It was done externally since he was on the surface of the Earth...
If you choose that reference for external, then the original post is implying that humans lived inside the earth at some point.
Original post:"Think of it like this, we could say the work was flat, but it was not till we were able to look at it from an external view."
Next...
Had he been inside the Earth, such as the 4 miles down,
But he wasn't, and arguing about what if we were acutally inside the earth results in nothing but a bunch of crazy hypothetical situations and bad analogies.
If you're inside the earth it's still a sphere(oblate spheriod) and it still has all the propeties of one. Using proper techniques, those properties can still be detected.
As the poster above said, all those things you mention use things EXTERNAL to the curvature of the earth.
His comment about being inside the earth doesn't strike me as very significant.
First off, it destroys the meaning of the analogy.
Second, so I'm on the inside of the earth. Big deal. I walk around the INSIDE of the earth, determining that it is an oblate spheroid.
I knew about the whole "inside" thing but I didn't find it worthy of comment. My key point was the we were able to determine the shape of the earth by observng the effects of its shape.
There is nothing the explicitly prevents us from observing the effects of the shape of the universe. Just as we were able to determine the shape of the earth without ever leaving it, we may be able to determine the shape of the universe without ever leaving it.
Re:Possible unlawful use of code
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
People might want to consider that the release of WASTE was indeed unlawful under current law, AOL/Nullsoft was within their rights to withdraw the code and the GPL was applied to the code under wrong circumstances.
You state that as if it's a fact, but it's actually your opinion and one I don't agree with at all.
If I work for a store, and it is normal duty of mine to do sales and quote prices. I'm am acting on behalf of that company when doing so.
If I work for Nullsoft and it is my normal duty to release software, I am acting on behalf of nullsoft when I do so.
If I have been delegated the authority to release software, and I release a software package, Nullsoft has just released that software package.
The person who release WASTE was pretty much, THE GUY at Nullsoft. While AOL, may not have liked Nullsoft's actions, the person releasing the software clearly had the authority to make them.
This would be like one of Apple's VPs setting ipod prices at $200, and then Apple later demanding that everyone who bought an ipod for $200 give them back.
The rest of the would had a reasonable right to believe that Apple really meant to sell ipods for $200. There's a big difference between making a business decision that is unpopular with your higher ups and doing something you aren't authorized to do.
Re:Software is void, revoked and terminated.
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most likely, the copyright of the software is and always was held by Nullsoft, not the author. Therefore, the author didn't have the right to license the software under the GPL (or any other license) in the first place.
It's not that simple. If I work for a store, and it is normal duty of mine to do sales and quote prices. I'm am acting on behalf of that company when doing so.
If I work for Nullsoft and it is my normal duty to release software, I am acting on behalf of nullsoft when I do so.
If I have been delegated the authority to release software, and I release a software package, Nullsoft has just released that software package.
Things need to work this way, otherwise it would be WAY to easy for companies to wriggle out of contract that became inconvenient.
The exception would be when an employee obviously doesn't have the authority to do what they are doing (say a Microsoft intern releasing the windows source). Now if Ballmer himself were to release the Windows source code, even for a couple days, it would have to stick because he clearly had the authority to do so.
In the case of Nullsoft, the guy who released waste, obviously had the authority to do so.
In other words, you want the international community to pass a law that makes it so that if someone steals my code and posts it online and then has a friend download it, I lose all rights to that code.
No what he's saying is that if you post something saying "here's this is GPL'ed" and I download it, YOU are the one who is liable if it turns out that proprietary code is buried in it.
In my understanding, copyright already works this way. You would be the one distributing it and copyright governs distribution. This is why the RIAA goes after P2P users who are sharing files, as opposed to those who are only downloading them.
Think of it like this, we could say the work was flat, but it was not till we were able to look at it from an external view.
But, that's the thing, scholars knew the earth was round long before were able to see it from space, and long before Colombus made his first voyage. They were able to observe the effects of its shape.
They noticed the horizon, celestial activitiy, etc.
The same types of observations we would use to determine the shape of the universe.
For a geometrical argument:
Say you were able to precisely measure your own motion relitive to a starting point. As you traveled around the earth you would realize you were traveling on a curved surface, and after one trip around the world, you would decide it was a sphere. After two different trips, an oblate spheroid.
