You're right. Otherwise, your airbags could go off by simply tapping your garage door or someone throwing a baseball at the front bumper. This "recorder" is just that - not a tracking device, but an instrument that allows the car to function properly.
This device isn't there to spy. Police just find that it's useful to analyze as evidence to reconstruct a crime scene.
My own 2 cents: figures he was a Quebecer. People drive like freakin' maniacs there. You Americans love your guns & money, and the egos are a bit bigger, but you ain't got NOTHIN' on our Quebecers. Glad they got this guy, but there's something else rotten in the state of driving courtesy (or lack thereof) in Quebec. I'd like to figure out what THAT is.
It pre-supposes that open-source is just plain better than closed-source, or that a car with a less-accessible engine is worse than a car WITH an accessible engine.
It sells an attribute that's not indicative of anything - instead, it just plies a false sense of security.
It's the same kind of false sense of security you get with an SUV. "If I get in an accident, I'll probably be OK because SUVs are BIG vehicles" is the same kind of pre-supposition: that you'll get in an accident. Never mind that a sports-car, while providing less protection, is overall more maneuverable and can avoid accidents thanks to a purpose-built chassis, lighter weight to provide shorter braking distances, more responsive steering, a lower center-of-gravity, and a smaller size making it more nimble and helping you avoid front-angle collisions.
In the end, Open-source is only good if you know what to do with the source. And it's a choice of preference - just like buying a car.
Anything you do should be worth something to you - even if the reward is satisfaction.
There's nothing wrong with programming for money, but there's equally nothing wrong with programming for the satisfaction of it. Just make sure that you don't sacrifice one for the other - it's a balance that you would be wise to keep in check.
Whoever said that time is money was only partially correct. Time is the most valuable asset - converting it to satisfaction or pride can easily be as valuable as money.
I'd like to bring up a story about the moment that I knew I hated Linux.
It was several years ago, and I was attempting to install Red Hat 5.2 on my machine. After getting past the initial install, it was time to get my modem working.
I had a regular ISA COM port modem - none of that WinModem crap for me. However, I found that there were NO good ways to get it working. Every HOWTO I read in the HOWTO directory assumed that I was attempting to access the Internet through my local network. I must have read about 10 HOWTO's before I stumbled on one that seemed to lead in the correct direction - something about getting PPP working. I opened it, hoping for relief, only to be foiled: the HOWTO regaled me with methods for configuring a PPP connection, but in order to actually get the modem working, I would have to:
*drumroll*
Connect to the internet and download a certain HOWTO.
What piece of MS software reports statistics behind your back and non-optionally?
Seriously.
WinXP: When a program crashes, I get the little crash dialog asking if I want to send a crash report to them or not, with 2 buttons labelled "Send" and "Do Not Send". Depending on the app or the type of crash, I pick the appropriate response.
Office 2003 has a little icon in the Systray that asks me if I'd like to participate in helping them make it better blah blah. This went away promptly after I answered "No".
Media Player 9 has a checkbox on the front page of its Options dialog asking if I would like to send anonymous usage statistics. It's unchecked, for "No". I left it that way.
Real's RealPlayer (whenever I feel some strange demonic urge to install it) always defaults all those usage statistics options to "Yes". You get to choose those options during the installation, but it's obvious to anyone with any design knowledge that they're making it as difficult as possible to turn them off and deselect them (i.e. hiding the options at the bottom of a scrollable list in a dialog that's too small to begin with). Thankfully, their program crashes too much for me to even send them anything in the first place.
Imagine if seat belts were an aftermarket feature only, and then Ford (as per your example, the only car company in existence) goes ahead and puts them in standard.
Gee, poor aftermarket companies! Who's Ford to make us buy cars safe from the start?
Virii cost companies billions of dollars in damage. They cause Joe Average to throw out his computer in frustration. Virus scanners and updates (oh, fancy that - Windows Update) save money for companies like seat belts save lives. Get off your high horse - this is something that really should become a standard operating system feature.
Of note: Germany's destruction WAS complete and utter. They had no chance to survive through the war, plus the fact that their leader died (suicide) and the dwindling resources of the Reich as a whole, both financial AND material (i.e. metal to make weapons with, gas, etc) - they couldn't wage war as they had been doing, and therefore could not fulfill their goal of world domination. As for conquest: it WAS conquered. And taken over, and regulated, for MANY years by the Allies.
