Is this final question directed to me or to the wind? For as interesting as I find your above comment I don't see the relevance to the discussion I thought we were having.
As someone who has maroon SIDA badges at multiple large airports in the USA, I think you are overly discounting the culture of challenging (asking strangers to see their badge) and missing a couple of key points.
Especially if the person you're challenging was just verified by the card-reader.
1 - A forged RFID in and of itself will not get you through any of the more sensitive doors. A PIN is also required. 2 - Even someone like me with an "all areas" badge must get prior (time limited) authorization to pass through higher-security doors. The central computer will reject my perfectly valid badge and PIN and sound an alarm at security if I so much as try a door I do not have approval for. 3 - At most airports I've worked at there is also a security officer posted at doors capable of being used to bypass TSA checkpoints (as in going downstairs then through the baggage tunnel, then back up on the other side), one who inspects each and every badge which passes his way. 4 - All RFID readers are linked to the security office. Let's say I unsuspectingly cloned Joe's card. If Joe badged in to area A but didn't badge out while meanwhile Cloned Joe badged into area F - an alarm would sound.
While I have witnessed much which I consider weaknesses in airport security - the physical badges themselves are not it.
The question is no more phrased improperly than the expectation of privacy on Facebook which flies in the face of the explicit terms of service. This is a problem of education, nothing more.
and I think it comes back down to the question someone else asked in this thread earlier: What expectation of privacy does one reasonably have for information they have shared publicly?
I don't feel it's a complex issue - I honestly think it is black and white - you chat about or do X online (outside those arenas explicitly protected) and you need to know X is no longer private by any definition. This is no different than in the physical world. The only thing complex will be convincing people of this fact.
If we're going to say that theft of a person's physical property and theft of a person's intellectual property are equivalent (as the law leans towards)
It does? Or are you comparing severity of punishment while ignoring the difference between criminal and civil statues?
then it's no small leap to say a person's privacy is nothing more than a license to that intellectual property.
You're right, it's a large leap.
And as such, entitled to the same protections as physical property. Thus, theft and privacy violations are roughly equivalent.
Your arguments (at least those I witness on Slashdot) normally do not rely on such acrobatics. I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?
If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Theft is clearly defined in law. Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.
Which is why, unfortunately, (most) everyone uses ESRI products. They may not be pretty, but at least you can go to a conference, because misery loves company.
I'd love to see something like Beagleboard that I could mount on the back of an LCD.
The advantages, IMHO, of ARM are all tilted for use in the mobile space. Being 5, 15, whatever watts more efficient than an Atom is a high price to pay for breaking x86 compatibility when you're hooked to a wall outlet, considering your choice in monitor likely has as much impact on your final power bill as your ARM/Atom choice.
Now if all of these are true, it's like getting a Ferrari for the price of a Mini Cooper.
Pick (at least) one: A - All of these [rumors] aren't true. B - You're going to be forced to watch ads. C - It's going to be bundled with a monthly wireless bill.
Pleasure is nothing so simple as "tickle this nerve and you feel good". It is a complex cascade of reactions. Electrical stimulation will induce tolerance as the rest of the brain will eventually compensate for the area under stimulus.
Your analogy regarding muscle stimulation is overly simplistic as muscle firing is much closer* to simple commands traveling linearly down a telephone wire, whereas pleasure and other complex sensations/emotions/functions are highly involved interactions between many many nerves.
You don't watch much NFL, do you? Most Ohio State University grads emphasize the word "The" to the point of sarcasm during the introduction. Trust me, none of us take it seriously. Anywhere except (perhaps) the trustees' boardroom "the" is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Unlike the other options mentioned, the Grand Canyon is significantly above sea level. It is quite a ways up a river which eventually could make it to the ocean, no?
I maintain that the process will remain more expensive than raising cattle for a long time. At current feed prices the energy which goes into cattle is cheap, the muscle exercise is free, the factory is largely self-sustaining, the employee count is low, and the infrastructure is bought and paid for.
Don't forget, much US cattle is raised by grazing on land which is unsuitable for other uses. The input side of the meat equation is quite inexpensive. Cows also come with their own handy muscle-food processing system which removes the need to create sanitary nutrient cocktails. Also don't forget that there is a market for nearly every part of a cow - keeping the price of meat quite low.
Nature spent billions of years perfecting a nearly perfect meat factory, and man has spent thousands of years tweaking the design for his needs. Artificial meat has a lot of catching up to do.
