TRIM doesn't solve the problem, apparently. Why doesn't it just defrag and compact all the files into continous pages on block boundaries? Seems simple enough...
I don't get this. Why don't they make the drive so that it periodically moves stuff around, or even a software app that does this, to restore peak performance? In the non-SSD world, this is called defragging...is it such a far-fetched concept that no one's thought of it for SSD? (I assume no...so what's the story?)
FCC already has the power to regulate telephone companies. So mandating that the phone company provide DSL is not an addition grant of power - it's existing power that the FCC has had since the 1920s.
Hm...yes, what you say is correct, no doubt. What I'm getting at, though, is that regulating the technology and regulating information and access to information are two different things. In terms of regulating traditional telephony, these are private communications. The FCC's main charter here is to promote competition, not regulate content. The FCC's regulation of the public airwaves (radio and TV broadcast, not telephone companies), on the other hand, is more in line with this discussion about the web.
It is here we find ourselves in the area of broadcast regulation where my problem with the FCC's power begins. If the FCC had stuck to regulating technology and not content, then Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine would never have been created. They did expand into the content regulation business at some point, however, and my comment is based on the premise that a similar expansion of power into the content of the web is reverse progress. (I think we need to pull them back from regulating broadcast content as well.)
If we acknowledge this expansion of power into regulation of web content—whether they are for or against it—their authority in this area is established. Do we want that? Do we mean to purchase net neutrality today, but in exchange we give over ultimate, long-term authority to the FCC of tomorrow? Or is it important enough to us to make freedom of information a cornerstone that resides independent of the FCC, like, for example, our library system?
Agree, it seems to me that it would take quite a bit of evidence to think that this is genetically based. I would expect that non-human bacteria in the Japanese (or any) gut would be introduced at some point after all genetic determinations are settled.
My reasoning on this proceeds along a tortured and lengthy path, but let me see if we can wade through it anyhow: the bacteria is non-human.
For anyone that may have missed it, non-human implies "not of human genetic origin".:-)
The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.
Spoken like a man who's never had a paper cut. Especially by heavy photo paper...I'd wager that's more painful than many bullet wounds. This is why I ~always~ carry a picture of a gun. If I get attacked, I whip it out and my attacker is both terrified of the photograph itself and confused by the fact that there's a gun on it (which is not scary, as previously pointed out, so why that instead of doubling down on something like a fang-laden bunny). The storm of activity in my attacker's brain will undoubtedly cause him to suddenly stab me several times. Wait...where was I going with this...?
I'm not 100% sure it's worth granting this kind of power to the FCC (which it ought not have, if we believe the ruling--does anyone have an informed opinion on this?) to preserve net neutrality.
Perhaps the smart thing to do is not depend upon the FCC to preserve net neutrality, particularly if it's not within their purview to do so. If we believe in the freedom of information and communication, maybe looking to the FCC as the sole defender of those ideals isn't the right way to go. Maybe we need something stronger than one government agency.
Of course, in this case we had two cops who used the photos for shits and giggles on haloween, not some legitimate use.
Of course this was not a "legitimate" use. It's no more legitimate than if I were a stand-up comedian and used the images for shock value in my act. Or if I were an artist and placed them in a collage of gory photos and published it. Man, now that you mention it, I can think of a lot of uses for these images that are completely disgusting (to me). In this case, it doesn't matter that the public paid for it, or that the event happened in public where there was no expectation of privacy...in some cases, people just just be able to suddenly and arbitrarily expect privacy, whenever it makes sense (to me), you know? It doesn't even need to be a decapitation, either...anything that shows blood at all is not "legitimate." Or you know what, we don't even need to go as far as blood for something to be disgusting, really. It could just be vomit or snot or whatever...a bruise, even, if it's all purple and yellow. Why would people want to look at this kind of stuff that's just sick (to me)?
You're right. There are certain kinds of communication that are wrong (to me) and certain kinds that are right (to me), and if people are saying things that aren't right (to me), then they should just be prohibited. Having solved everything else on their plate, and in recognition of the great job they've always done in the past in similar matters, I nominate the government to handle this.
And this just became one of the "specific circumstances" in which the information is no longer public domain. Don't like it?
No, I don't like it. And I suspect if it were reviewed by a higher court it would (and should) get overturned.
Also, you're wrong about "free speech" being unrestricted.