At the end of this, you've determined the shape of the earth without ever leaving it.
stop laughing at people less fortunate than yourself.
What we're laughing about is someone making ridiculous demands about something they clearly don't understand. Rich or poor, we laugh at people who do that.
"My child was killed twice, the first time he did it to himself. The second time, online did it to him."
Sure her son's dead, that's sad, but if you want people to take you seriously, you should take care to make sure that what you're saying isn't ridiculous.
Of course, we wouldn't care so much if she was just saying it, but she's DEMANDING it. She sees fit to make crazy demands about something that she clearly understand.
It's like someone who's child got chewed up by a propeller demanding that "airplanes get rid of those propeller thingies this instant!"
Sure, you feel sad for their loss, but what they're saying is just ridiculous. It's funny, so you laugh. You wouldn't be rude and laugh in front of them, and given the situation you can understand their mistake, but it's still funny.
This thing might work as a perpetual motion machine, except that it would just keep spinning faster and faster.
"This perpetual motion machine just keeps getting faster and faster... Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer Simpson
Seriously, the only thing this article show is how easy it is to dupe people and how poor science education is today. If you know ANYTHING about physics, you should be able to know this article is BS immediately.
Hopefully soon the design will make it in to your home PC, allowing them to run much quieter."
The noise in your pc is caused by air turbulence caused by the fan blades. Even if the motors inside your fans were 100% efficient, your computer would not be significantly quieter.
No, because these were laws that the majority of the public thought were a bad idea.
It doesn't matter. "The law's the law."
You're a woman, you want to vote. That's illegal, so you deserve whatever punsihment you get.
It's a stupid and counterproductive attitude.
Even if most people would like to be able to record movies in theaters (which I doubt is the case), most people DO agree that it should be illegal because of copyright violation.
I wasn't trying to defend this guy at all. I wanted to point out the short-sightedness of the attitude in the post I was replying to.
Only on/. would someone turn a criminal into a martyr.
Only on/. can I HIGHLIGHT THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF MY STATEMENT and still have people completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
I never claimed this guy was a martyr. I just think that the situation should be evaluated using reasonable criteria instead of a "the law's the law" attitude. One should ask:
-Should this be illegal?
-Does the punishment fit the crime?
Personally, I think this guy deserves to be punished, although a year in jail seems a bit harsh to me. I think he'd get the point after the first week.
They were prepared, and did do the time. Which is part of why they command such respect.
That not the point. The point is that they did not deserve to do time.
The Law's the Law taken to its absolute end is pretty foolish, but there must be a significant amount of respect for the law, or else you don't have "rule of law" and everything devolves to chaos and anarchy.
Which is why the law should be respectable. "Rule of law" isn't a good thing unless the laws are reasonable. Would you like to live under the Taliban? Sure, they brought "the rule of law" but at what price?
Is this particular law wrong? I don't think so, and you had better make a better argument that it is than simply "some (drug) laws are wrong, so this law is wrong".
I wasn't even arguing that this law was wrong. I was arguing that the poster's attitude was bad. He was not using a sensible criteria. "The law's the law" isn't a sensible argument, it's just a phrase that gets repeated a lot.
It's like trying to argue that Linux is good becuase "the best thing is life are free". Or that Windows is better because "there's no such thing as a free lunch". Neither one is a sensisble argument it's just a meme.
If it's simply saving the previous five seconds before impact, then what's the problem?
Because you're legally FORCED to have it in your vehicle. It's part of your federally-mandated airbag system.
This will be an objective and relatively perfect witness.
Have you ever owned a car? Parts break. Things don't always work right. The are lots of cars out on the road that have electrical problems that could cause this box to read incorrectly in all sorts of ways.
If it only records the first 5 seconds before impact, how do you know it was originally working correctly? What if it decides to read 70 MPH all day long? I won't be able to prove it because there's only 5 seconds of record and the vehicle itself is presumably destroyed. Any damage I found to the sensors on my vehicle, the prosecution could claim was a result of the accident.
Maybe I hit the brakes at the normal time when approaching the intersection but my breaking system failed. This box could make it appear that I hadn't hit the breaks at all, making the accident appear to be my fault instead of equipment failure. Then the prosecution can agrue that my brakes were damaged when I hit the other vehicle, not before.
Are you going to trust a black box where you have no way to verify if it's even functioning correctly?
