I rememeber a classmate bringing a (sharp) sword to class to show off to his friends. No one made a stink about it, becasue he was unlikely to shoot anyone with it.
Clearly the casual attitude was due to ignorance. If you're trying to shoot someone with a sword, you're doing it wrong.
Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.
It's both. The photographer needs to have the right tool. Now a crappy disposable film camera may be a sufficient tool to get a good photo for some purposes, but as soon as you have more demanding requirements - like fast action, low light, or large print, even the best photographer isn't going to be able to get past the limitations of the unsuited camera.
If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.
It's not just that. It's also a lot easier to dismiss blurry evidence from a dinky little camera not suited to capturing fast action. I wonder how hybrids and high end interchangable lens non-DSLR cameras are classified. I was actually wondering how long it would take before some country banned (or licensed, with onerous requirements) cameras altogether. I guess Kuwait is leading the way...
If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.
The social convention for a private dwelling is that you don't open an unlocked door.
The social convention for a public website is that it's free until you hit the paywall. It is also the social convention not to read free web pages in their entirity.
If you're going to play devil's advocate, make sure that devil isn't a moron.
Although I disagree with LaHood on this one, your comment is fallacious. He is attempting to protect me from people who lack the skill to do two things at once. Like I want to get run over by a 16 year old girl who is talking on the phone while chewing bubblegum and paying attention to her friends in her dads hummer.
You have no idea about the irony of that statement do you. Driving can be broken down into more than 1 thing. You must watch for traffic signals and other traffic while operating the vehcile for instance. In fact is full of situations where you must do two things at once. You train people to deal with distractions and make good judgements about what a safe workload is while operating heavy machinery. The problem isn't the 16 year old talking on the phone while driving. The problem is that she's allowed behind the wheel when she makes such bad judgement. Taking away her phone won't make her a safe driver.
This has nothing to do with "misuse." It's a human limitation.
This has nothingt o do with human limitation. It has to do with a lack of training. Pilots must use their radio to stay in contact with air traffic control. They're taught to do it. They're taught how to prioritise operation of the vehicle ahead of this communication. Show me the figures when we have such training for drivers. You can't legislate away every single possible distraction. Drivers need to be taught to deal with them.
That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.
Don't take my word for it. Read the research.
And how many drivers actually get taught how to deal with the distraction, the same way a pilot learns to deal with mandatory use of an aircraft radio.
That is the core problem. We are trying to remove distractions instead of teaching drivers to better deal with them. Distractions can't all be removed. They are everywhere.
When you say womanising, do you mean that he had affairs, or just that he was, as a previous post put it, a ladies man? Furthermore, alcohol-drinking and cigarette smoking? Really? If those are two of his three worst flaws, he must be a paragon of good behaviour.
Sure, a great role model, if you want to teach your child to treat the opposite sex like dirt, and kill themselves with destructive habbits.
You're doing a great disservice to your son sheltering him instead of guiding him through what can sometimes be a horrid world, and teaching him that learning is only interesting when it's theatrical. All the truely great science was 99% sweat, not things going boom in the most exciting way. You should be teaching your son to be excited about the discovery, not the theatrics.
Before Mythbusters, people thought of science as boring.
Now your crediting Mythbusters with the popularisation of science? You're ignoring everything else from space exploration and the manned space race, to aerospace engineering, to nuclear physics, to environmentalism. My god man, you're dellusional!
I agree with you about one thing. Mythbusters isn't great science. It's great special effects. That's what they're trained in after all. People have always wanted to see things go boom.
They flap their lips and use words like hypothesis and test, but it's only an excuse to blow shit up. Obvious tests are missed. Conclusions are drawn on insufficient data. It is about as much like real science as caracature painting is like fine art.
Mythbusters is closer to real peer-reviewed science then most of the political, religious, economic, and health beliefs held by large portions of the world population. I'll take a large but flawed step in the right direction over the status quo, thank you very much.
