"I keep slowing down until I feel like my speed matches their following distance since they refuse to match their following distance to my speed. That equation works both ways, you know. If that means we do 25 mph on a 55 mph highway, so be it."
That's a wonderful way to piss someone off and cause them to really get a case of road rage. Not to mention the fact that it makes your very personal problem with tailgaters everyone else on the road's problem, too. I can understand 50 and maybe even 45 in a 55, especially if it's not too busy. But 25 on a 55 is (usually) dangerous for everyone.
If it were up to me, we'd quit worrying so much about speeding (it should be obvious it has little to do with safety and much to do with revenue)
There are some statistics I've seen quoted in drivers safety courses that indicate the opposite. I don't know where the stats come from, but assuming they're correct, speeding does have an impact on pedestrian safety. You don't always see the pedestrians until after they've stepped out in front of your vehicle. It would be nice to have higher speed limits on the highways, though.
The victim mentality is quite popular...
I really like where you take this idea. I frequently wonder why certain people have so much "bad luck," and your explanation seems to make a lot of sense. Attributing bad turns to bad luck pushes problems off on the universe. I think people need to look inwardly at the things they do and genuinely think, "maybe it's my fault that some of these things happen." Or, at least, "maybe there's something I can do, or a change I can make in my behavior, that will reduce the frequency of this bad stuff." Bad stuff happens to everyone, but not everyone lets it get them down, and I think avoiding that victim mentality helps prevent that. Positive thinking can get you through a lot of painful stuff.
Hrm. Mod the display to be near IR spectrum only. Then it'd be clearly visible on NVGs... I don't know how well that'd work from a human usage point of view, probably terribly.
"But there is no Linux bandwagon for users. Internet servers in a rack yes; but not desktops. So I do not see that approach as being effective for this type of campaign."
Good point. I'm not too concerned with marketing Linux, actually. I think it sells itself. Folks that I know that use it for long periods of time, for things it was designed for, think it's pretty awesome. I've participated in a number of activities/events that get people (fellow geeks) exposure to Linux, and many come away seeing how freakin' useful it is.
You've never heard of the "bandwagon" approach to advertising? This is an excellent example. It says, "you should do X because people Y do X." Bonus points if you identify with people Y, but it's not a prerequisite.
I think a Linux ad campaign more in line with the "mojave" ads would be good. Microsoft cleverly sidestepped some important points that make Vista stink when they made those ads. But a campaign that got a bunch of regular folks to use Linux and say "that was Linux!?" "I liked how clean and fresh everything felt when I used it."
Stepping up awareness, dropping Linux down to a more "common user"-attainable status will make it more acceptable for common users and corporate fat cats alike.
I've always purchased NVIDIA cards when given the chance, as the hardware and drivers (Linux) seem to be rock solid. My laptop came with an ATI and (these days) it works very well too.
I think NVIDIA has done a good job supporting Linux, but they should still be pushed to release hardware specs and open source their drivers. Just because someone has supported the open source movement over the years doesn't give them license to sit back and say "I've done my part."
I wasn't aware that ATI had released any information more helpful than that which NVIDIA had. ATI's drivers are still closed source. Competition through capitalism is the thing that will drive a company to get better, and from my view better includes "more open source." If ATI has topped NVIDIA in this respect, maybe folks should start supporting them over NVIDIA...
There's nothing wrong with being fickle. I don't think anyone at NVIDIA will cry over it, though they may put on puppy-dog eyes.
My sister ran into this problem. I was going to switch her over to XP, but the warranty issue messed us up. I was surprised too.
I stick with Dell. I haven't had very bad luck with them yet, and I've installed a ton.
I like your first question, and I think it's right on. About the second though, uniformed Military personnel should be fighting battles, whether in cyberspace or on a field. Contractors should compete to provide tools to allow the Military to fight those battles. One of the reasons it's bad to contract out the actual fight is that we open a whole nasty can of worms when a country isn't held directly responsible for the actions committed during war.
The field of cyber-operations is an excellent opportunity for our fighting services to start working together more. Here's a field where many people from all of the services have excellent skills that we can put to work. Furthermore, based on the way we work in the field, our networks are frequently co-dependent. When will we see the political power-struggle common at the "strategic" level of the US Military dropped, in favor of a _truly_ joint cyber-operations group?
Seeing as this is the beginning of a completely new field for Military engagement, this seems like the perfect time to drop as much of the ridiculous, time/money wasting, soldier endangering, political wrangling as possible. A modern generation of military hackers have the motivation to, and are the type that can cut through this BS.
I agree totally. I'm glad I'm not a paranoid security guy or I'd have a lot of trouble living a normal life. I've used the "plug an HD into a different computer" trick frequently, several times just to change a user's password easily. Almost every time that I've done it in front of even computer literate folks, they're shocked. It's surprising how secure most folks think that password makes their computer.