No, I'm not. In general, it is unrestricted, meaning that it is only to be limited in certain specific ways.
The framers did not view law so much as a list of prohibited actions as a clear boundary defining an open ground of freedom. In other words, the law exists not to prevent citizens from doing certain things, but rather to clearly delineate what is illegal so that citizens may know what they may do within that open ground without fear of government prosecution.
That's what I mean by "unrestricted"—unless specifically reserved for government in some way, free speech is indeed so.
"Hate speech" will get you prosecuted.
Though you are sadly right in many cases, I do not agree with this (and I do not think you are as right as you perhaps think you are). I believe previous interpretations of the Constitution support my view as well, that generally speaking (hehe) speech is closer to thought than to action. So when dealing with matters of free speech, I need some overriding specific reason to equate the term speech with action, rather than thought.
Allow me to try this experiment on your quote above to illustrate. With this substitution, you would have written: "Hate thought" will get you prosecuted. Are you comfortable with that now? (I'm not.) Can you clearly delineate for me why this is a less valid substitution than "hate action"? (I can't.)
So will harassment. So will violation of national security laws.
These are actions, not thoughts.
It's the most free of any country on the planet; Canada doesn't even allow books to be published when someone gets offended by the content.
The US is arguably the most free country. How best to keep it so? Also, is merely being the "most free" good enough, or should we strive to be as free as possible without reasonable boundaries? What are those boundaries?
I hope the example of Canada you provide is not intended to make me feel that we are somehow lucky in the US by comparison. That we allow publication of offensive books is as it should be, it's not some special privilege; all humans deserve to live in this kind of society. For me, freedom is not bound by patriotism; I would just as soon argue for more Canadian (and North Korean, and Iranian, etc) freedom as I would for American.
Ah, well you need to be more specific in your tone...I interpreted the statements you made in your last post as support for the idea that these officers should be criminally prosecuted (and perhaps crucified). I do not think I was alone in that interpretation of what you wrote.
Not following this argument...who's "inalienable rights" were violated here? The dead girl's?
If you're talking about her family, then I think you'd have a better case against the 4chan lurkers that forged fake emails with the pictures and harassed them than officers who mailed them around. Again, let's be clear--we're talking about a criminally prosecutable offense here, not departmental action, or civil suits. So, if I'm reading you right, you think the officers are less culpable in terms of harassment (or whatever other criminal law you think they violated) than the heartless pranksters that actually did directly harass the family members?
If I got your point of view correctly, that's crazy. I could see the argument made against those that directly harmed the family members. What the officers basically did was make a bad joke in horrendously poor taste, but I don't think they set out to hurt the family, and any pain that was done to that family was directly caused by someone else. To blame the officers for that is a bit (a bit) like blaming the knife manufacturer when someone gets stabbed with a steak knife.
There has to be a legal process to balance these rights against each other when enforcing one person's right would infringe on another person's right.
There is...it's called a civil suit. If the family felt injured, they're free to sue. In the meantime, the government has to sit this one out in my view. It's public information, pure and simple. You may say it shouldn't be allowed because it's a sick joke. You may also feel the same way about Piss Christ, or some other artist's piece exhibiting macabre humor collecting all sorts of gory photos taken throughout history and placing them in some context.
One underlying point of free speech is this: no one has the right to not be offended. If you don't like something, speak up and say so; the remedy against those who misuse free speech is more free speech, not inviting jack-booted thugs to come in and do thought control.
So what is the appropriate punishment for these officers? Upon discovery of their misdeed, what would happen to them? They could get fired or suspended. They could be sued by the deceased girl's family (even if they win, that's no fun). They could be vilified and despised by society. That's enough, don't you think? Do we really need to get the pitchforks and make an example of them? Yes, it was insensitive. Yes, they're embarrassed and ashamed. Should they be allowed to continue their lives now, or shall we make it so they are placed in an unrecoverable position because they made a stupid mistake?
What kind of person answers yes to that last question? Now ask yourself: is that the kind of person you want to be?
It does not however recognize any right to anything where that right impinges on other individuals rights.
I was only addressing free speech wrt government, not anything to do with impinging on other individuals' rights. What one can be criminally prosecuted for and what one can be sued for are two completely different things, and I'm discussing more the former. Well, not exactly prosecution, but government control of public domain information that effectively creates a criminal situation if you violate the order where there ought not be one.