First of all lots of worse science doesn't make Mythbusters good. Secondly the fact that you think what they do even compares to real peer-reviewed science is exactly why I dislike the show. It's misleading, dangerous, and doesn't even touch on the true beauty that is scientific discovery and scientific method.
You have never actually watched a Mythbusters episode, have you?
They are always looking for hole in their hypotheses, any demonstration they do present alternative theories and the checks they do to verify them. It's only that the time they have on air for each one is limited, so they need to have priorities.
I have watched a lot of Mythbusters episodes and am constantly appauled by the obvious tests that they miss (presumably because they don't involve an explosion), and the way they jump to definite conclusions by taking a specific case they've demonstrated and assuming that it represents the more general case. Air time has nothing to do with it. How exciting an explosion they can make excuses for is all they care about. BOOM = Exciting. Science = Tedious. Ugh.
None of the things you've mentioned are anywhere near as complex, new, poorly understood, or fast changing as IT infrastructure. Power is a couple of centuries old, and you can buy backup generators and UPS, data, voice and mobile you can mitigate by going with multiple suppliers. Transportation is as old as civilisation and very much a commodity. Likewise plumbing.
Slashdot Mirror
ArseSuite, ArseDrafting, ArseSpreadsheet, ArseChat, ArseMediaPlayer and your ultimate favourite ArseFace. :P
I think you'll find MS Orafice was first.
I rememeber a classmate bringing a (sharp) sword to class to show off to his friends. No one made a stink about it, becasue he was unlikely to shoot anyone with it.
Clearly the casual attitude was due to ignorance. If you're trying to shoot someone with a sword, you're doing it wrong.
"the land of the free and the home of the brave"
The lyrics need to change to "the land of the scared and the home of the groped and/or irradiated".
What about regular SLR cameras? Why ban D(igital)SLR cameras?
Clearly someone in power wasn't happy with their latest Nikon or Canon camera and decided to take it out on the whole country.
Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.
It's both. The photographer needs to have the right tool. Now a crappy disposable film camera may be a sufficient tool to get a good photo for some purposes, but as soon as you have more demanding requirements - like fast action, low light, or large print, even the best photographer isn't going to be able to get past the limitations of the unsuited camera.
I've been suspecting that either the so-called 'threat' is far, far overblown or these terrorists are complete and total idiots.
This isn't an either or proposition. Both are true.
If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.
It's not just that. It's also a lot easier to dismiss blurry evidence from a dinky little camera not suited to capturing fast action. I wonder how hybrids and high end interchangable lens non-DSLR cameras are classified. I was actually wondering how long it would take before some country banned (or licensed, with onerous requirements) cameras altogether. I guess Kuwait is leading the way...
Crazy bad, when "embarrassingly polluted" just doesn't do justice.
Actually i'm thinking more along the lines "mommy I did a poopie in my pants". I think the child soiling themselves metaphor is rather fitting.
If it's unprotected, as seems to be the case here, then that would be the reasonable assumption.
To play devil's advocate: the fact that I didn't lock my front door is not a reasonable assumption that I am inviting you to enter my apartment.
The social convention for a private dwelling is that you don't open an unlocked door.
The social convention for a public website is that it's free until you hit the paywall. It is also the social convention not to read free web pages in their entirity.
If you're going to play devil's advocate, make sure that devil isn't a moron.
Although I disagree with LaHood on this one, your comment is fallacious. He is attempting to protect me from people who lack the skill to do two things at once. Like I want to get run over by a 16 year old girl who is talking on the phone while chewing bubblegum and paying attention to her friends in her dads hummer.
You have no idea about the irony of that statement do you. Driving can be broken down into more than 1 thing. You must watch for traffic signals and other traffic while operating the vehcile for instance. In fact is full of situations where you must do two things at once. You train people to deal with distractions and make good judgements about what a safe workload is while operating heavy machinery. The problem isn't the 16 year old talking on the phone while driving. The problem is that she's allowed behind the wheel when she makes such bad judgement. Taking away her phone won't make her a safe driver.
Just disable all cars...
Ray LaHood is an idiot, BTW.
Just disable or jam LaHood. Simple.