Japan was forced to concede through mass destruction and fear of further retribution on the same scale. Japan was in it for the long haul - they would go down with the sinking ship and make life miserable for their enemies. However, when it became clear that they wouldn't be given a chance to (think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 2 loud messages), they gave up.
Of final note: the 2 World Wars were wars between countries. That made targeting the enemy easy: Germans/Japanese. Either you killed Nazi's/Japanese, or you conquered/contained German/Japanese civilian populations (taking a villiage, etc). Also, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in those cases. In the case of Iraq, or the War Against Terrorism, the US is viewed as the aggressors, and the distinction of "conquer a country" isn't clear - they're trying to pussyfoot around the civilians who aren't part of the conflict directly (who may later turn against US forces), and the resources in the region remain. Iraq had no goal but to be left alone, although they didn't like to get along politically. The people of Iraq aren't being conquered, and they're not being targeted as the enemy, so you're usually missing a large contingent of people that could turn on you. As for the War On Terrorism, that works in an entirely different way - the enemy isn't located in one area of the world, and they have no allegience. You have to pick them off one person at a time - a particularly daunting task, since now you don't even HAVE the option of going in and decimating a population or conquering a country. You can kill one, but the terrorist population grows like cancer in the blood.
The recent Iraq situation was handled really half-assed and badly - they should have waited for a really strong reason to go in and really conquer Iraq. Now all the US & coalition forces have done is made a mess from an already murky situation. The reasons for and methods of violence in Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" hardly run parallel those of the 2 World Wars.
These are actually 2 very good arguments. The parent to this poster (the AC) posts that violence DOES work, and he's right - but only to an extent. His point about the Romans & Carthaginians is very apt, and proves the point exactly - that violence solved the dispute, but that's because it was COMPLETE AND UTTER destruction of not just a subset of people, but an entire culture. They didn't just take out the military - they took out civilians, too. With a passion, they took out men, women, children, the elderly - no mercy for anyone. That's how that was solved.
That's the problem: the US & other like-minded states lack the lack of heart & conscience to do what the Romans did. They're not into genocide, they're not into complete and utter violent domination of cultures. That's what they stand for - everyone getting along, and removing those who don't want to get along.
As the parent rightly mentions, you can't just kill the one person - you have to kill them all. I'll go out on a limb here and say that we will never see the entire Middle East wiped out of existence by any military force.
The approach of working smarter and not harder fits better with the goals set out in search of a free world. Bullets work, but since we don't want to do that anymore and because we really probably CAN'T, this might be a better approach.
All that manpower, yet the most prominent face on this issue so far is an exploit.
Is this how the OSS community at large operates? Instead of releasing patches, they release exploits?
The issue as I see it now is: the OSS advocates with the big mouths tend to be the ones saying that ALL code should be open for public inspection, and that closed-source is bad for everyone. This new event however, seems to prove to the public at large that these "rogue" coders don't have the Public Good at heart at all.
OSS coders should stick to OSS - let the closed-source companies and coders be. Mixing OSS coders with closed-source is kinda like mixing Communism with Money.
Lindows is quite obviously an attempt to use the popularity of the "Windows" brand name to promote their operating system. There's really no other reason. XWindows is a GUI shell, not an entire OS - the idea that that's the same as Lindows doesn't fly, since Lindows is being billed as a brand-name operating system.
If this was a farce, a parody, that'd be fine. But it's also obviously not that.
The fact that Microsoft is supposedly so bad does nothing to make this more acceptable or right. It's wrong. MS already got what it deserved - give Lindows what it deserves.
I don't know a single guy out there that doesn't dig lingerie, or chicks wearing scanty clothes. If you have any clues as to what might tickle his fancy, get it and SURPRISE him with it. I would go into more of a description, but that would be giving too much away - it'd be *MY* fantasy, not his.
Really, geek toys are for Christmas. This is VALENTINE'S day coming up, the day of non-material gift-giving.
(Though I suspect he'd dig either the blowjob and/or threesome;))
I don't have a cellphone, and I'm sorry for all the poor (and sometimes annoying) saps that carry one for the hell of it. It's really not worth the money.
Not that it's not useful for business - but really, who uses a cell for just business? Go to the damn office, really guys.
