Ah, but I bet you drive poorer when using a phone than you drive when not using a phone.
Based on what? If a meteor falls out of the sky and lands 100 feet in front of him he won't be able to stop?
At some point the added level of safety becomes nearly non-existent. If you can safely handle any foreseeable event (the person in front of you slams on her brakes, your car tire blows out, etc.), then you really can't drive any more safely.
I don't care if it still doesn't knock you into the general level of "poor" driver, if I'm driving around you I want you at your best.
And how far do we have to take that? Should everyone check their tire pressure every time they get on the road? Should we ban radios and clocks? Should it be illegal to transport a child without a muzzle? Must our hands remain at 10 and 2 at all times? Do we need hands-free window controls? You may want me driving at my best, but at some point the cost of decreasing my chances of an accident by one in a trillion is outweighed by the benefits. After all, if you want to be perfectly safe, you shouldn't be driving at all.
Absolutely. I wish I understood why so many people are so vehemently against cell phones. Talk to someone sitting next to you and there's no problem. Talk to them using a cell phone and suddenly it's a felony. They've even banned cell phones from my post office.
When I'm on the highway and there isn't much traffic what is the big deal about using a cell phone? Sure, my reaction time might be cut down, but my judgement isn't. I know to keep a greater following distance.
I'm sure you could do a study which shows that people who listen to the radio when they drive drive worse than those who don't. But we don't ban radios, or make people use hands-free tuners, do we?
Care to explain where you're getting those numbers from? Besides, your division is wrong. 1e6/54=18518.
I consider this much faster.
185 times? I don't consider it all that significant when we're talking about exponential growth. But I also was under the impression we were talking about a factor of 10, not 185.
I also consider you a fucking moron.
That's probably the problem. You've most likely jumped to conclusions rather than reading the entire thread.
At the rate we increase our data usage, who knows - maybe he will need to use more then one gigabit.
Maybe so, but I'd put my money on not for a long time.
1 gigabit is not that much - 10 hardware devices running at 100 mbit per second will tear that apart.
I'd say 10 hardware devices running at 100 mbit is a hell of a lot.
When you want to transfer many files at once - especially large files - you want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Let's say hard drive size doubles every 3 years. In 12 years it'll take 21 minutes to transfer a whole hard drive at 1 gigabit. I dunno, I think that's fast enough, considering I'll need to transfer my whole hard drive all of about once a day at the most.
Again, my thought process is that we know fibre is the fastest right now - so it just might be more common in the next 5-10 years
I doubt it, because it's just not that much faster. And for just about any home application I can imagine, there is plenty of speed available just using wireless G.
If you can convince the builder to do this and you plan on living in your home for a relatively long time I guess it might make sense. You'd have to be careful though about what types of cables can stand being in such close proximity to the other ones.
Think of the person who is not a "do-it-yourself" kind of guy.
I thought the whole point of this was that he was going to "do it himself".
We know fibre is the fastest right now
By what factor? I know we can run a gigabit over copper. I know we can run 10 gigabits over fibre. Does it go any higher, for the type of cable you're suggesting he run? Several HDTV streams can run unencrypted over 100 megs. I just don't foresee a big timeframe where we'll have requirements betweeen 1 and 10 gigs.
Then you're taking the chance that at the time you sell the house it's going to be common for consumer devices to use fibre. Otherwise the connections will useless to the next home owners, and they'll actually detract from the value unless I guess you put in two outlets next to each other in each spot and filled them in (and repainted the house) before selling it.
That's why I asked how much power a speaker uses (I have no idea). There's enough ambient light in the room to run a solar calculator, if a speaker doesn't use much more I figured you could run that too. Then again, you'd have to hook up a rechargable battery, since the room would often be dark at the time you're using the speakers.
ripping up the walls later will make the cost a LOT more then just buying the fibre now
As I've said, I doubt it. Fibre is expensive. Wallboard is cheap and you usually don't have to tear down everything just to run a few wires.