The data show that your risk of an accident increases while 4x when you're on the phone.
http://www.psych.utah.edu/lab/appliedcognition/
This has nothing to do with "misuse." It's a human limitation.
This has nothingt o do with human limitation. It has to do with a lack of training. Pilots must use their radio to stay in contact with air traffic control. They're taught to do it. They're taught how to prioritise operation of the vehicle ahead of this communication. Show me the figures when we have such training for drivers. You can't legislate away every single possible distraction. Drivers need to be taught to deal with them.
That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.
Don't take my word for it. Read the research.
And how many drivers actually get taught how to deal with the distraction, the same way a pilot learns to deal with mandatory use of an aircraft radio.
That is the core problem. We are trying to remove distractions instead of teaching drivers to better deal with them. Distractions can't all be removed. They are everywhere.
The majority of the population does NOT want to see this pass, yet it made it through the Senate with NO opposition?
I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.
It is! 'The people' is short for 'The rich politician buying people'!
When you say womanising, do you mean that he had affairs, or just that he was, as a previous post put it, a ladies man? Furthermore, alcohol-drinking and cigarette smoking? Really? If those are two of his three worst flaws, he must be a paragon of good behaviour.
Sure, a great role model, if you want to teach your child to treat the opposite sex like dirt, and kill themselves with destructive habbits.
You're doing a great disservice to your son sheltering him instead of guiding him through what can sometimes be a horrid world, and teaching him that learning is only interesting when it's theatrical. All the truely great science was 99% sweat, not things going boom in the most exciting way. You should be teaching your son to be excited about the discovery, not the theatrics.
Before Mythbusters, people thought of science as boring.
Now your crediting Mythbusters with the popularisation of science? You're ignoring everything else from space exploration and the manned space race, to aerospace engineering, to nuclear physics, to environmentalism. My god man, you're dellusional!
I agree with you about one thing. Mythbusters isn't great science. It's great special effects. That's what they're trained in after all. People have always wanted to see things go boom.
If you don't have enough money to hire people to do it well in house, you don't have enough money for good outsourced resources either.
They flap their lips and use words like hypothesis and test, but it's only an excuse to blow shit up. Obvious tests are missed. Conclusions are drawn on insufficient data. It is about as much like real science as caracature painting is like fine art.
There's no high horse here. Blowing shit up isn't science. Testing one hypothesis and generalising based on a specific example isn't science either.
Mythbusters is closer to real peer-reviewed science then most of the political, religious, economic, and health beliefs held by large portions of the world population. I'll take a large but flawed step in the right direction over the status quo, thank you very much.
First of all lots of worse science doesn't make Mythbusters good. Secondly the fact that you think what they do even compares to real peer-reviewed science is exactly why I dislike the show. It's misleading, dangerous, and doesn't even touch on the true beauty that is scientific discovery and scientific method.
You have never actually watched a Mythbusters episode, have you?
They are always looking for hole in their hypotheses, any demonstration they do present alternative theories and the checks they do to verify them. It's only that the time they have on air for each one is limited, so they need to have priorities.
I have watched a lot of Mythbusters episodes and am constantly appauled by the obvious tests that they miss (presumably because they don't involve an explosion), and the way they jump to definite conclusions by taking a specific case they've demonstrated and assuming that it represents the more general case. Air time has nothing to do with it. How exciting an explosion they can make excuses for is all they care about. BOOM = Exciting. Science = Tedious. Ugh.
None of the things you've mentioned are anywhere near as complex, new, poorly understood, or fast changing as IT infrastructure. Power is a couple of centuries old, and you can buy backup generators and UPS, data, voice and mobile you can mitigate by going with multiple suppliers. Transportation is as old as civilisation and very much a commodity. Likewise plumbing.
no love for the safe-crackin', bongo-playin', Challenger-investigatin' Richard Feynman?
You forgot womanising, alcohol-drinking, and cigarette smoking.
That's the trouble with roll models. They're human. Some stuff they do is cool and worthy of aspiring to or emulating. Some stuff not so much.
Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure?
Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.