Hell, how do you verify that the evidence wasn't tampered with?
Many courts refuse to accept digital photographs and this would be much easier to tinker with than a digital photograph.
How do you know that I didn't rig my box to read that was always going 30 MPH and then jamming on the brakes (for those last 5 seconds)?
It might even be this simple:
1) disconnect airbag
2) hook trigger button up to airbag sensor
3) drive along at 30 MPH
4) jam one the brakes
5) hit airbag trigger right before stopping
There, now my black box makes it look like the accident was your fault.
I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law?
sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!
IN A DEMOCRACY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE THE A LAW AND ITS RESULTING PUNISHMENTS.
If you speed, you might get a ticked, but that doesn't mean that putting a 55 MPH speed limit and a road that was designed to the a 65 isn't anything but an excuse to rip people off.
Also, you want the punishment to fit the crime.
Are you aware that our prisons are bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders? So much so that violent criminals are being paroled sooner than usual?
"If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"
Does that include MLK and Ghandi?
I'm not saying that this guy is Ghandi. I'm saying that your "The law's the law" attitude is absolutely stupid and counterproductive in a society where the law is CHANGEABLE and the citizenry expected to participate in this process of changing it.
When someone get's arrested and goes to jail it should be ok because that law makes sense to you and the punishment fits, not because "The law's the law".
With your attitude, we'd still be trading slaves, women couldn't vote, etc.
There are two types of people in the world (yep, just two;), those who are able to accept the "supernatural" and those who can't (or won't). I could get into a long tangent about this, but I'm fighting that urge. Instead, I'll just say that at some point every person is presented with an event that they can't explain.
Sure, as an engineer, I'm forced to confront my lack of understanding everyday. It seems the more you know, they more you know you don't know.
What it will likely be is something personal that cuts to your heart. You won't be able to stop thinking about it. At first, you may not even think of it as something spiritual, but you will struggle to account for it rationally. In the end, you'll be forced to either (a) deceive yourself into believing an argument that you know is weak, or (b) reformulate what you believe is possible.
Well, you're leaving out (c) accept that you don't know and may never know.
Option (c) is a very uncomfortable option for many people. It's essentially to believe nothing....to admit lack of control and understanding over certain factors in your life. It makes you feel powerless and people don't like that.
It's interesting to relate this back to your earlier statement about their being two types of people. It accounts for those who are religious and/or superstitious, and it also accounts for those who are atheists, but it does not account for agnosticism.
The third option is to think about the issue at hand, and realize that you have no good basis to posit a "how" or a "why". Now, when it's something personal, this can be a very hard thing to do. I think it can be easier on someone, psychologially, to have pretty much any explanation of something traumatic as it makes it easier for them to come to terms with the event. It can be easier to have closure when you have an end-to-end explanation of the event, even if it requires throwing away reason.
It's been a good chat though.:)
Likewise, I had earlier meant to say:
Anyways, at least you have something interesting to say on the subject.
Funny how much a typo can change a sentence.
I wouldn't say we're abusing this thread either, since we're just carrying on the discussion invoked by my own highly rated comment. Anyways, feel free to IM me via AIM (your first guess at my s/n will be correct). A journal discussion could be a good idea too. I currently have no email except at work, which I try to avoid using for personal use (for obvious reasons).
Whoa there... are you saying liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe? Seems to me that dumping a few thousand gallons of that stuff into a river or lake would probably not be particularly good for the biosphere.
And dumping a few thousands of pounds of non-toxic rocks on a some deer isn't going to do wonders for them either.
Could this guy have bought a smaller MP3 player to put into a bigger vehicle?
Let's put an MP3 player the size of a chicklet in an army tank! That way I hav to take my eyes of the road for 10 mintues (potentially destroying several small villages) just to figure out it's doing!
Seriously, am I they only one who find the whole "tricked out SUV" fad retarded?
What's the next fad going to be? Big rigs?
Are we going to se idiots driving around 1000hp diesel trucks with 15 speed gearboxes and no trailer? Of course it will have 36" chrome rims too....
Except you'd quickly reach a speed where the human brain can not process all the information being presented at higher speeds, and reaction distances (due to the speed) would be enormous.
Well sure there'd be an upper limit due to reaction time and speed differences, but I think you're underestimating humans.