But these are not notebooks designed for the FBI, they are designed for the security conscious business user.
That's the problem. People believe that these things are secure enough for the security conscious business user. Laptops are stolen all the time, whether for corporate espionage purposes or for resell value. The thing most people don't realize is that you don't have to cut someone's finger off to use their fingerprint on common scanners. There are many ways (the gummy bear technique) to fake a person's finger and print for these cheap fingerprint scanners.
How hard is it to type in a ten character password that means something to you? It becomes muscle memory after a while. I've used some of those scanners before and it took longer to load the software, recognize my finger and relay that to Windows than it did for me to enter my password. And that's when the scanner was clean. I think biometrics are a case of giving people what they think they want, when they want things simply because characters like Jason Bourne use them. It's capitalism, so whatever. Just don't fall into this security theater trap.
It'd be great to have computers with stereo vision... With so many computers now coming standard with pinhole webcams, surely they don't cost too much. You could place one webcam at each top corner of the screen and then the computer would be able to produce a 3-D image of its environment.
Now you have to get a 3-D model of the person's face instead of just a photo.
This whole thing could be really bad. Imagine someone that just underwent massive facial trauma. Now, not even their computer likes them.
So the question becomes, how do you get someone to spend more when what they currently get is good enough?
Maybe that's the question the cable company would like to ask, but the one concerned consumers should be asking is, "how do you get someone to expect _more_ for the same price (or less) when they think that what they currently get is good enough?" Reading your piece of the discussion, I think this question could also follow, and it happens to be the original question...
Would I be willing to pay more for cell service that had fewer dead zones, dropped calls and "busy networks" then my current one has? No way. It's not as good as landline, but it's good enough for me. If, ten years from now, it worked the same as it does now, I would expect their competition to have passed them by and I'd switch. In the US we're in a free market system.
If I was tired of my cable internet dying on me occasionally, which competitor would I turn to? DSL, satellite and local wireless all have problems too. I settle for less than 5 nines because I have no choice, if I want service that is anywhere near the cost it is right now.
"Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
This was not meant to be a hard and fast equation, folks. Just like, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" isn't meant to be 100% true all the time. I can force that damn thing to drink if I want it to, I guarantee you. It won't be pretty. I'm not that mean though.
Not everyone in your government is out to get you. This guy is working with the national intelligence director, you better believe he wants to get all the intelligence he can. It's his job to go as far as he can to get the most benefit for his job. I'd agree this is definitely not the best way to get intel, and it probably won't be secured well enough when they get it. At the same time, someone really intelligent is probably telling Giorgio and McConnell the exact opposite. Really, it's the lawmakers we've (Americans, here) voted into office that are the ones to blame if this type of insanity passes. They're the ones that are supposed to make sure that the tenth amendment is upheld... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Remember that when you vote for President, that's one man that represents 330 million people. When you vote for a senator, he/she represents only 3.3 million. When you vote for a house member, they represent 785 thousand. Get down to state and local government and the numbers drop even more significantly. Vote for a smaller government... It's too bad Ron Paul has no chance to get elected.
Sorry to link to a blog, but it links to what I think are a couple of good articles on this and it brings up a good point. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5582
This is not a new story. I'm in the US and I haven't heard anything about this before now. There was a big article on the front page of the Times that covered this two weeks ago. I didn't get a clear picture of what administration the secrets-selling went on during (it looks like it has been 10 years or so), but the Times article indicates all the covering-up has gone on during the last several years. Bad news...
I have been on Slashdot for a while, so I know this type of thing is not uncommon but how is this a +5 interesting? This is possibly just a flame. If not, it's a person ranting about how stupid people are not to use some common sense. There is nothing interesting about this post, if anything it is simply inflammatory.
To reply to your message, I really agree. Education in the US isn't nearly what it should be, and certainly not when it comes to first aid. I'm lucky in having been a Boy Scout and now a member of the military that I've gotten plenty of first aid training, but throughout school I never received any kind of training.
Also, you're correct that much of first aid is common sense. It's important to get trained in these sorts of things though because when the poop hits the fan, you're probably not going to have much common sense. Good training can kick in and override that feeling that makes you want to throw up and pace back and forth. It wouldn't even take much time... Back in my day (I'm only 23) we had fun/exercise field day, we should have had medical field day too...
Slashdot Mirror
"I keep slowing down until I feel like my speed matches their following distance since they refuse to match their following distance to my speed. That equation works both ways, you know. If that means we do 25 mph on a 55 mph highway, so be it."
That's a wonderful way to piss someone off and cause them to really get a case of road rage. Not to mention the fact that it makes your very personal problem with tailgaters everyone else on the road's problem, too. I can understand 50 and maybe even 45 in a 55, especially if it's not too busy. But 25 on a 55 is (usually) dangerous for everyone.
