But you're not as screwed as when the drive electronics for both sets of platters on the combination drive come from the same lot and share the same manufacturing flaw, and fail at the same time. It's not very often that two physical drives crap out at the same time, but I can see it happening with some regularity on an integrated drive. RAID doesn't just mean redundant platters. If you get to the point where you're doing true redundancy - platters, controllers, power, systems interface, etc., then you might as well just buy two drives. I don't see it being very easy to hot-swap a single combination drive when the inevitable happens, but it's trivial with multiple drives.
SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE
Like if an innocent homeowner all of a sudden finds a bunch of unknown masked men violently breaking into his house that have no reason to be there and uses legal force to defend his home?
SWAT teams are *way* overused and almost never actually needed.
ABS also makes you a more careful driver - it's frigging embarrassing when you punch the brake pedal and *everyone* in the car hears/feels that characteristic chattering, confirming that you're a screw-up who didn't leave enough following distance.:-D
Only lazy and inattentive people rely on mirrors for parking.
Really? The way my (admittedly large) mirrors are set up, there's nothing I can see by turning my head and looking around me that I can't see in them, and plenty that I *can* see in the mirror that I can't otherwise.
This is one thing I like about my pickup truck - it has real bumpers. Last July I got rear-ended at a traffic light by an idiot that was paying more attention to his phone call than driving. The impact was hard enough to set off both of his airbags and crunch his bumper, hood, grille, headlights, etc., but did no damage to my truck except for bending the back bumper down a bit, and that was easily fixed with a puller at the body shop for about $60. Had I not had a solid, non girly-looking, real metal bumper, it'd have cost a *lot* more to fix than it did. Like you, I've been hit from behind a few times at much lower speeds, and it's always impossible to tell that anything's happened to my truck, while the other guy's front fascia is in little shattered pieces all over the pavement.
It's frigging *ludicrous* that if someone bumps you from behind and you're driving a relatively new car, you're likely looking at a $1K repair just to replace and paint the broken fascia, even if there's no structural damage and the underlying bumper is okay. I sure am glad they put all that plastic on there just so everyone can save $5.00 in fuel costs over the life of the damn car. It's a *bumper*, people - it's supposed to protect the car from major damage, not be a source of it. This video pretty clearly illustrates what a steaming pile of crap most car bumpers/frames are like nowadays.
And don't forget having the judgement to know where you can and can't park. My wife and I had a blast while in a restaurant in Dinard, France last year as we watched this lady trying to parallel park in a space that was clearly too small for her car. She bumped the cars in front and behind at least four times each before the light bulb came on and she left in search of parking elsewhere.
69.8 m/s or 4.1893 km/minute. 251 or so km/hour. 156 or so miles/hour. 13,744 feet or so per second. That's over 4 times the muzzle velocity on an M16, M4, or K2 using NATO M855 rounds.
[marks paper with a red pen]
13,744 feet per minute, not second, which in turn works out to 229 feet/sec, or less than a tenth of the aforementioned.223 round, or on the slow end of average for an arrow fired from a bow. Still not something I'd want to go out of my way to be hit with.:-)
And they rarely have anyone with any real knowledge or competence in the subjects discussed during the case, because those people are pointedly excluded from serving. Furthermore, the folks that are left are barred from directly asking questions of witnesses and have to rely on wherever those witnesses are taken by counsel, even if they're personally more qualified in the subject at hand than the expert witnesses provided by the parties. As a software engineer, I know it would drive me nuts as a juror to be presented with a computer-related expert witness (on either side) that obviously was trying to blow sunshine up the jury's skirt and not be able to ask questions to find out what the real story was. We won't get into the stuff like jury nullification and the sometimes ridiculous instructions the jury is given and expected to abide by.
I understand that the idea is to prevent bias and to provide the fairest possible trial for both participants in the case. However, I believe it results in a less-than-optimal jury, and the jury not getting the most and best information possible and being severely hamstrung in what they can do.
Not a lawyer, but I'd hope the jury instructions about "making available" being functionally equivalent to "copyright infringement" might come into play as well. It sure made the case a lot easier for the jury to decide in favor of the RIAA without having been presented with any direct proof of infringement.
IMHO this is a shortsighted attitude, if only because "IP ownership" is entirely a legal/financial fiction.
Agreed, and given that in the U.S. the entire purpose of copyright is stated as providing a benefit to the creators of works in order to encourage them to create more, it's ridiculous that there's so much emphasis on the owners/distributors of said works. Given what copyright is supposed to accomplish, I really see no good reason to allow its assignment to anyone else by the work's original creator.
For example, what if someone did have a bomb or gun in their carry-on? Do your really want to have them surrounded by 500+ edgy people (with no shoes on) being pushed through one-way security gates?
