too small of a viewing window. Moreover, like many people, I like to keep the stuff I pay for. As such I will still buy the DVD rather than fiddle with this time limited junk. The only real use I can see for this is as a try-before-you-buy system. Much like video rentals at the local Hollywood store, I rent it, if I like it, I go buy the DVD, if not, I write it off. Moreover, having to wait 2 hours or so to download it, then futz with getting my PC hooked to my TV, which is not a natural state in my house, just to watch it like a rental is too much. Its far to easy to walk or drive the mile and a half to the store and rent it. I would be more receptive to it if they would allow me to download a non-crippled version, and burn it to VCD, then watch it on my TV. If I like it, I'm gonna buy it for the better quality and extras, if I don't, I'm going to format the CD-RW that I use for this sort of thing.
Is this a step in the right direction? I think that saying so is being a bit optimistic about it. While they are trying to move towards a digital delivery system via the internet, I think that this system is just as broken as anything else the MPAA/RIAA trusts have been trying.
This is not what the
We need to give up on these fancy high-tech solutions that are so buggy and difficult for old people to use. Go with what they know, and what works...
Make the ballots like bingo cards. Give each voter a card and a daubber. I've seen grandmothers that can't work a toaster, but they can turn around and fill in 10 different bingo cards at a high rate. Not to mention that you almost never see them make a mistake filling out one of those cards.
This would solve the whole boot problem and software bugs. The logistics of it would be no different than the old punch cards, but with a lower chad pregnancy rate.
(interestingly, palladium.com is not a MSFT owned domain)
Ya, they'd have a real tough time screwing Kevin Siembieda out of that one.
For those that don't know, he's the guy who owns Palladium Games, e.g. Rifts, Robotech, TMNT. Funny that the current Palladium.Com site is not run by Palladium games, as I would have expected a company that is so intamtly intwined with Sci-Fi to try and be at the edge of technology.
Somehow, I don't expect MS to try pulling a tradmark dispute type attack to get the palladium.com domain name. Between the prior existance of a trademark on that name, and palladium being an element, I doubt they could win (but then I am not a lawyer, and I don't even watch them on TV.)
Now all I need is a tattoo to tell me when I've had too much coffee...
..brings shaking cup to lips..
There is such a level?
Never!
I agree, the people that hang out in the left lane and travel slower than the traffic around them are a definate nusciance. I used to make a 50 mile commute, each way, and in the evening, after a long day, I just want to get home. The speed limit is 70mph on the freeway, and because of the people with the underpowered cars that can't or won't climb the pass, I get stuck doing 60mph most of the way. Ok, its not a huge difference, but dammit I want to get where I am going, if they don't, then get the hell out of the way! I really wish that the Highway Patrol would start ticketing these idiots for obstructing traffic. Yes, they are entitled to use the freeway, but they should use it in a resposible manner. Most freeways in this area have a tendancy to have faster traffic further to the left, it works, and when everyone plays along, it makes for a pleasent drive. But one idiot that wants to be in the "fast" lane, but is slower than the rest of the traffic in that lane, creates a problem, and needs to be told so, in no uncertain terms. If people are stacking up behind you, move out of the way. Its simple, and its just good manners.
There really are some easy answers to the problems that you had. Though, if you are happier without one, then good for you, but the emernegcy use is well, useful.
1) I drive a stick. My wife got angry with me because she would call me on my cell phone and I would put it down when I had to shift, traffic got tight, or I had to concentrate on the driving for some reason or another. I explained to her in the beginning that driving home safely is much more important than any conversion in the car.
Get a hands free unit. If you have a cell phone, and are going to talk while driving, get a hands free unit. It makes the experience similar to having someone in the passenger seat talking to you. You're quite right, the driving is more important than the conversation, but the problems can be mitigated.
2) I told everyone that the cell phone was for EMERGENCY USE ONLY. Suddenly emergency calls were "just checking up. Want to make sure you're OK" calls.
Sadly, this is impossible to avoid. A lot of people like to have immediacy, they want an answer now. This is part of what phones, in general, are all about. If there wasn't a desire for immediacy, we would still be using the pony express to communicate. Best you can do is re-train those people that call you, keep emphasizing that the phone is for emergecy use only, and be short with them when they call for another reason. Trust me, one valid use of the phone for an emergency is worth the headache of a thousand "are you ok?" calls.