If it were up to me, we'd quit worrying so much about speeding (it should be obvious it has little to do with safety and much to do with revenue)
There are some statistics I've seen quoted in drivers safety courses that indicate the opposite. I don't know where the stats come from, but assuming they're correct, speeding does have an impact on pedestrian safety. You don't always see the pedestrians until after they've stepped out in front of your vehicle. It would be nice to have higher speed limits on the highways, though.
The victim mentality is quite popular...
I really like where you take this idea. I frequently wonder why certain people have so much "bad luck," and your explanation seems to make a lot of sense. Attributing bad turns to bad luck pushes problems off on the universe. I think people need to look inwardly at the things they do and genuinely think, "maybe it's my fault that some of these things happen." Or, at least, "maybe there's something I can do, or a change I can make in my behavior, that will reduce the frequency of this bad stuff." Bad stuff happens to everyone, but not everyone lets it get them down, and I think avoiding that victim mentality helps prevent that. Positive thinking can get you through a lot of painful stuff.
Hrm. Mod the display to be near IR spectrum only. Then it'd be clearly visible on NVGs... I don't know how well that'd work from a human usage point of view, probably terribly.
"But there is no Linux bandwagon for users. Internet servers in a rack yes; but not desktops. So I do not see that approach as being effective for this type of campaign."
Good point. I'm not too concerned with marketing Linux, actually. I think it sells itself. Folks that I know that use it for long periods of time, for things it was designed for, think it's pretty awesome. I've participated in a number of activities/events that get people (fellow geeks) exposure to Linux, and many come away seeing how freakin' useful it is.
LOL!
My Linux is a motorcycle. Yamaha V-Star right now...
You've never heard of the "bandwagon" approach to advertising? This is an excellent example. It says, "you should do X because people Y do X." Bonus points if you identify with people Y, but it's not a prerequisite.
I think a Linux ad campaign more in line with the "mojave" ads would be good. Microsoft cleverly sidestepped some important points that make Vista stink when they made those ads. But a campaign that got a bunch of regular folks to use Linux and say "that was Linux!?" "I liked how clean and fresh everything felt when I used it."
Stepping up awareness, dropping Linux down to a more "common user"-attainable status will make it more acceptable for common users and corporate fat cats alike.
I've always purchased NVIDIA cards when given the chance, as the hardware and drivers (Linux) seem to be rock solid. My laptop came with an ATI and (these days) it works very well too.
I think NVIDIA has done a good job supporting Linux, but they should still be pushed to release hardware specs and open source their drivers. Just because someone has supported the open source movement over the years doesn't give them license to sit back and say "I've done my part."
I wasn't aware that ATI had released any information more helpful than that which NVIDIA had. ATI's drivers are still closed source. Competition through capitalism is the thing that will drive a company to get better, and from my view better includes "more open source." If ATI has topped NVIDIA in this respect, maybe folks should start supporting them over NVIDIA...
There's nothing wrong with being fickle. I don't think anyone at NVIDIA will cry over it, though they may put on puppy-dog eyes.
Heh, I know. I tried it before I posted. I never said it returned what you wanted ;-)
Ever used Google Maps? If you can't find something on the map, just type it in.
Please tell me you know that's from Adam West's Batman. Dunnuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnah --- BATMAN!!!
Stop your whining. Your "10 megs" of ads example is ridiculous. Use lynx if you're just dying for the old days.
Next you'll be shouting for us to get off your Internet, darn kids.
My sister ran into this problem. I was going to switch her over to XP, but the warranty issue messed us up. I was surprised too. I stick with Dell. I haven't had very bad luck with them yet, and I've installed a ton.
They sent him an email, but somehow it got "lost." Then there was a bug in the payroll system, so it kept sending him a check.
They tried to fix the bug but he put it back... Pesky sys admins.
A CS department? Try "The Kiss."
I'll leave the exercise of finding a poster women will enjoy up to the reader.
You won't think it's idiotic when the Cylons built in Chinese sweatshops come knocking on your door.
"Bring out your living, bring out your living."
I like your first question, and I think it's right on. About the second though, uniformed Military personnel should be fighting battles, whether in cyberspace or on a field. Contractors should compete to provide tools to allow the Military to fight those battles. One of the reasons it's bad to contract out the actual fight is that we open a whole nasty can of worms when a country isn't held directly responsible for the actions committed during war.
I would like to see the Col's reaction, though.
The field of cyber-operations is an excellent opportunity for our fighting services to start working together more. Here's a field where many people from all of the services have excellent skills that we can put to work. Furthermore, based on the way we work in the field, our networks are frequently co-dependent. When will we see the political power-struggle common at the "strategic" level of the US Military dropped, in favor of a _truly_ joint cyber-operations group?