Who wants to rip the walls to the house they might have built just 5 years ago?
Why do you think gigabit ethernet will be obsolete in 5 years? What makes you think this and still think fibre won't? I'm thinking it'll be more like 10-20 years before gigabit is too little for any foreseeable applications, and by then the fibre cable you've run will probably be obsolete too.
A gigabit per second should be enough speed for anyone.
Seriously though, put the money you'd spend running fibre in a bank account and it'll easily pay for the upgrade when it's actually necessary. Between compounded interest and dropping prices due to better technologies, it rarely makes sense to look 20 years into the future when it comes to computer equipment.
You don't have to install it on your own. Sure, you'll pay jacked up prices, but if you can afford to have a new home built and aren't building it yourself then your time is probably worth enough that the price will be reasonable. If your builder won't allow you to run the cables you want even if you let him do it himself or you provide a licensed contractor willing to do the job, well then your builder sucks.
You can always make your own DVDs from stuff you download, but it just isn't worth the pain.
Yeah, that's why I'd get my friend to do it:).
Get a player that's capable of playing downloaded formats and forget it.
If I actually had a significant amount of stuff I'd like to watch it might be worth the $200 (retail) price tag, but at this point I haven't even bothered to download bittorrent. On a related note, is it possible to leach from bittorrent without sharing the file yourself? I'm not willing to risk a significant chance of getting sued just so I can continue to go without cable television.
You speak of downloading like it's an active process.
Granted, I've never used bittorrent for anything illegal, but back in the good old days when I used Napster it was a lot more active then you're making it out to be. First of all, I'd usually want to download whole albums (or whole television show seasons). So I'd have to find the list, and then go through all the mislabelled crap, deal with all the partial transfers, the faked files, the crappy quality files, etc. With television shows, add the time to burn the DVD if the intention is to watch it with other people, and at least for me I like to watch television shows with others (and don't have a computer set up to display on my television).
For me, that hassle isn't worth it for very many shows, and I'd be willing to pay about $5/season for those shows it is worth it for.
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*
Of course, anyone with a computer and internet connection can afford television, they just choose to buy other things instead (such as a computer and internet connection).
Bit Torrent and Videora and how they are disrupting the television business, especially the lucrative business of selling TV DVDs
Somehow I doubt it. I'm pretty technically saavy, and I'd love to get my hands on Sopranos Season 5 in a format which I can view with others (i.e. we're not huddling around the laptop). I'll see if I can find it, and if so I'll get my friend to burn a DVD for me, but somehow I suspect I'll be waiting for the season to be released on DVD so I can get it through Netflix.
Incidently, maybe Netflix is part of the reason TV DVD sales are down. I'd imagine Netflix needs to order many fewer copies of the DVD than a brick and mortar rental store, and TV shows are probably very popular at Netflix. I know I went through the first 3 seasons of the Sopranos in my first month with the service.
Say down the road you get involved in a lawsuit and the opposition subpoenas your shopping record.
OK...You're assuming I'm actually doing something wrong and need to hide my shopping record.
If you'd bothered to pay attention, the guy in TFA wasn't doing anything wrong, yet he was charged with a felony based largely on his shopping record.
Yes, but your comment was that I'm already involved in the lawsuit. If so, then my shopping records are more likely to exonerate me than incriminate me, assuming I'm actually innocent. By the way, I think you're jumping to conclusions saying the guy wasn't doing anything wrong. I've seen no proof of that. I also think it's quite a leap to say that the charges were based largely on his shopping records. The shopping records just lent credence to the evidence that the dogs pointed to - that the fire starter was purchased by a member of the household.
If you really think that it's no big deal to be charged with (or even be investigated as the primary suspect for) a crime you didn't commit is no big deal, I suggest you try and remember what this guy went through.
No, I just think you're taking things completely unrelated to each other to try to prove a point about shopping records. Can shopping records be used in a bad way by ill-intentioned or incompetant people. Sure. But that doesn't make them necessarily bad. Just about anything can be used in a bad way.