No, not anything you like. You must have the right to publish whatever it is you're trying to publish. In this case, the information we're talking about is public domain, created with taxpayer dollars. If you're talking about simply publishing public domain information, there's no issue of libel unless you use the images to say something defamatory that is untrue.
National security is already covered by laws granting the government rights to control that material.
The general rule in the US is, if public money pays for it, the public owns it. Crime scene photos absolutely should be accessible for most purposes. I think that judges ought to be able to bar particular uses, but in general public information should be publicly available.
Say, for example, I'm a graduate student in forensics writing a paper on crime scene photography techniques. The results of my paper could make sure more guilty people are convicted and, more importantly, innocent people are not. I can't have access to crime scene photos? I have to beg a judge for access to information that was taxpayer-funded?
I want to respect the rights of families, but in this case it's not really their rights being infringed...it's the deceased. And dead people don't have a whole lot of rights. (Rightly so, I think.)
Uh, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote above carefully. Unless the "particular kinds of speech" you're referring to are specifically prohibited by law (making that law subject to Constitutional review), then that's exactly what it means.
You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech. Our Constitution is not intended to protect some particular kind of speech, political or other. In fact, it's not designed to protect the free speech of citizens at all.
Our Constitution does not grant citizens free speech, it recognizes our right to free speech as an inalienable right. The point of this document is not to call out specific freedoms that people have, rather it's to grant the government certain powers. If it's not specifically mentioned, rights are presumed to reside with the individual or the state in the US (and state constitutions are similarly framed).
In the case where information is generated by government officials (the police), that information is presumed to be in the public domain except in specific circumstances.
Copyright CHP? The CHP are public servants...anything created by the government is public domain. Good thing, too...that's why we have such rich geodata, b/c the government agencies that collect it all using our tax dollars are compelled to share it back with us. (After all, we paid for it.)
In this case, I don't have a problem with courts restricting usage of public domain images of a crime scene in sensitive matters like this...but I have to say that we ought to tread lightly when it comes to limiting access to public domain information. It should only be barred from usage in particular cases, not in general.
So Facebook is claiming that their ToS is binding for anyone that can view the publicly available profile information they're posting on the web for all to see? (Basically, anyone with a web connection?)
I shall now claim everyone in existence is bound by my ToS, then, b/c I too have a web page on the intarpip3s. And you are in violation of it, sir/madam. Pay!
I have some great ideas based on this study. If the object is to make drivers slow down, why don't we set up a system that pops a baby into the road every now and then? You're just driving along and all o' sudden BABY! It's night time, raining, you're making a left turn and sloshing thru water b/c the sewer system backed up and all o' sudden BABY! Maybe a computer controlled mini trebuchet at the side of the road could fling the baby under your wheels randomly as you drive along.
What this study has concluded is that drivers who are in very stressful situations (that care) have to slow down. Do we really want more stressed out drivers, tho? Even if the result is slower speeds? Isn't this a rather Kafkaesque approach to traffic safety?
So I agree with parent...let's get people where they're going more quickly and more safely. Of course, that would require getting a bunch of smart people in the same room at the same time, all of them focused on this problem. There would probably have to be a pool of money involved that they could draw from to do this kind of work. It's needed, and the benefit would far outweigh the cost, I'm sure. If only it were possible to set up such a situation.
(The sad thing is, there's a bureaucrat reading this study somewhere thinking, Hm, I like how it cost a lot of money and it generated recommendations that were the exactly opposite of what ought to be done...but for the next go round, can we do something that will increase the fail all the way to epic?
Don't worry. I know the moment of impact was a bit scary, but that's over now and this ship is widely known to be unsinkable. Now let's go clean up the deck...that knock we took toppled quite a few chairs up there.
If kids are more jaded or somehow more ethically ambivalent than they used to be—a claim I'm a bit skeptical of—perhaps it is more to do with their previous generation's (our) general unwillingness to place judgments upon the morality of others. It's one thing to approach differences between people with an open mind; it's quite another to not be well-enough grounded philosophically to understand when basic freedoms are being infringed. While the previous generation to us was too quick to condemn just because it's different, I think we are perhaps too quick to accept for precisely the same reason. (See this excellent TED talk for a better statement on this than I could ever give you.)