3) It's nice to be disconnected. It's really, really nice to be someplace where no one can reach you. No one can bother you. You're all alone. Obviously I'm in the minority with this opinion. People don't respect private time when you have a cell phone.
I agree with you, alone time, is very nice. And I still can have it when I want to. Every cell phone has an off button. Press it, and forget it. Let voicemail catch the calls for a bit, then later you can go back over the missed calls and see if you want to return them.
4) My wife seems to concentrate on anything except driving while she's driving. She almost rear-ended four people yesterday alone. Especially with the cell phone.
The problem isn't the phone, its the person. First, as said earlier, get a hands free set. Second, well, this is the tricky part, it sounds like she is not going to learn until she is in a horrible accident, sorry, but I don't think that this sort of problem can be fixed. Best I can say is, hope that she's ok, and so is the other person in the accident.
5) C-- You H--- -- -ow? Sentences MUST be short and sweet along with the conversations because you don't know when your cell phone is going to conk out on you.
Not a problem in my corner of the world. Might just be your area. Moreover, is there any reason to have a conversation longer than a few sentances on a phone of any sort? If you really want to sit and chat with someone, meet them somewhere, have a drink, get some real personal interaction.
I got it originally for the purpose of if I got stuck somewhere I could call for help. When I go to work there is a whole lotta nothing between home and work, and it's even worse for some of my side consulting jobs. The price wasn't worth it. To have the (what I consider) proper cell phone attitude is to be totally frustrated all the time with everyone you know.
Having used my phone in such situations, I really feel that it is worth the frustration and price. But, we all have our own opinions, I can see where cell phones could run afoul of your feelings. Consider my answers simply as a couter-point for anyone reading your post. I have a cell phone, and now rely on it heavily. I have ditched my land line for every purpose other than DSL. And when my car decides to die, it makes getting help easy (I have really bad luck with cars.)
I heard once that there would never be any accidents if everyone had a giant impaler rod mounted squarely on the steering wheel! Think about it, cause I betcha it'd be true.
.45 and 1 bullet per day. You have to turn in the spent casing to get another bullet, so you can't save up. You may then proceed to shoot at anyone's vehicle that is being an idiot, in your opinion. Probably have to attach a cavet that you are not allow to kill the person. Now imagine that everyone is at a merge and is doing a very nice zipper type merge which allows everyone to move along, then the one idiot, who thinks that they are special, starts cutting around the side to get ahead. So half the people in the merge pull out their .45 and take their shot for the day. Assuming that the idiot survives it, I don't think he'll be too likely to do it again. Moreover, his car may be disabled on the spot, really making the point about not working with everyone else.
I think there would still be accidents. But they certainly would do a lot more to keep the population down.
On the other hand, my idea has always been to give everyone a
Of course, there would prbobably be quite a few deaths due to this, not many people are that good of shot and are as likely to hit as not, but I think it would go a long way to keeping people in line on the freeways.
All in all, it would be nice just to see some sort of system that punishes the people that create traffic snarls. The roads are a public resource that we have to share, and from a study I saw a while back, the best way to make everyone share is to allow for those that get screwed, by the one greedy bastard, to exact some sort of punishment upon the one idiot. Sadly, the police are streched too thin to do this effectivly, at least in my corner of the world, so the normal deterent isn't there. Plus, many of the little things that create the problems are not ticketable offenses anyway. Sure, its legal not to merge when you know that a lane is closed ahead, and try and get ahead of as many cars as possible, but by doing so you slow up everyone else. If everyone would just merge early, everyone would move faster. Conversly, when people are trying to merge early, try and let one in. Ok, so the merge thing is a pet peeve with me. But it is the one I have to deal with most often, and the solution is really rather simple.
That or the ultimate defense in the US:
"That depends on what your definition of is is"
I'm well enough aware of the Van Der Walls effect, thanks for the offer of the slide show though.
As for my response to the article, guess I just managed to miss the initial release of the info. Sorry, I actually have a life and spend most of my time living it, rather than reading stuff that rarely pertains to me. You might try it, its kinda fun.