You don't need to do anything wrong to have your life completely fucked up by the system. It takes nothing more than a random coincidence or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have to disagree here. The system isn't screwing up your life. It's an incompetant or ill-intentioned person or people that are screwing it up. Yes, I agree the system has room for improvement. But I didn't think we were talking about the system here anyway. We were talking about shopping records.
Let's say one weekend you need to fertilize your lawn and change the oil in your car, so you head out and buy a case of motor oil and a 50# bag of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Nothing suspicious about those purchases, until a few weeks later when some nutjob decides to set off a bomb and is seen leaving the scene of the crime.
Unfortunately for you, the perp is the same race and hair color as you and is of a similar height and body type, and was driving a car that's the same body style and color as yours. Now, thanks to your innocent purchases, you're the #1 suspect in a high-profile case.
So you can set up a hypothetical situation where shopping records might be that piece of evidence that moves you into a new category of level of suspicion (maybe, just the same race, hair color, height, body type, and car is enough to make you the #1 suspect if there's no other suspect with that same profile and you aren't able to be eliminated by some other criteria).
I personally don't feel like it is a supermarket's place to get involved in catching criminals
Personally I'd say it's everyone's job, at least for actual violent crimes.
Say down the road you get involved in a lawsuit and the opposition subpoenas your shopping record.
OK...You're assuming I'm actually doing something wrong and need to hide my shopping record.
Or an ex-spouse uses your file to show that you're not a fit parent. (After all, what fit parent buys condoms? Or beer? Or cholesterol-laden mocha fudge ripple ice cream?)
That's pretty ridiculous (or is it paranoid, I guess it depends if you were serious or not).
Once information about your shopping habits is stored somewhere it will hang like ripe fruit; anyone who can get a warrant or a subpoena will have a wealth of information that can be distorted to make you look bad.
There's already a wealth of information that can be distorted to make me look bad. Any information can be distrorted to make me look bad. Doesn't mean information is bad.
The only way to prevent these abuses of your shopping information is to make sure it is never collected in the first place.
Better yet, be extra careful when you're purchasing something that is being used in a crime. Then you can use the lack of records of the crime as a positive in your favor.
Sometimes, I forget the card, and I have no idea what BS phone number I put down, so I use my boss's phone #.
Don't you think he would have mentioned if he didn't even have a card in the first place? Most likely I would think the fire starter was bought by someone in his household, though I suppose it's also quite possible it was misplaced or lent to someone else (maybe one of the kids gave it to a friend, etc). I certainly agree with you that it's flimsy evidence, though. Enough, combined with the other evidence, for probable cause? Maybe. What I really don't like is that they focussed on him, presumably because he was a firefighter, rather than anyone else in his household.
Which explain why there was at yet no charge retained against the new suspect. Nevertheless to those usually saying "if you have nothing to hide you do not need privacy" well this is one example of WHY we want privacy.
It's just as likely that a safeway card could be used as evidence that we didn't commit a crime. For instance we might have an alibi when a safeway card shows us buying something at the store at the same time a crime is committed.
Either way, standing alone a safeway card is not proof of anyway. You have to look at the totality of the evidence. Surely his defense lawyer would have brought up the many possibilities as to how the mistake could have been made. It seems most likely to me that he either forgets buying the fire starter, someone else in his household bought it (maybe his kids), or he was just lying about buying it because he didn't want to look suspicious. The record purchase will probably be useful in finding out what really happened, because all the evidence points to the conclusion that the fire starter used to start the fire was purchased by someone in the household.
What this has to do with needing privacy, I don't know. It's a lesson not to jump to conclusions, perhaps, but in my opinion it doesn't have anything to do with privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but I bet you drive poorer when using a phone than you drive when not using a phone.
Based on what? If a meteor falls out of the sky and lands 100 feet in front of him he won't be able to stop?
At some point the added level of safety becomes nearly non-existent. If you can safely handle any foreseeable event (the person in front of you slams on her brakes, your car tire blows out, etc.), then you really can't drive any more safely.