Seeing as this is the beginning of a completely new field for Military engagement, this seems like the perfect time to drop as much of the ridiculous, time/money wasting, soldier endangering, political wrangling as possible. A modern generation of military hackers have the motivation to, and are the type that can cut through this BS.
I agree totally. I'm glad I'm not a paranoid security guy or I'd have a lot of trouble living a normal life. I've used the "plug an HD into a different computer" trick frequently, several times just to change a user's password easily. Almost every time that I've done it in front of even computer literate folks, they're shocked. It's surprising how secure most folks think that password makes their computer.
That's the problem. People believe that these things are secure enough for the security conscious business user. Laptops are stolen all the time, whether for corporate espionage purposes or for resell value. The thing most people don't realize is that you don't have to cut someone's finger off to use their fingerprint on common scanners. There are many ways (the gummy bear technique) to fake a person's finger and print for these cheap fingerprint scanners.
How hard is it to type in a ten character password that means something to you? It becomes muscle memory after a while. I've used some of those scanners before and it took longer to load the software, recognize my finger and relay that to Windows than it did for me to enter my password. And that's when the scanner was clean. I think biometrics are a case of giving people what they think they want, when they want things simply because characters like Jason Bourne use them. It's capitalism, so whatever. Just don't fall into this security theater trap.
It'd be great to have computers with stereo vision... With so many computers now coming standard with pinhole webcams, surely they don't cost too much. You could place one webcam at each top corner of the screen and then the computer would be able to produce a 3-D image of its environment.
Now you have to get a 3-D model of the person's face instead of just a photo.
This whole thing could be really bad. Imagine someone that just underwent massive facial trauma. Now, not even their computer likes them.
Maybe that's the question the cable company would like to ask, but the one concerned consumers should be asking is, "how do you get someone to expect _more_ for the same price (or less) when they think that what they currently get is good enough?" Reading your piece of the discussion, I think this question could also follow, and it happens to be the original question...
Would I be willing to pay more for cell service that had fewer dead zones, dropped calls and "busy networks" then my current one has? No way. It's not as good as landline, but it's good enough for me. If, ten years from now, it worked the same as it does now, I would expect their competition to have passed them by and I'd switch. In the US we're in a free market system.
If I was tired of my cable internet dying on me occasionally, which competitor would I turn to? DSL, satellite and local wireless all have problems too. I settle for less than 5 nines because I have no choice, if I want service that is anywhere near the cost it is right now.
Oh poopy, I guess I waited too long between refreshes and missed the other post...
Not that it really matters, but your reference to adrenaline and epinephrine made me look it up... The Wikipedia page says you're close, but no cigar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine#Terminology
"Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
This was not meant to be a hard and fast equation, folks. Just like, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" isn't meant to be 100% true all the time. I can force that damn thing to drink if I want it to, I guarantee you. It won't be pretty. I'm not that mean though.
Not everyone in your government is out to get you. This guy is working with the national intelligence director, you better believe he wants to get all the intelligence he can. It's his job to go as far as he can to get the most benefit for his job. I'd agree this is definitely not the best way to get intel, and it probably won't be secured well enough when they get it. At the same time, someone really intelligent is probably telling Giorgio and McConnell the exact opposite. Really, it's the lawmakers we've (Americans, here) voted into office that are the ones to blame if this type of insanity passes. They're the ones that are supposed to make sure that the tenth amendment is upheld... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Remember that when you vote for President, that's one man that represents 330 million people. When you vote for a senator, he/she represents only 3.3 million. When you vote for a house member, they represent 785 thousand. Get down to state and local government and the numbers drop even more significantly. Vote for a smaller government... It's too bad Ron Paul has no chance to get elected.
Sorry to link to a blog, but it links to what I think are a couple of good articles on this and it brings up a good point. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5582
This is not a new story. I'm in the US and I haven't heard anything about this before now. There was a big article on the front page of the Times that covered this two weeks ago. I didn't get a clear picture of what administration the secrets-selling went on during (it looks like it has been 10 years or so), but the Times article indicates all the covering-up has gone on during the last several years. Bad news...
I have been on Slashdot for a while, so I know this type of thing is not uncommon but how is this a +5 interesting? This is possibly just a flame. If not, it's a person ranting about how stupid people are not to use some common sense. There is nothing interesting about this post, if anything it is simply inflammatory. To reply to your message, I really agree. Education in the US isn't nearly what it should be, and certainly not when it comes to first aid. I'm lucky in having been a Boy Scout and now a member of the military that I've gotten plenty of first aid training, but throughout school I never received any kind of training. Also, you're correct that much of first aid is common sense. It's important to get trained in these sorts of things though because when the poop hits the fan, you're probably not going to have much common sense. Good training can kick in and override that feeling that makes you want to throw up and pace back and forth. It wouldn't even take much time... Back in my day (I'm only 23) we had fun/exercise field day, we should have had medical field day too...