Which percentage is higher? Another, IMHO, disingenuous, argument. The sample size is clearly too small - you could use this example to argue either side you want.
Radiohead and NIN are poor examples, and you know it. They both were established through the system before their little experiments with downloads-for-donations.
The fact you used this broken argument pretty much proves the other's point. (Not that I agree with all the bashing you've received in this thread, I just can't let this one slide by.)
Fact is I can browse the internet and find others who did make some money with downloads-for-donations, but I can't point to but a few who made a good living at it.
Let's play devil's advocate and assume the Navy is needed and capable of "defending ourselves." How many whales are worth one human life? How much whale misery is equal to human misery? What are the ethics of letting humans (of any nation) die in order to save a whale or give said whale a better life?
I ask this simply because you put it in the context of defense, not (financial) cost.
This is the one environmental question I don't see asked enough. Choosing the less effective method for environmental reasons - be it the less effective military communication method or the more costly energy production method - can directly harm (or put in harms way) people in order to protect animals.
There is no regulation against flying supersonic over the continent.
I never suggested there was.
The regulations are for maximum decibel levels generated over populated areas.
Which is what I said.
You can fly high enough that the pressure waves have dissipated by the time they hit the ground
That has proven to be awfully high.
although this has been found to have limited effect
Though you appear to know that.
You can design your fuselage and wing such that the pressure wave is spread out over a longer area, and directed laterally, so it never spikes above the limits.
In theory - but nothing really juicy has come to fruition yet.
There is been a lot of work in that area over the past few years with the intent of bringing back SSTs.
And little has come of it.
I had already qualified my statement, didn't really need it read back to me.
And on that issue - the market has spoken loudly and clearly. "It ain't worth it".
I assume it was unintentional that you missed the rest of my post, but let's be clear - the Atlantic market has spoken, not the market as a whole. The Concorde could not fly the profitable Pacific routes due to limited range, and it could not fly supersonic over mainland USA or Europe due to noise regulations. This greatly limited the market segment it participated in. This need not be the case (well, the noise issue likely does) with a future supersonic passenger aircraft.
When calling the Concorde (or any other aircraft) "too expensive to create, manufacture, and maintain." on needs to take into account the ticket price the market will bear. Since the Concorde was not designed with a range suitable for flying the Pacific routes, it was forced to try to make up it's high costs on the much tighter margins of the Atlantic routes. Had it been able to fly the higher margin Pacific routes it is quite possible it would not have been too expensive to be sustainable - even at the same (or slightly higher) cost basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this final question directed to me or to the wind? For as interesting as I find your above comment I don't see the relevance to the discussion I thought we were having.
As someone who has maroon SIDA badges at multiple large airports in the USA, I think you are overly discounting the culture of challenging (asking strangers to see their badge) and missing a couple of key points.
1 - A forged RFID in and of itself will not get you through any of the more sensitive doors. A PIN is also required.
2 - Even someone like me with an "all areas" badge must get prior (time limited) authorization to pass through higher-security doors. The central computer will reject my perfectly valid badge and PIN and sound an alarm at security if I so much as try a door I do not have approval for.
3 - At most airports I've worked at there is also a security officer posted at doors capable of being used to bypass TSA checkpoints (as in going downstairs then through the baggage tunnel, then back up on the other side), one who inspects each and every badge which passes his way.
4 - All RFID readers are linked to the security office. Let's say I unsuspectingly cloned Joe's card. If Joe badged in to area A but didn't badge out while meanwhile Cloned Joe badged into area F - an alarm would sound.
While I have witnessed much which I consider weaknesses in airport security - the physical badges themselves are not it.
The question is no more phrased improperly than the expectation of privacy on Facebook which flies in the face of the explicit terms of service.
This is a problem of education, nothing more.
and I think it comes back down to the question someone else asked in this thread earlier:
What expectation of privacy does one reasonably have for information they have shared publicly?
I don't feel it's a complex issue - I honestly think it is black and white - you chat about or do X online (outside those arenas explicitly protected) and you need to know X is no longer private by any definition. This is no different than in the physical world.
The only thing complex will be convincing people of this fact.
It does?
Or are you comparing severity of punishment while ignoring the difference between criminal and civil statues?
You're right, it's a large leap.
Your arguments (at least those I witness on Slashdot) normally do not rely on such acrobatics. I'll assume you have a better argument which doesn't build upon so much shifting semantical sand, but were rushed and didn't have a chance to elaborate fully?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Theft is clearly defined in law.
Privacy invasion's definition hinges upon "reasonableness" in many places.