I don't care if it still doesn't knock you into the general level of "poor" driver, if I'm driving around you I want you at your best.
And how far do we have to take that? Should everyone check their tire pressure every time they get on the road? Should we ban radios and clocks? Should it be illegal to transport a child without a muzzle? Must our hands remain at 10 and 2 at all times? Do we need hands-free window controls? You may want me driving at my best, but at some point the cost of decreasing my chances of an accident by one in a trillion is outweighed by the benefits. After all, if you want to be perfectly safe, you shouldn't be driving at all.
Absolutely. I wish I understood why so many people are so vehemently against cell phones. Talk to someone sitting next to you and there's no problem. Talk to them using a cell phone and suddenly it's a felony. They've even banned cell phones from my post office.
When I'm on the highway and there isn't much traffic what is the big deal about using a cell phone? Sure, my reaction time might be cut down, but my judgement isn't. I know to keep a greater following distance.
I'm sure you could do a study which shows that people who listen to the radio when they drive drive worse than those who don't. But we don't ban radios, or make people use hands-free tuners, do we?
185 times faster is a lot faster.
Even so, fiber isn't 185 times faster than copper.
1e6/54=185 times faster.
Care to explain where you're getting those numbers from? Besides, your division is wrong. 1e6/54=18518.
I consider this much faster.
185 times? I don't consider it all that significant when we're talking about exponential growth. But I also was under the impression we were talking about a factor of 10, not 185.
I also consider you a fucking moron.
That's probably the problem. You've most likely jumped to conclusions rather than reading the entire thread.
At the rate we increase our data usage, who knows - maybe he will need to use more then one gigabit.
Maybe so, but I'd put my money on not for a long time.
1 gigabit is not that much - 10 hardware devices running at 100 mbit per second will tear that apart.
I'd say 10 hardware devices running at 100 mbit is a hell of a lot.
When you want to transfer many files at once - especially large files - you want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Let's say hard drive size doubles every 3 years. In 12 years it'll take 21 minutes to transfer a whole hard drive at 1 gigabit. I dunno, I think that's fast enough, considering I'll need to transfer my whole hard drive all of about once a day at the most.
Again, my thought process is that we know fibre is the fastest right now - so it just might be more common in the next 5-10 years
I doubt it, because it's just not that much faster. And for just about any home application I can imagine, there is plenty of speed available just using wireless G.
If you can convince the builder to do this and you plan on living in your home for a relatively long time I guess it might make sense. You'd have to be careful though about what types of cables can stand being in such close proximity to the other ones.
Think of the person who is not a "do-it-yourself" kind of guy.
I thought the whole point of this was that he was going to "do it himself".
We know fibre is the fastest right now
By what factor? I know we can run a gigabit over copper. I know we can run 10 gigabits over fibre. Does it go any higher, for the type of cable you're suggesting he run? Several HDTV streams can run unencrypted over 100 megs. I just don't foresee a big timeframe where we'll have requirements betweeen 1 and 10 gigs.
Then you're taking the chance that at the time you sell the house it's going to be common for consumer devices to use fibre. Otherwise the connections will useless to the next home owners, and they'll actually detract from the value unless I guess you put in two outlets next to each other in each spot and filled them in (and repainted the house) before selling it.
That's why I asked how much power a speaker uses (I have no idea). There's enough ambient light in the room to run a solar calculator, if a speaker doesn't use much more I figured you could run that too. Then again, you'd have to hook up a rechargable battery, since the room would often be dark at the time you're using the speakers.
ripping up the walls later will make the cost a LOT more then just buying the fibre now
As I've said, I doubt it. Fibre is expensive. Wallboard is cheap and you usually don't have to tear down everything just to run a few wires.
Who wants to rip the walls to the house they might have built just 5 years ago?
Why do you think gigabit ethernet will be obsolete in 5 years? What makes you think this and still think fibre won't? I'm thinking it'll be more like 10-20 years before gigabit is too little for any foreseeable applications, and by then the fibre cable you've run will probably be obsolete too.