Actually, I'm processor-bound in terms of 10 finger bandwidth. I type faster than I think. Sometimes, when I've had too much coffee, I'm bus-bound instead.
...and he doesn't type that fast! lolrotflhahawtfbbq1!! hilarious. didn't see that coming at. all.
Slashdot Mirror
TRIM doesn't solve the problem, apparently. Why doesn't it just defrag and compact all the files into continous pages on block boundaries? Seems simple enough...
You left off a few steps...
7. ???
8. PROFIT!!!
I don't get this. Why don't they make the drive so that it periodically moves stuff around, or even a software app that does this, to restore peak performance? In the non-SSD world, this is called defragging...is it such a far-fetched concept that no one's thought of it for SSD? (I assume no...so what's the story?)
Hm...yes, what you say is correct, no doubt. What I'm getting at, though, is that regulating the technology and regulating information and access to information are two different things. In terms of regulating traditional telephony, these are private communications. The FCC's main charter here is to promote competition, not regulate content. The FCC's regulation of the public airwaves (radio and TV broadcast, not telephone companies), on the other hand, is more in line with this discussion about the web.
It is here we find ourselves in the area of broadcast regulation where my problem with the FCC's power begins. If the FCC had stuck to regulating technology and not content, then Carlin's Seven Dirty Words routine would never have been created. They did expand into the content regulation business at some point, however, and my comment is based on the premise that a similar expansion of power into the content of the web is reverse progress. (I think we need to pull them back from regulating broadcast content as well.)
If we acknowledge this expansion of power into regulation of web content—whether they are for or against it—their authority in this area is established. Do we want that? Do we mean to purchase net neutrality today, but in exchange we give over ultimate, long-term authority to the FCC of tomorrow? Or is it important enough to us to make freedom of information a cornerstone that resides independent of the FCC, like, for example, our library system?
Agree, it seems to me that it would take quite a bit of evidence to think that this is genetically based. I would expect that non-human bacteria in the Japanese (or any) gut would be introduced at some point after all genetic determinations are settled.
My reasoning on this proceeds along a tortured and lengthy path, but let me see if we can wade through it anyhow: the bacteria is non-human.
For anyone that may have missed it, non-human implies "not of human genetic origin". :-)
Spoken like a man who's never had a paper cut. Especially by heavy photo paper...I'd wager that's more painful than many bullet wounds. This is why I ~always~ carry a picture of a gun. If I get attacked, I whip it out and my attacker is both terrified of the photograph itself and confused by the fact that there's a gun on it (which is not scary, as previously pointed out, so why that instead of doubling down on something like a fang-laden bunny). The storm of activity in my attacker's brain will undoubtedly cause him to suddenly stab me several times. Wait...where was I going with this...?
I'm not 100% sure it's worth granting this kind of power to the FCC (which it ought not have, if we believe the ruling--does anyone have an informed opinion on this?) to preserve net neutrality.
Perhaps the smart thing to do is not depend upon the FCC to preserve net neutrality, particularly if it's not within their purview to do so. If we believe in the freedom of information and communication, maybe looking to the FCC as the sole defender of those ideals isn't the right way to go. Maybe we need something stronger than one government agency.
Of course this was not a "legitimate" use. It's no more legitimate than if I were a stand-up comedian and used the images for shock value in my act. Or if I were an artist and placed them in a collage of gory photos and published it. Man, now that you mention it, I can think of a lot of uses for these images that are completely disgusting (to me). In this case, it doesn't matter that the public paid for it, or that the event happened in public where there was no expectation of privacy...in some cases, people just just be able to suddenly and arbitrarily expect privacy, whenever it makes sense (to me), you know? It doesn't even need to be a decapitation, either...anything that shows blood at all is not "legitimate." Or you know what, we don't even need to go as far as blood for something to be disgusting, really. It could just be vomit or snot or whatever...a bruise, even, if it's all purple and yellow. Why would people want to look at this kind of stuff that's just sick (to me)?
You're right. There are certain kinds of communication that are wrong (to me) and certain kinds that are right (to me), and if people are saying things that aren't right (to me), then they should just be prohibited. Having solved everything else on their plate, and in recognition of the great job they've always done in the past in similar matters, I nominate the government to handle this.
Who's with me?
No, I don't like it. And I suspect if it were reviewed by a higher court it would (and should) get overturned.