So, no, that doesn't apply.
Which is why, unfortunately, (most) everyone uses ESRI products.
They may not be pretty, but at least you can go to a conference, because misery loves company.
? ;)
A clunky UI and poor documentation appears to be an industry standard. You won't fix either of those problems going to a commercial package.
The advantages, IMHO, of ARM are all tilted for use in the mobile space.
Being 5, 15, whatever watts more efficient than an Atom is a high price to pay for breaking x86 compatibility when you're hooked to a wall outlet, considering your choice in monitor likely has as much impact on your final power bill as your ARM/Atom choice.
No kidding, TANSTAAFL.
Pick (at least) one:
A - All of these [rumors] aren't true.
B - You're going to be forced to watch ads.
C - It's going to be bundled with a monthly wireless bill.
I did not make any comment about the USA. Why did you?
Interesting digression.
Bullshit relativism.
A freedom fighter doesn't target civilians.
Pleasure is nothing so simple as "tickle this nerve and you feel good". It is a complex cascade of reactions. Electrical stimulation will induce tolerance as the rest of the brain will eventually compensate for the area under stimulus.
Your analogy regarding muscle stimulation is overly simplistic as muscle firing is much closer* to simple commands traveling linearly down a telephone wire, whereas pleasure and other complex sensations/emotions/functions are highly involved interactions between many many nerves.
*Note I said closer
Yea, but YouTube doesn't give them enough money. HuLu is apparently more willing to bend over.
You don't watch much NFL, do you?
Most Ohio State University grads emphasize the word "The" to the point of sarcasm during the introduction.
Trust me, none of us take it seriously. Anywhere except (perhaps) the trustees' boardroom "the" is a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Unlike the other options mentioned, the Grand Canyon is significantly above sea level. It is quite a ways up a river which eventually could make it to the ocean, no?
No armor has ever saved as many lives as good, fresh, intel on enemy positions and movements.
I maintain that the process will remain more expensive than raising cattle for a long time.
At current feed prices the energy which goes into cattle is cheap, the muscle exercise is free, the factory is largely self-sustaining, the employee count is low, and the infrastructure is bought and paid for.
Don't forget, much US cattle is raised by grazing on land which is unsuitable for other uses. The input side of the meat equation is quite inexpensive. Cows also come with their own handy muscle-food processing system which removes the need to create sanitary nutrient cocktails. Also don't forget that there is a market for nearly every part of a cow - keeping the price of meat quite low.
Nature spent billions of years perfecting a nearly perfect meat factory, and man has spent thousands of years tweaking the design for his needs. Artificial meat has a lot of catching up to do.
Which percentage is higher?
Another, IMHO, disingenuous, argument.
The sample size is clearly too small - you could use this example to argue either side you want.
Radiohead and NIN are poor examples, and you know it.
They both were established through the system before their little experiments with downloads-for-donations.
The fact you used this broken argument pretty much proves the other's point. (Not that I agree with all the bashing you've received in this thread, I just can't let this one slide by.)
Fact is I can browse the internet and find others who did make some money with downloads-for-donations, but I can't point to but a few who made a good living at it.
Really?
Let's play devil's advocate and assume the Navy is needed and capable of "defending ourselves."
How many whales are worth one human life? How much whale misery is equal to human misery? What are the ethics of letting humans (of any nation) die in order to save a whale or give said whale a better life?
I ask this simply because you put it in the context of defense, not (financial) cost.
This is the one environmental question I don't see asked enough. Choosing the less effective method for environmental reasons - be it the less effective military communication method or the more costly energy production method - can directly harm (or put in harms way) people in order to protect animals.
I never suggested there was.
Which is what I said.
I assume it was unintentional that you missed the rest of my post, but let's be clear - the Atlantic market has spoken, not the market as a whole.
The Concorde could not fly the profitable Pacific routes due to limited range, and it could not fly supersonic over mainland USA or Europe due to noise regulations. This greatly limited the market segment it participated in.
This need not be the case (well, the noise issue likely does) with a future supersonic passenger aircraft.
When calling the Concorde (or any other aircraft) "too expensive to create, manufacture, and maintain." on needs to take into account the ticket price the market will bear.
Since the Concorde was not designed with a range suitable for flying the Pacific routes, it was forced to try to make up it's high costs on the much tighter margins of the Atlantic routes. Had it been able to fly the higher margin Pacific routes it is quite possible it would not have been too expensive to be sustainable - even at the same (or slightly higher) cost basis.