How much power do speakers use? Couldn't you go with solar power and just have them charge during the day/when the lights are on?
A gigabit per second should be enough speed for anyone.
Seriously though, put the money you'd spend running fibre in a bank account and it'll easily pay for the upgrade when it's actually necessary. Between compounded interest and dropping prices due to better technologies, it rarely makes sense to look 20 years into the future when it comes to computer equipment.
You don't have to install it on your own. Sure, you'll pay jacked up prices, but if you can afford to have a new home built and aren't building it yourself then your time is probably worth enough that the price will be reasonable. If your builder won't allow you to run the cables you want even if you let him do it himself or you provide a licensed contractor willing to do the job, well then your builder sucks.
You can always make your own DVDs from stuff you download, but it just isn't worth the pain.
Yeah, that's why I'd get my friend to do it :).
Get a player that's capable of playing downloaded formats and forget it.
If I actually had a significant amount of stuff I'd like to watch it might be worth the $200 (retail) price tag, but at this point I haven't even bothered to download bittorrent. On a related note, is it possible to leach from bittorrent without sharing the file yourself? I'm not willing to risk a significant chance of getting sued just so I can continue to go without cable television.
I should be able to at least burn it to a CD/DVD...
...I wouldn't ask to... share it with the world
And how do you propose to achieve the one without the other?
How bout watermarking? If you share your copy, they can trace it back to you and sue the hell out of ya.
You speak of downloading like it's an active process.
Granted, I've never used bittorrent for anything illegal, but back in the good old days when I used Napster it was a lot more active then you're making it out to be. First of all, I'd usually want to download whole albums (or whole television show seasons). So I'd have to find the list, and then go through all the mislabelled crap, deal with all the partial transfers, the faked files, the crappy quality files, etc. With television shows, add the time to burn the DVD if the intention is to watch it with other people, and at least for me I like to watch television shows with others (and don't have a computer set up to display on my television).
For me, that hassle isn't worth it for very many shows, and I'd be willing to pay about $5/season for those shows it is worth it for.
Obviously, you can't claim a loss to someone who can't afford your product*
Of course, anyone with a computer and internet connection can afford television, they just choose to buy other things instead (such as a computer and internet connection).
Bit Torrent and Videora and how they are disrupting the television business, especially the lucrative business of selling TV DVDs
Somehow I doubt it. I'm pretty technically saavy, and I'd love to get my hands on Sopranos Season 5 in a format which I can view with others (i.e. we're not huddling around the laptop). I'll see if I can find it, and if so I'll get my friend to burn a DVD for me, but somehow I suspect I'll be waiting for the season to be released on DVD so I can get it through Netflix.
Incidently, maybe Netflix is part of the reason TV DVD sales are down. I'd imagine Netflix needs to order many fewer copies of the DVD than a brick and mortar rental store, and TV shows are probably very popular at Netflix. I know I went through the first 3 seasons of the Sopranos in my first month with the service.
If you'd bothered to pay attention, the guy in TFA wasn't doing anything wrong, yet he was charged with a felony based largely on his shopping record.
Yes, but your comment was that I'm already involved in the lawsuit. If so, then my shopping records are more likely to exonerate me than incriminate me, assuming I'm actually innocent. By the way, I think you're jumping to conclusions saying the guy wasn't doing anything wrong. I've seen no proof of that. I also think it's quite a leap to say that the charges were based largely on his shopping records. The shopping records just lent credence to the evidence that the dogs pointed to - that the fire starter was purchased by a member of the household.
If you really think that it's no big deal to be charged with (or even be investigated as the primary suspect for) a crime you didn't commit is no big deal, I suggest you try and remember what this guy went through.
No, I just think you're taking things completely unrelated to each other to try to prove a point about shopping records. Can shopping records be used in a bad way by ill-intentioned or incompetant people. Sure. But that doesn't make them necessarily bad. Just about anything can be used in a bad way.