You know that tunnel vision that hits you around 85 mph? That's where it starts. You start to stare straight ahead instead of looking around at things that catch your eye.
Which is why racers tell themselves "look up, look ahead". If you're going 85 you SHOULD be looking far ahead, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not suggesting that braking distance, handling and weight be the only things that determine how fast you actually drive, I'm saying they should be the factors that determine the maximum speed you can EVER drive. Obviously you'll need to drive slower than that most of the time, but when you're on a straight, limited-access, multi-lane highway, it's perfectly reasonable for someone in a Porsche, Corvette, or similar vehicle to cruise along at 85 instead of the measly 65 that the law in my state allows.
An upside of all of this would be drivers being more aware of their car's capabilities. Right now, I get drivers tailgating my car (which can already stop much faster than their giagantic SUV can) because I'm following the ridiculously low speed limit. I'd love to go faster when I can see that there's absolutely NOTHING in front of me for 1/2 mile, but legally, I can't.
This statement, IMNSHO, is an excellent example of a Linux user Not Getting It.
So, how is j. random computer buyer supposed to know
1) that the fc-cache command exists?
2) how to invoke it? (Xterm? But I just want to install a font!)
3) why it's necessary in the first place?
Well heck, I've been using Windows since 3.1 and it's not like I know how to install fonts.
Under windows, the program you're installing adds its own fonts. Under Linux, your package manager (emerge, apt, etc) handles installing any necessary fonts for a particular program.
If you want to install fonts above and beyond what is typically installed, expect to have to look it up somewhere.......like the place you're getting the fonts in the first place. Sometimes when you're using a computer, you actually have to look something up. It's true for any operating system or reasonably complex program.
Of course, the above aren't techno-sexy ways of saving lives. But they would work.
Only if you make the flawed assumption that current rules of the road are designed to maximize saftey rather than revenue. It would be better if we replaced our current rules with better rules, more clearly designed to promote safety, and thus more likely to be respected.
And, for those who are going to point out that these are unreasonable restrictions on freedoms, there's no such thing as a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.
There is such a thing as a right to travel. And there's a right to bear arms. Both are granted partially at certain ages, and will be taken away if abused.
The "driving is a privilege, not a right" comment is just silly. Driving(travel) is a right. The gov't must show cause to deny it, just as they must for restricting freedom of speech or throwing someone in jail.
The expressways here are rated for safe speeds at 20 or 30 miles an hour faster than the speed limit. This is also different depending on the car. A jeep can topple over easier than a grand prix (for example). Who decides these things????
Although it would be awesome if they actually did account for the particular vehicle you were driving. It would just be too great to be allowed to go twice as fast in my little sports car than some idiot in his Hummer, legally!
Imagine if speed limits were actually the result of an equation which took into consideration your vehicle's weight, braking, and handling......
If might even be enough to end the current "SUV craze". People would start buying small cars with good brakes and handling just so they could get to work 1 minute earlier!
Certain numbers of people HAVE to die and the couple hundred thousand taken out by cars and trucks every year is an effective way to curtail the population, especially the idiots prone to substance abuse (I'm one of them, but my numbers haven't come up yet...I'm excited for tomorrow though..)
I really hope you ride a motorcyle, so that you can ONLY take yourself out.......actually, that would be a great way to "handle" repeat DWI offenders.
DWI in cars have this nasty habit of killing OTHER people, while the drunk driver manages to survive.
While reading the responses to this article I came across an idea that hadn't struck me before:
What if the reason some of these exploits aren't happening until the patch has been released is because the blackhats are being careful not to break into systems that belong to clueful users (tm)?
The reasoning would be:
-I want to break into a computer
-I don't want to get busted
-I want to make sure whoever I break into isn't going to bust me
-I'll pick a computer that obviously isn't having much attention payed to it
-If a system isn't getting patched, it probably isn't being checked for intrusions either.
Now I'm not saying that it accounts for the majority of cases, but it is interesting to consider.
I didn't want the command line executed, I just wanted the program to create the CL for the operation. I know most *nix GUI's are built on top of CLI programs.
Interesting. Some programs will let you see the command line as it's being built (Xcdroast) but definately not the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
It was done externally since he was on the surface of the Earth...
If you choose that reference for external, then the original post is implying that humans lived inside the earth at some point.