No, I'm not. In general, it is unrestricted, meaning that it is only to be limited in certain specific ways.
The framers did not view law so much as a list of prohibited actions as a clear boundary defining an open ground of freedom. In other words, the law exists not to prevent citizens from doing certain things, but rather to clearly delineate what is illegal so that citizens may know what they may do within that open ground without fear of government prosecution.
That's what I mean by "unrestricted"—unless specifically reserved for government in some way, free speech is indeed so.
Though you are sadly right in many cases, I do not agree with this (and I do not think you are as right as you perhaps think you are). I believe previous interpretations of the Constitution support my view as well, that generally speaking (hehe) speech is closer to thought than to action. So when dealing with matters of free speech, I need some overriding specific reason to equate the term speech with action, rather than thought.
Allow me to try this experiment on your quote above to illustrate. With this substitution, you would have written: "Hate thought" will get you prosecuted. Are you comfortable with that now? (I'm not.) Can you clearly delineate for me why this is a less valid substitution than "hate action"? (I can't.)
These are actions, not thoughts.
The US is arguably the most free country. How best to keep it so? Also, is merely being the "most free" good enough, or should we strive to be as free as possible without reasonable boundaries? What are those boundaries?
I hope the example of Canada you provide is not intended to make me feel that we are somehow lucky in the US by comparison. That we allow publication of offensive books is as it should be, it's not some special privilege; all humans deserve to live in this kind of society. For me, freedom is not bound by patriotism; I would just as soon argue for more Canadian (and North Korean, and Iranian, etc) freedom as I would for American.
Ah, well you need to be more specific in your tone...I interpreted the statements you made in your last post as support for the idea that these officers should be criminally prosecuted (and perhaps crucified). I do not think I was alone in that interpretation of what you wrote.
Not following this argument...who's "inalienable rights" were violated here? The dead girl's?
If you're talking about her family, then I think you'd have a better case against the 4chan lurkers that forged fake emails with the pictures and harassed them than officers who mailed them around. Again, let's be clear--we're talking about a criminally prosecutable offense here, not departmental action, or civil suits. So, if I'm reading you right, you think the officers are less culpable in terms of harassment (or whatever other criminal law you think they violated) than the heartless pranksters that actually did directly harass the family members?
If I got your point of view correctly, that's crazy. I could see the argument made against those that directly harmed the family members. What the officers basically did was make a bad joke in horrendously poor taste, but I don't think they set out to hurt the family, and any pain that was done to that family was directly caused by someone else. To blame the officers for that is a bit (a bit) like blaming the knife manufacturer when someone gets stabbed with a steak knife.
There is...it's called a civil suit. If the family felt injured, they're free to sue. In the meantime, the government has to sit this one out in my view. It's public information, pure and simple. You may say it shouldn't be allowed because it's a sick joke. You may also feel the same way about Piss Christ , or some other artist's piece exhibiting macabre humor collecting all sorts of gory photos taken throughout history and placing them in some context.
One underlying point of free speech is this: no one has the right to not be offended. If you don't like something, speak up and say so; the remedy against those who misuse free speech is more free speech, not inviting jack-booted thugs to come in and do thought control.
So what is the appropriate punishment for these officers? Upon discovery of their misdeed, what would happen to them? They could get fired or suspended. They could be sued by the deceased girl's family (even if they win, that's no fun). They could be vilified and despised by society. That's enough, don't you think? Do we really need to get the pitchforks and make an example of them? Yes, it was insensitive. Yes, they're embarrassed and ashamed. Should they be allowed to continue their lives now, or shall we make it so they are placed in an unrecoverable position because they made a stupid mistake?
What kind of person answers yes to that last question? Now ask yourself: is that the kind of person you want to be?
I was only addressing free speech wrt government, not anything to do with impinging on other individuals' rights. What one can be criminally prosecuted for and what one can be sued for are two completely different things, and I'm discussing more the former. Well, not exactly prosecution, but government control of public domain information that effectively creates a criminal situation if you violate the order where there ought not be one.
No, not anything you like. You must have the right to publish whatever it is you're trying to publish. In this case, the information we're talking about is public domain, created with taxpayer dollars. If you're talking about simply publishing public domain information, there's no issue of libel unless you use the images to say something defamatory that is untrue.