That's something I've never understood but have often wondered - the passengers are having their safety endangered an awful lot by having so many herded together into such a small space. On average, it's been my experience that there are often at least 2-3 flights' worth of people queued up waiting for the latest showing of "Security Theater". It'd really suck if someone decided to bring a bomb and set it off *there*, particularly if it was organized across a number of airports at once.
But, I guess it's okay so long as the DHS/TSA *looks* like it's doing something.
"We handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.
We don't care.
Watch this.. [ she hits buttons maniacally ]..just lost Peoria.
You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string?
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
The scary thing is that Lily Tomlin pretty much nailed it. It's a lot less funny knowing they're *really* like that.
Juries also are also not allowed to be informed about the full extent of their rights and powers under the law, which to me seems to defeat a major reason for having juries in the first place.
Count me as a developer that is keenly aware of the fact that my strengths lie more in the technical side of application development, rather than the UI. I certainly can create a reasonably usable UI, but I'd much rather get a requirements doc from someone that really knows what they're doing and bring that into being. I'll agree part of the problem is exactly as you stated, but another part is convincing the suits (or project leads in the OSS world) that a HMI/usability expert is a worthwhile addition to a project. And then in the open source world, you'd have to find an HMI person with a *really* thick skin, because you just know they're going to get hammered on every little thing by the devs.
In fairness to at least two of those airlines though, they declared bankruptcy not because they had to at the time, but because the bankruptcy laws were about to change and it was *much* more beneficial to both companies to declare when they did, rather than take the chance that they *might* have to declare later when the law wouldn't be nearly so favorable.
Don't try telling me I'm wrong, I drive on unlit roads pretty much every day.
Yeah, driving on unlit roads is a totally unique experience that only you have had. I manage to avoid problems on an 40-mile long unlit two-lane highway (replete with deer, armadillos, raccoons, possums, and other critters that can and will jump right out at you) that I frequently drive at night, as do the thousands of other people that use that highway every day. Put decent headlights on your car, don't stare into oncoming traffic, and keep your windshield clean as I mentioned before and you won't have problems. If you're driving fast enough where you can't react to something that happens beyond the reach of your headlights, then you're driving too fast for the conditions. Failing all that, simply don't drive those roads at night.
And try being a pedestrian on an unlit road.
[rolls eyes] That's also a real unique experience that I've *never* had myself, and that I addressed in my previous response.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Streetlights won't help reduce the glare of oncoming cars' headlights in the least, unless you're suggesting that the roads be so brightly lit that it won't be necessary to use headlights at all. Keeping one's windshield clean helps quite a lot with this problem.
For those walking at night along an unlit road at night, they have these devices called "flashlights" that can help with the other concerns you voiced, and reflective clothing goes a long way towards preventing an unpleasant encounter between pedestrians and traffic. I would say that five dollars spent on a flashlight for one's own safety is a far more efficient solution to the problem than to have everyone else pay thousands of dollars for streetlights and the power to run them, with the attendant light pollution problems.
And whether Alpha Centauri is visible isn't an issue for the vast majority of residents of the Northern Hemisphere as it's always below the horizon even on a totally dark, clear night for them.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
But you're not as screwed as when the drive electronics for both sets of platters on the combination drive come from the same lot and share the same manufacturing flaw, and fail at the same time. It's not very often that two physical drives crap out at the same time, but I can see it happening with some regularity on an integrated drive. RAID doesn't just mean redundant platters. If you get to the point where you're doing true redundancy - platters, controllers, power, systems interface, etc., then you might as well just buy two drives. I don't see it being very easy to hot-swap a single combination drive when the inevitable happens, but it's trivial with multiple drives.
SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE
Like if an innocent homeowner all of a sudden finds a bunch of unknown masked men violently breaking into his house that have no reason to be there and uses legal force to defend his home?
SWAT teams are *way* overused and almost never actually needed.
Yeah, especially all those folks at Cape Canaveral.
ABS also makes you a more careful driver - it's frigging embarrassing when you punch the brake pedal and *everyone* in the car hears/feels that characteristic chattering, confirming that you're a screw-up who didn't leave enough following distance. :-D
Only lazy and inattentive people rely on mirrors for parking.
Really? The way my (admittedly large) mirrors are set up, there's nothing I can see by turning my head and looking around me that I can't see in them, and plenty that I *can* see in the mirror that I can't otherwise.
This is one thing I like about my pickup truck - it has real bumpers. Last July I got rear-ended at a traffic light by an idiot that was paying more attention to his phone call than driving. The impact was hard enough to set off both of his airbags and crunch his bumper, hood, grille, headlights, etc., but did no damage to my truck except for bending the back bumper down a bit, and that was easily fixed with a puller at the body shop for about $60. Had I not had a solid, non girly-looking, real metal bumper, it'd have cost a *lot* more to fix than it did. Like you, I've been hit from behind a few times at much lower speeds, and it's always impossible to tell that anything's happened to my truck, while the other guy's front fascia is in little shattered pieces all over the pavement.