Original post:"Think of it like this, we could say the work was flat, but it was not till we were able to look at it from an external view."
Next...
Had he been inside the Earth, such as the 4 miles down,
But he wasn't, and arguing about what if we were acutally inside the earth results in nothing but a bunch of crazy hypothetical situations and bad analogies.
If you're inside the earth it's still a sphere(oblate spheriod) and it still has all the propeties of one. Using proper techniques, those properties can still be detected.
As the poster above said, all those things you mention use things EXTERNAL to the curvature of the earth.
His comment about being inside the earth doesn't strike me as very significant.
First off, it destroys the meaning of the analogy.
Second, so I'm on the inside of the earth. Big deal. I walk around the INSIDE of the earth, determining that it is an oblate spheroid.
I knew about the whole "inside" thing but I didn't find it worthy of comment. My key point was the we were able to determine the shape of the earth by observng the effects of its shape.
There is nothing the explicitly prevents us from observing the effects of the shape of the universe. Just as we were able to determine the shape of the earth without ever leaving it, we may be able to determine the shape of the universe without ever leaving it.
People might want to consider that the release of WASTE was indeed unlawful under current law, AOL/Nullsoft was within their rights to withdraw the code and the GPL was applied to the code under wrong circumstances.
You state that as if it's a fact, but it's actually your opinion and one I don't agree with at all.
If I work for a store, and it is normal duty of mine to do sales and quote prices. I'm am acting on behalf of that company when doing so.
If I work for Nullsoft and it is my normal duty to release software, I am acting on behalf of nullsoft when I do so.
If I have been delegated the authority to release software, and I release a software package, Nullsoft has just released that software package.
The person who release WASTE was pretty much, THE GUY at Nullsoft. While AOL, may not have liked Nullsoft's actions, the person releasing the software clearly had the authority to make them.
This would be like one of Apple's VPs setting ipod prices at $200, and then Apple later demanding that everyone who bought an ipod for $200 give them back.
The rest of the would had a reasonable right to believe that Apple really meant to sell ipods for $200. There's a big difference between making a business decision that is unpopular with your higher ups and doing something you aren't authorized to do.
Most likely, the copyright of the software is and always was held by Nullsoft, not the author. Therefore, the author didn't have the right to license the software under the GPL (or any other license) in the first place.
It's not that simple. If I work for a store, and it is normal duty of mine to do sales and quote prices. I'm am acting on behalf of that company when doing so.
If I work for Nullsoft and it is my normal duty to release software, I am acting on behalf of nullsoft when I do so.
If I have been delegated the authority to release software, and I release a software package, Nullsoft has just released that software package.
Things need to work this way, otherwise it would be WAY to easy for companies to wriggle out of contract that became inconvenient.
The exception would be when an employee obviously doesn't have the authority to do what they are doing (say a Microsoft intern releasing the windows source). Now if Ballmer himself were to release the Windows source code, even for a couple days, it would have to stick because he clearly had the authority to do so.
In the case of Nullsoft, the guy who released waste, obviously had the authority to do so.
In other words, you want the international community to pass a law that makes it so that if someone steals my code and posts it online and then has a friend download it, I lose all rights to that code.
No what he's saying is that if you post something saying "here's this is GPL'ed" and I download it, YOU are the one who is liable if it turns out that proprietary code is buried in it.
In my understanding, copyright already works this way. You would be the one distributing it and copyright governs distribution. This is why the RIAA goes after P2P users who are sharing files, as opposed to those who are only downloading them.
Think of it like this, we could say the work was flat, but it was not till we were able to look at it from an external view.
But, that's the thing, scholars knew the earth was round long before were able to see it from space, and long before Colombus made his first voyage. They were able to observe the effects of its shape.
They noticed the horizon, celestial activitiy, etc.
The same types of observations we would use to determine the shape of the universe.
For a geometrical argument:
Say you were able to precisely measure your own motion relitive to a starting point. As you traveled around the earth you would realize you were traveling on a curved surface, and after one trip around the world, you would decide it was a sphere. After two different trips, an oblate spheroid.
At the end of this, you've determined the shape of the earth without ever leaving it.
Mod: This post was not funny.
Sure it was.
stop laughing at people less fortunate than yourself.
What we're laughing about is someone making ridiculous demands about something they clearly don't understand. Rich or poor, we laugh at people who do that.