... You would have no steering wheel, but instead about 17 different levers... ... Your car would cost close to nothing, but you'd have to assemble it yourself... ... It would come with several different chassis, so you could decided which one you wanted most... ... Every time you change the oil, you have to rebuild the engine... ... Everyone will swear they drive one... ... Never crashes, but drives at a constant 12mph... ... It would be easy to lock yourself out... ... You wouldn't be able to lend it to your friends unless they agreed to lend it to THEIR friends... ... You wouldn't be able to make aftermarket parts for it unless you give parts makers the schematics for the ENTIRE car...
You'll have to excuse my earlier post - it was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I was merely echoing typical responses that would be heard from such a snotty OSSer.
As it is, I hate Linux, and the zealotry that lingers in that community (as you might notice from my other posts). I hate the design of the product itself, I hate the Microsoft bashing, and I hate the hype around it, and I hate the constant socialist overtones that fan the flames of such hatred.
At least NOW you can judge me for what I really am.
"It is unclear why an exploit was made public before Apple resolved the problem. Apple's fix is apparently scheduled for a December release."
Because I hate [company] for making software that allows this to happen, they need to be taught a lesson.
Because they're not releasing it quickly enough - Open Source software is superior, because it would be released ASAP, usually same day, and [company] doesn't.
Imagine... some big cable that's thousands of miles long connecting continents...
That's just a weird idea. You gotta wonder who makes those things and how, exactly, they're maintained. Let alone set up in the first place. Do they just sit along the ocean floor? Are they suspended in mid-water? I have absolutely no idea. Just mind-boggling to me, the logistics of it.
Most of the time, the problems I need to solve are specific enough that the cookie-cutter approach won't work - the client always wants some special functionality that the framework's architecture can't provide.
Well, good for you. Not trying to troll or anything, but really: good for you.
Honestly, you think even a syntax isn't some kind of framework?
A framework is every bit as useful as your standard libraries are, and usually they do the job quite nicely for the majority of people who have to care. Thankfully, you don't have to care anymore - but that's not some kind of grand liberation.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Otherwise, your airbags could go off by simply tapping your garage door or someone throwing a baseball at the front bumper. This "recorder" is just that - not a tracking device, but an instrument that allows the car to function properly.
This device isn't there to spy. Police just find that it's useful to analyze as evidence to reconstruct a crime scene.
My own 2 cents: figures he was a Quebecer. People drive like freakin' maniacs there. You Americans love your guns & money, and the egos are a bit bigger, but you ain't got NOTHIN' on our Quebecers. Glad they got this guy, but there's something else rotten in the state of driving courtesy (or lack thereof) in Quebec. I'd like to figure out what THAT is.
A "Hurts Donut" ;)
... it's called a sting.
Can I get a Hurts Donut anyone?
It pre-supposes that open-source is just plain better than closed-source, or that a car with a less-accessible engine is worse than a car WITH an accessible engine.
It sells an attribute that's not indicative of anything - instead, it just plies a false sense of security.
It's the same kind of false sense of security you get with an SUV. "If I get in an accident, I'll probably be OK because SUVs are BIG vehicles" is the same kind of pre-supposition: that you'll get in an accident. Never mind that a sports-car, while providing less protection, is overall more maneuverable and can avoid accidents thanks to a purpose-built chassis, lighter weight to provide shorter braking distances, more responsive steering, a lower center-of-gravity, and a smaller size making it more nimble and helping you avoid front-angle collisions.
In the end, Open-source is only good if you know what to do with the source. And it's a choice of preference - just like buying a car.
Anything you do should be worth something to you - even if the reward is satisfaction.
There's nothing wrong with programming for money, but there's equally nothing wrong with programming for the satisfaction of it. Just make sure that you don't sacrifice one for the other - it's a balance that you would be wise to keep in check.
Whoever said that time is money was only partially correct. Time is the most valuable asset - converting it to satisfaction or pride can easily be as valuable as money.
Money just tends to help keep you alive longer.
I'd like to bring up a story about the moment that I knew I hated Linux.
It was several years ago, and I was attempting to install Red Hat 5.2 on my machine. After getting past the initial install, it was time to get my modem working.
I had a regular ISA COM port modem - none of that WinModem crap for me. However, I found that there were NO good ways to get it working. Every HOWTO I read in the HOWTO directory assumed that I was attempting to access the Internet through my local network. I must have read about 10 HOWTO's before I stumbled on one that seemed to lead in the correct direction - something about getting PPP working. I opened it, hoping for relief, only to be foiled: the HOWTO regaled me with methods for configuring a PPP connection, but in order to actually get the modem working, I would have to:
*drumroll*
Connect to the internet and download a certain HOWTO.