National security is already covered by laws granting the government rights to control that material.
The general rule in the US is, if public money pays for it, the public owns it. Crime scene photos absolutely should be accessible for most purposes. I think that judges ought to be able to bar particular uses, but in general public information should be publicly available.
Say, for example, I'm a graduate student in forensics writing a paper on crime scene photography techniques. The results of my paper could make sure more guilty people are convicted and, more importantly, innocent people are not. I can't have access to crime scene photos? I have to beg a judge for access to information that was taxpayer-funded?
I want to respect the rights of families, but in this case it's not really their rights being infringed...it's the deceased. And dead people don't have a whole lot of rights. (Rightly so, I think.)
Uh, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote above carefully. Unless the "particular kinds of speech" you're referring to are specifically prohibited by law (making that law subject to Constitutional review), then that's exactly what it means.
You're wrong. There are no limitations on free speech. Our Constitution is not intended to protect some particular kind of speech, political or other. In fact, it's not designed to protect the free speech of citizens at all.
Our Constitution does not grant citizens free speech, it recognizes our right to free speech as an inalienable right. The point of this document is not to call out specific freedoms that people have, rather it's to grant the government certain powers. If it's not specifically mentioned, rights are presumed to reside with the individual or the state in the US (and state constitutions are similarly framed).
In the case where information is generated by government officials (the police), that information is presumed to be in the public domain except in specific circumstances.
Copyright CHP? The CHP are public servants...anything created by the government is public domain. Good thing, too...that's why we have such rich geodata, b/c the government agencies that collect it all using our tax dollars are compelled to share it back with us. (After all, we paid for it.)
In this case, I don't have a problem with courts restricting usage of public domain images of a crime scene in sensitive matters like this...but I have to say that we ought to tread lightly when it comes to limiting access to public domain information. It should only be barred from usage in particular cases, not in general.
So Facebook is claiming that their ToS is binding for anyone that can view the publicly available profile information they're posting on the web for all to see? (Basically, anyone with a web connection?)
I shall now claim everyone in existence is bound by my ToS, then, b/c I too have a web page on the intarpip3s. And you are in violation of it, sir/madam. Pay!
The "sexually charged" username in question? Dick Seaman. -sigh-
I have some great ideas based on this study. If the object is to make drivers slow down, why don't we set up a system that pops a baby into the road every now and then? You're just driving along and all o' sudden BABY! It's night time, raining, you're making a left turn and sloshing thru water b/c the sewer system backed up and all o' sudden BABY! Maybe a computer controlled mini trebuchet at the side of the road could fling the baby under your wheels randomly as you drive along.
What this study has concluded is that drivers who are in very stressful situations (that care) have to slow down. Do we really want more stressed out drivers, tho? Even if the result is slower speeds? Isn't this a rather Kafkaesque approach to traffic safety?
So I agree with parent...let's get people where they're going more quickly and more safely. Of course, that would require getting a bunch of smart people in the same room at the same time, all of them focused on this problem. There would probably have to be a pool of money involved that they could draw from to do this kind of work. It's needed, and the benefit would far outweigh the cost, I'm sure. If only it were possible to set up such a situation.
(The sad thing is, there's a bureaucrat reading this study somewhere thinking, Hm, I like how it cost a lot of money and it generated recommendations that were the exactly opposite of what ought to be done...but for the next go round, can we do something that will increase the fail all the way to epic?
Don't worry. I know the moment of impact was a bit scary, but that's over now and this ship is widely known to be unsinkable. Now let's go clean up the deck...that knock we took toppled quite a few chairs up there.
If kids are more jaded or somehow more ethically ambivalent than they used to be—a claim I'm a bit skeptical of—perhaps it is more to do with their previous generation's (our) general unwillingness to place judgments upon the morality of others. It's one thing to approach differences between people with an open mind; it's quite another to not be well-enough grounded philosophically to understand when basic freedoms are being infringed. While the previous generation to us was too quick to condemn just because it's different, I think we are perhaps too quick to accept for precisely the same reason. (See this excellent TED talk for a better statement on this than I could ever give you.)
The beemer model of this safety device is made of sleek, polished obsidian that comes to the finest of points. Very high class.
Actually, I'm processor-bound in terms of 10 finger bandwidth. I type faster than I think. Sometimes, when I've had too much coffee, I'm bus-bound instead.