"My child was killed twice, the first time he did it to himself. The second time, online did it to him."
Sure her son's dead, that's sad, but if you want people to take you seriously, you should take care to make sure that what you're saying isn't ridiculous.
Of course, we wouldn't care so much if she was just saying it, but she's DEMANDING it. She sees fit to make crazy demands about something that she clearly understand.
It's like someone who's child got chewed up by a propeller demanding that "airplanes get rid of those propeller thingies this instant!"
Sure, you feel sad for their loss, but what they're saying is just ridiculous. It's funny, so you laugh. You wouldn't be rude and laugh in front of them, and given the situation you can understand their mistake, but it's still funny.
This thing might work as a perpetual motion machine, except that it would just keep spinning faster and faster.
"This perpetual motion machine just keeps getting faster and faster... Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -Homer Simpson
Seriously, the only thing this article show is how easy it is to dupe people and how poor science education is today. If you know ANYTHING about physics, you should be able to know this article is BS immediately.
Hopefully soon the design will make it in to your home PC, allowing them to run much quieter."
The noise in your pc is caused by air turbulence caused by the fan blades. Even if the motors inside your fans were 100% efficient, your computer would not be significantly quieter.
No, because these were laws that the majority of the public thought were a bad idea.
It doesn't matter. "The law's the law."
You're a woman, you want to vote. That's illegal, so you deserve whatever punsihment you get.
It's a stupid and counterproductive attitude.
Even if most people would like to be able to record movies in theaters (which I doubt is the case), most people DO agree that it should be illegal because of copyright violation.
I wasn't trying to defend this guy at all. I wanted to point out the short-sightedness of the attitude in the post I was replying to.
Only on /. would someone turn a criminal into a martyr.
/. can I HIGHLIGHT THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF MY STATEMENT and still have people completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
Only on
I never claimed this guy was a martyr. I just think that the situation should be evaluated using reasonable criteria instead of a "the law's the law" attitude. One should ask:
-Should this be illegal?
-Does the punishment fit the crime?
Personally, I think this guy deserves to be punished, although a year in jail seems a bit harsh to me. I think he'd get the point after the first week.
They were prepared, and did do the time. Which is part of why they command such respect.
That not the point. The point is that they did not deserve to do time.
The Law's the Law taken to its absolute end is pretty foolish, but there must be a significant amount of respect for the law, or else you don't have "rule of law" and everything devolves to chaos and anarchy.
Which is why the law should be respectable. "Rule of law" isn't a good thing unless the laws are reasonable. Would you like to live under the Taliban? Sure, they brought "the rule of law" but at what price?
Is this particular law wrong? I don't think so, and you had better make a better argument that it is than simply "some (drug) laws are wrong, so this law is wrong".
I wasn't even arguing that this law was wrong. I was arguing that the poster's attitude was bad. He was not using a sensible criteria. "The law's the law" isn't a sensible argument, it's just a phrase that gets repeated a lot.
It's like trying to argue that Linux is good becuase "the best thing is life are free". Or that Windows is better because "there's no such thing as a free lunch". Neither one is a sensisble argument it's just a meme.
If it's simply saving the previous five seconds before impact, then what's the problem?
Because you're legally FORCED to have it in your vehicle. It's part of your federally-mandated airbag system.
This will be an objective and relatively perfect witness.
Have you ever owned a car? Parts break. Things don't always work right. The are lots of cars out on the road that have electrical problems that could cause this box to read incorrectly in all sorts of ways.
If it only records the first 5 seconds before impact, how do you know it was originally working correctly? What if it decides to read 70 MPH all day long? I won't be able to prove it because there's only 5 seconds of record and the vehicle itself is presumably destroyed. Any damage I found to the sensors on my vehicle, the prosecution could claim was a result of the accident.
Maybe I hit the brakes at the normal time when approaching the intersection but my breaking system failed. This box could make it appear that I hadn't hit the breaks at all, making the accident appear to be my fault instead of equipment failure. Then the prosecution can agrue that my brakes were damaged when I hit the other vehicle, not before.
Are you going to trust a black box where you have no way to verify if it's even functioning correctly?
Hell, how do you verify that the evidence wasn't tampered with?
Many courts refuse to accept digital photographs and this would be much easier to tinker with than a digital photograph.