Windows NT4 went on that afternoon.
What piece of MS software reports statistics behind your back and non-optionally?
Seriously.
WinXP: When a program crashes, I get the little crash dialog asking if I want to send a crash report to them or not, with 2 buttons labelled "Send" and "Do Not Send". Depending on the app or the type of crash, I pick the appropriate response.
Office 2003 has a little icon in the Systray that asks me if I'd like to participate in helping them make it better blah blah. This went away promptly after I answered "No".
Media Player 9 has a checkbox on the front page of its Options dialog asking if I would like to send anonymous usage statistics. It's unchecked, for "No". I left it that way.
Real's RealPlayer (whenever I feel some strange demonic urge to install it) always defaults all those usage statistics options to "Yes". You get to choose those options during the installation, but it's obvious to anyone with any design knowledge that they're making it as difficult as possible to turn them off and deselect them (i.e. hiding the options at the bottom of a scrollable list in a dialog that's too small to begin with). Thankfully, their program crashes too much for me to even send them anything in the first place.
Bad example. Let me clean that up for you a bit.
Imagine if seat belts were an aftermarket feature only, and then Ford (as per your example, the only car company in existence) goes ahead and puts them in standard.
Gee, poor aftermarket companies! Who's Ford to make us buy cars safe from the start?
Virii cost companies billions of dollars in damage. They cause Joe Average to throw out his computer in frustration. Virus scanners and updates (oh, fancy that - Windows Update) save money for companies like seat belts save lives. Get off your high horse - this is something that really should become a standard operating system feature.
Of note: Germany's destruction WAS complete and utter. They had no chance to survive through the war, plus the fact that their leader died (suicide) and the dwindling resources of the Reich as a whole, both financial AND material (i.e. metal to make weapons with, gas, etc) - they couldn't wage war as they had been doing, and therefore could not fulfill their goal of world domination. As for conquest: it WAS conquered. And taken over, and regulated, for MANY years by the Allies.
Japan was forced to concede through mass destruction and fear of further retribution on the same scale. Japan was in it for the long haul - they would go down with the sinking ship and make life miserable for their enemies. However, when it became clear that they wouldn't be given a chance to (think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 2 loud messages), they gave up.
Of final note: the 2 World Wars were wars between countries. That made targeting the enemy easy: Germans/Japanese. Either you killed Nazi's/Japanese, or you conquered/contained German/Japanese civilian populations (taking a villiage, etc). Also, Germany and Japan were the aggressors in those cases. In the case of Iraq, or the War Against Terrorism, the US is viewed as the aggressors, and the distinction of "conquer a country" isn't clear - they're trying to pussyfoot around the civilians who aren't part of the conflict directly (who may later turn against US forces), and the resources in the region remain. Iraq had no goal but to be left alone, although they didn't like to get along politically. The people of Iraq aren't being conquered, and they're not being targeted as the enemy, so you're usually missing a large contingent of people that could turn on you. As for the War On Terrorism, that works in an entirely different way - the enemy isn't located in one area of the world, and they have no allegience. You have to pick them off one person at a time - a particularly daunting task, since now you don't even HAVE the option of going in and decimating a population or conquering a country. You can kill one, but the terrorist population grows like cancer in the blood.
The recent Iraq situation was handled really half-assed and badly - they should have waited for a really strong reason to go in and really conquer Iraq. Now all the US & coalition forces have done is made a mess from an already murky situation. The reasons for and methods of violence in Iraq and the "War on Terrorism" hardly run parallel those of the 2 World Wars.
This is probably the most insightful post I've seen this week.
High praise for a Monday....These are actually 2 very good arguments. The parent to this poster (the AC) posts that violence DOES work, and he's right - but only to an extent. His point about the Romans & Carthaginians is very apt, and proves the point exactly - that violence solved the dispute, but that's because it was COMPLETE AND UTTER destruction of not just a subset of people, but an entire culture. They didn't just take out the military - they took out civilians, too. With a passion, they took out men, women, children, the elderly - no mercy for anyone. That's how that was solved.
That's the problem: the US & other like-minded states lack the lack of heart & conscience to do what the Romans did. They're not into genocide, they're not into complete and utter violent domination of cultures. That's what they stand for - everyone getting along, and removing those who don't want to get along.