You don't need to do anything wrong to have your life completely fucked up by the system. It takes nothing more than a random coincidence or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have to disagree here. The system isn't screwing up your life. It's an incompetant or ill-intentioned person or people that are screwing it up. Yes, I agree the system has room for improvement. But I didn't think we were talking about the system here anyway. We were talking about shopping records.
Let's say one weekend you need to fertilize your lawn and change the oil in your car, so you head out and buy a case of motor oil and a 50# bag of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Nothing suspicious about those purchases, until a few weeks later when some nutjob decides to set off a bomb and is seen leaving the scene of the crime.
Unfortunately for you, the perp is the same race and hair color as you and is of a similar height and body type, and was driving a car that's the same body style and color as yours. Now, thanks to your innocent purchases, you're the #1 suspect in a high-profile case.
So you can set up a hypothetical situation where shopping records might be that piece of evidence that moves you into a new category of level of suspicion (maybe, just the same race, hair color, height, body type, and car is enough to make you the #1 suspect if there's no other suspect with that same profile and you aren't able to be eliminated by some other criteria).
I personally don't feel like it is a supermarket's place to get involved in catching criminals
Personally I'd say it's everyone's job, at least for actual violent crimes.
Say down the road you get involved in a lawsuit and the opposition subpoenas your shopping record.
OK...You're assuming I'm actually doing something wrong and need to hide my shopping record.
Or an ex-spouse uses your file to show that you're not a fit parent. (After all, what fit parent buys condoms? Or beer? Or cholesterol-laden mocha fudge ripple ice cream?)
That's pretty ridiculous (or is it paranoid, I guess it depends if you were serious or not).
Once information about your shopping habits is stored somewhere it will hang like ripe fruit; anyone who can get a warrant or a subpoena will have a wealth of information that can be distorted to make you look bad.
There's already a wealth of information that can be distorted to make me look bad. Any information can be distrorted to make me look bad. Doesn't mean information is bad.
The only way to prevent these abuses of your shopping information is to make sure it is never collected in the first place.
Better yet, be extra careful when you're purchasing something that is being used in a crime. Then you can use the lack of records of the crime as a positive in your favor.
Sometimes, I forget the card, and I have no idea what BS phone number I put down, so I use my boss's phone #.
Don't you think he would have mentioned if he didn't even have a card in the first place? Most likely I would think the fire starter was bought by someone in his household, though I suppose it's also quite possible it was misplaced or lent to someone else (maybe one of the kids gave it to a friend, etc). I certainly agree with you that it's flimsy evidence, though. Enough, combined with the other evidence, for probable cause? Maybe. What I really don't like is that they focussed on him, presumably because he was a firefighter, rather than anyone else in his household.
Which explain why there was at yet no charge retained against the new suspect. Nevertheless to those usually saying "if you have nothing to hide you do not need privacy" well this is one example of WHY we want privacy.
It's just as likely that a safeway card could be used as evidence that we didn't commit a crime. For instance we might have an alibi when a safeway card shows us buying something at the store at the same time a crime is committed.
Either way, standing alone a safeway card is not proof of anyway. You have to look at the totality of the evidence. Surely his defense lawyer would have brought up the many possibilities as to how the mistake could have been made. It seems most likely to me that he either forgets buying the fire starter, someone else in his household bought it (maybe his kids), or he was just lying about buying it because he didn't want to look suspicious. The record purchase will probably be useful in finding out what really happened, because all the evidence points to the conclusion that the fire starter used to start the fire was purchased by someone in the household.
What this has to do with needing privacy, I don't know. It's a lesson not to jump to conclusions, perhaps, but in my opinion it doesn't have anything to do with privacy.
It'd only be perjury if they were acting in bad faith and you could prove it. Making "an honest mistake" under oath isn't perjury.
In most juristications, you can be FORCED to hand out the key to your encrypted partitions
Oh well, I guess I'll have to conveniently forget.
Most people agree with copyright law, don't they?
They don't go after downloaders anyway.