How do you know that I didn't rig my box to read that was always going 30 MPH and then jamming on the brakes (for those last 5 seconds)?
It might even be this simple:
1) disconnect airbag
2) hook trigger button up to airbag sensor
3) drive along at 30 MPH
4) jam one the brakes
5) hit airbag trigger right before stopping
There, now my black box makes it look like the accident was your fault.
I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law? sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!
IN A DEMOCRACY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE THE A LAW AND ITS RESULTING PUNISHMENTS.
If you speed, you might get a ticked, but that doesn't mean that putting a 55 MPH speed limit and a road that was designed to the a 65 isn't anything but an excuse to rip people off.
Also, you want the punishment to fit the crime.
Are you aware that our prisons are bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders? So much so that violent criminals are being paroled sooner than usual?
"If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"
Does that include MLK and Ghandi?
I'm not saying that this guy is Ghandi. I'm saying that your "The law's the law" attitude is absolutely stupid and counterproductive in a society where the law is CHANGEABLE and the citizenry expected to participate in this process of changing it.
When someone get's arrested and goes to jail it should be ok because that law makes sense to you and the punishment fits, not because "The law's the law".
With your attitude, we'd still be trading slaves, women couldn't vote, etc.
There are two types of people in the world (yep, just two ;), those who are able to accept the "supernatural" and those who can't (or won't). I could get into a long tangent about this, but I'm fighting that urge. Instead, I'll just say that at some point every person is presented with an event that they can't explain.
:)
Sure, as an engineer, I'm forced to confront my lack of understanding everyday. It seems the more you know, they more you know you don't know.
What it will likely be is something personal that cuts to your heart. You won't be able to stop thinking about it. At first, you may not even think of it as something spiritual, but you will struggle to account for it rationally. In the end, you'll be forced to either (a) deceive yourself into believing an argument that you know is weak, or (b) reformulate what you believe is possible.
Well, you're leaving out (c) accept that you don't know and may never know.
Option (c) is a very uncomfortable option for many people. It's essentially to believe nothing....to admit lack of control and understanding over certain factors in your life. It makes you feel powerless and people don't like that.
It's interesting to relate this back to your earlier statement about their being two types of people. It accounts for those who are religious and/or superstitious, and it also accounts for those who are atheists, but it does not account for agnosticism.
The third option is to think about the issue at hand, and realize that you have no good basis to posit a "how" or a "why". Now, when it's something personal, this can be a very hard thing to do. I think it can be easier on someone, psychologially, to have pretty much any explanation of something traumatic as it makes it easier for them to come to terms with the event. It can be easier to have closure when you have an end-to-end explanation of the event, even if it requires throwing away reason.
It's been a good chat though.
Likewise, I had earlier meant to say:
Anyways, at least you have something interesting to say on the subject.
Funny how much a typo can change a sentence.
I wouldn't say we're abusing this thread either, since we're just carrying on the discussion invoked by my own highly rated comment. Anyways, feel free to IM me via AIM (your first guess at my s/n will be correct). A journal discussion could be a good idea too. I currently have no email except at work, which I try to avoid using for personal use (for obvious reasons).
Whoa there... are you saying liquid nitrogen is environmentally safe? Seems to me that dumping a few thousand gallons of that stuff into a river or lake would probably not be particularly good for the biosphere.
And dumping a few thousands of pounds of non-toxic rocks on a some deer isn't going to do wonders for them either.
Your example is just dumb.
You know what Ford stands for, don't you? Fix it again, Tony.
No, that would be FIAT.
Ford stands for:
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily
I have no idea where you got that, there isn't even an 'R' anywhere in the phrase "Fix it again, Tony".
Could this guy have bought a smaller MP3 player to put into a bigger vehicle?
Let's put an MP3 player the size of a chicklet in an army tank! That way I hav to take my eyes of the road for 10 mintues (potentially destroying several small villages) just to figure out it's doing!
Seriously, am I they only one who find the whole "tricked out SUV" fad retarded?
What's the next fad going to be? Big rigs?
Are we going to se idiots driving around 1000hp diesel trucks with 15 speed gearboxes and no trailer? Of course it will have 36" chrome rims too....
Except you'd quickly reach a speed where the human brain can not process all the information being presented at higher speeds, and reaction distances (due to the speed) would be enormous.