As the parent rightly mentions, you can't just kill the one person - you have to kill them all. I'll go out on a limb here and say that we will never see the entire Middle East wiped out of existence by any military force.
The approach of working smarter and not harder fits better with the goals set out in search of a free world. Bullets work, but since we don't want to do that anymore and because we really probably CAN'T, this might be a better approach.
All that manpower, yet the most prominent face on this issue so far is an exploit.
Is this how the OSS community at large operates? Instead of releasing patches, they release exploits?
The issue as I see it now is: the OSS advocates with the big mouths tend to be the ones saying that ALL code should be open for public inspection, and that closed-source is bad for everyone. This new event however, seems to prove to the public at large that these "rogue" coders don't have the Public Good at heart at all.
OSS coders should stick to OSS - let the closed-source companies and coders be. Mixing OSS coders with closed-source is kinda like mixing Communism with Money.
Lindows is quite obviously an attempt to use the popularity of the "Windows" brand name to promote their operating system. There's really no other reason. XWindows is a GUI shell, not an entire OS - the idea that that's the same as Lindows doesn't fly, since Lindows is being billed as a brand-name operating system.
If this was a farce, a parody, that'd be fine. But it's also obviously not that.
The fact that Microsoft is supposedly so bad does nothing to make this more acceptable or right. It's wrong. MS already got what it deserved - give Lindows what it deserves.
A really hard rollicking.
I don't know a single guy out there that doesn't dig lingerie, or chicks wearing scanty clothes. If you have any clues as to what might tickle his fancy, get it and SURPRISE him with it. I would go into more of a description, but that would be giving too much away - it'd be *MY* fantasy, not his.
;))
Really, geek toys are for Christmas. This is VALENTINE'S day coming up, the day of non-material gift-giving.
(Though I suspect he'd dig either the blowjob and/or threesome
Interesting. In racing, DNF is short for "Did Not Finish". Go figure.
NOTHING.
I don't have a cellphone, and I'm sorry for all the poor (and sometimes annoying) saps that carry one for the hell of it. It's really not worth the money.
Not that it's not useful for business - but really, who uses a cell for just business? Go to the damn office, really guys.
Your wienerishness is what prompted you to stay an anonymous coward, right?
I'm glad some people found it funny, because that's what I was doing. Take a fucking joke, wiener.
... You would have no steering wheel, but instead about 17 different levers...
... Your car would cost close to nothing, but you'd have to assemble it yourself...
... It would come with several different chassis, so you could decided which one you wanted most...
... Every time you change the oil, you have to rebuild the engine...
... Everyone will swear they drive one...
... Never crashes, but drives at a constant 12mph...
... It would be easy to lock yourself out...
... You wouldn't be able to lend it to your friends unless they agreed to lend it to THEIR friends...
... You wouldn't be able to make aftermarket parts for it unless you give parts makers the schematics for the ENTIRE car...
You'll have to excuse my earlier post - it was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I was merely echoing typical responses that would be heard from such a snotty OSSer.
As it is, I hate Linux, and the zealotry that lingers in that community (as you might notice from my other posts). I hate the design of the product itself, I hate the Microsoft bashing, and I hate the hype around it, and I hate the constant socialist overtones that fan the flames of such hatred.
At least NOW you can judge me for what I really am.
"It is unclear why an exploit was made public before Apple resolved the problem. Apple's fix is apparently scheduled for a December release."
Overrated my ass, Moderators. Look at the good comments I've generated. Look at the amount of conversation.
Imagine... some big cable that's thousands of miles long connecting continents...
That's just a weird idea. You gotta wonder who makes those things and how, exactly, they're maintained. Let alone set up in the first place. Do they just sit along the ocean floor? Are they suspended in mid-water? I have absolutely no idea. Just mind-boggling to me, the logistics of it.
Most of the time, the problems I need to solve are specific enough that the cookie-cutter approach won't work - the client always wants some special functionality that the framework's architecture can't provide.
Well, good for you. Not trying to troll or anything, but really: good for you.
Honestly, you think even a syntax isn't some kind of framework?
A framework is every bit as useful as your standard libraries are, and usually they do the job quite nicely for the majority of people who have to care. Thankfully, you don't have to care anymore - but that's not some kind of grand liberation.
But really, good for you.
... for Microsoft Outlook's "Reminder" function.
"We apologize for the inconvenience"