Well sure there'd be an upper limit due to reaction time and speed differences, but I think you're underestimating humans.
You know that tunnel vision that hits you around 85 mph? That's where it starts. You start to stare straight ahead instead of looking around at things that catch your eye.
Which is why racers tell themselves "look up, look ahead". If you're going 85 you SHOULD be looking far ahead, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not suggesting that braking distance, handling and weight be the only things that determine how fast you actually drive, I'm saying they should be the factors that determine the maximum speed you can EVER drive. Obviously you'll need to drive slower than that most of the time, but when you're on a straight, limited-access, multi-lane highway, it's perfectly reasonable for someone in a Porsche, Corvette, or similar vehicle to cruise along at 85 instead of the measly 65 that the law in my state allows.
An upside of all of this would be drivers being more aware of their car's capabilities. Right now, I get drivers tailgating my car (which can already stop much faster than their giagantic SUV can) because I'm following the ridiculously low speed limit. I'd love to go faster when I can see that there's absolutely NOTHING in front of me for 1/2 mile, but legally, I can't.
This statement, IMNSHO, is an excellent example of a Linux user Not Getting It. So, how is j. random computer buyer supposed to know 1) that the fc-cache command exists? 2) how to invoke it? (Xterm? But I just want to install a font!) 3) why it's necessary in the first place?
Well heck, I've been using Windows since 3.1 and it's not like I know how to install fonts.
Under windows, the program you're installing adds its own fonts. Under Linux, your package manager (emerge, apt, etc) handles installing any necessary fonts for a particular program.
If you want to install fonts above and beyond what is typically installed, expect to have to look it up somewhere.......like the place you're getting the fonts in the first place. Sometimes when you're using a computer, you actually have to look something up. It's true for any operating system or reasonably complex program.
Of course, the above aren't techno-sexy ways of saving lives. But they would work.
Only if you make the flawed assumption that current rules of the road are designed to maximize saftey rather than revenue. It would be better if we replaced our current rules with better rules, more clearly designed to promote safety, and thus more likely to be respected.
And, for those who are going to point out that these are unreasonable restrictions on freedoms, there's no such thing as a "right" to drive. It's a privilege.
There is such a thing as a right to travel. And there's a right to bear arms. Both are granted partially at certain ages, and will be taken away if abused.
The "driving is a privilege, not a right" comment is just silly. Driving(travel) is a right. The gov't must show cause to deny it, just as they must for restricting freedom of speech or throwing someone in jail.
The expressways here are rated for safe speeds at 20 or 30 miles an hour faster than the speed limit. This is also different depending on the car. A jeep can topple over easier than a grand prix (for example). Who decides these things????
Although it would be awesome if they actually did account for the particular vehicle you were driving. It would just be too great to be allowed to go twice as fast in my little sports car than some idiot in his Hummer, legally!
Imagine if speed limits were actually the result of an equation which took into consideration your vehicle's weight, braking, and handling......
If might even be enough to end the current "SUV craze". People would start buying small cars with good brakes and handling just so they could get to work 1 minute earlier!
Certain numbers of people HAVE to die and the couple hundred thousand taken out by cars and trucks every year is an effective way to curtail the population, especially the idiots prone to substance abuse (I'm one of them, but my numbers haven't come up yet...I'm excited for tomorrow though..)
I really hope you ride a motorcyle, so that you can ONLY take yourself out.......actually, that would be a great way to "handle" repeat DWI offenders.
DWI in cars have this nasty habit of killing OTHER people, while the drunk driver manages to survive.
While reading the responses to this article I came across an idea that hadn't struck me before:
What if the reason some of these exploits aren't happening until the patch has been released is because the blackhats are being careful not to break into systems that belong to clueful users (tm)?
The reasoning would be: -I want to break into a computer
-I don't want to get busted
-I want to make sure whoever I break into isn't going to bust me
-I'll pick a computer that obviously isn't having much attention payed to it -If a system isn't getting patched, it probably isn't being checked for intrusions either.
Now I'm not saying that it accounts for the majority of cases, but it is interesting to consider.
I didn't want the command line executed, I just wanted the program to create the CL for the operation. I know most *nix GUI's are built on top of CLI programs.
Interesting. Some programs will let you see the command line as it's being built (Xcdroast) but definately not the majority.