It's frigging *ludicrous* that if someone bumps you from behind and you're driving a relatively new car, you're likely looking at a $1K repair just to replace and paint the broken fascia, even if there's no structural damage and the underlying bumper is okay. I sure am glad they put all that plastic on there just so everyone can save $5.00 in fuel costs over the life of the damn car. It's a *bumper*, people - it's supposed to protect the car from major damage, not be a source of it. This video pretty clearly illustrates what a steaming pile of crap most car bumpers/frames are like nowadays.
And don't forget having the judgement to know where you can and can't park. My wife and I had a blast while in a restaurant in Dinard, France last year as we watched this lady trying to parallel park in a space that was clearly too small for her car. She bumped the cars in front and behind at least four times each before the light bulb came on and she left in search of parking elsewhere.
69.8 m/s or 4.1893 km/minute. 251 or so km/hour. 156 or so miles/hour. 13,744 feet or so per second. That's over 4 times the muzzle velocity on an M16, M4, or K2 using NATO M855 rounds.
.223 round, or on the slow end of average for an arrow fired from a bow. Still not something I'd want to go out of my way to be hit with. :-)
[marks paper with a red pen]
13,744 feet per minute, not second, which in turn works out to 229 feet/sec, or less than a tenth of the aforementioned
And they rarely have anyone with any real knowledge or competence in the subjects discussed during the case, because those people are pointedly excluded from serving. Furthermore, the folks that are left are barred from directly asking questions of witnesses and have to rely on wherever those witnesses are taken by counsel, even if they're personally more qualified in the subject at hand than the expert witnesses provided by the parties. As a software engineer, I know it would drive me nuts as a juror to be presented with a computer-related expert witness (on either side) that obviously was trying to blow sunshine up the jury's skirt and not be able to ask questions to find out what the real story was. We won't get into the stuff like jury nullification and the sometimes ridiculous instructions the jury is given and expected to abide by.
I understand that the idea is to prevent bias and to provide the fairest possible trial for both participants in the case. However, I believe it results in a less-than-optimal jury, and the jury not getting the most and best information possible and being severely hamstrung in what they can do.
Not a lawyer, but I'd hope the jury instructions about "making available" being functionally equivalent to "copyright infringement" might come into play as well. It sure made the case a lot easier for the jury to decide in favor of the RIAA without having been presented with any direct proof of infringement.
IMHO this is a shortsighted attitude, if only because "IP ownership" is entirely a legal/financial fiction.
Agreed, and given that in the U.S. the entire purpose of copyright is stated as providing a benefit to the creators of works in order to encourage them to create more, it's ridiculous that there's so much emphasis on the owners/distributors of said works. Given what copyright is supposed to accomplish, I really see no good reason to allow its assignment to anyone else by the work's original creator.
For example, what if someone did have a bomb or gun in their carry-on? Do your really want to have them surrounded by 500+ edgy people (with no shoes on) being pushed through one-way security gates?
That's something I've never understood but have often wondered - the passengers are having their safety endangered an awful lot by having so many herded together into such a small space. On average, it's been my experience that there are often at least 2-3 flights' worth of people queued up waiting for the latest showing of "Security Theater". It'd really suck if someone decided to bring a bomb and set it off *there*, particularly if it was organized across a number of airports at once.
But, I guess it's okay so long as the DHS/TSA *looks* like it's doing something.
The whole sketch:
..just lost Peoria.
"We handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.
We don't care.
Watch this.. [ she hits buttons maniacally ]
You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string?
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
The scary thing is that Lily Tomlin pretty much nailed it. It's a lot less funny knowing they're *really* like that.
Packet loss is a bitch too.
Juries decide questions of fact. Questions of law are decided by judges.
John Jay would disagree with that statement.
Juries also are also not allowed to be informed about the full extent of their rights and powers under the law, which to me seems to defeat a major reason for having juries in the first place.
Count me as a developer that is keenly aware of the fact that my strengths lie more in the technical side of application development, rather than the UI. I certainly can create a reasonably usable UI, but I'd much rather get a requirements doc from someone that really knows what they're doing and bring that into being. I'll agree part of the problem is exactly as you stated, but another part is convincing the suits (or project leads in the OSS world) that a HMI/usability expert is a worthwhile addition to a project. And then in the open source world, you'd have to find an HMI person with a *really* thick skin, because you just know they're going to get hammered on every little thing by the devs.
In fairness to at least two of those airlines though, they declared bankruptcy not because they had to at the time, but because the bankruptcy laws were about to change and it was *much* more beneficial to both companies to declare when they did, rather than take the chance that they *might* have to declare later when the law wouldn't be nearly so favorable.
Or a police car. :-)
TFA said the po-po would not "confirm or deny" they placed the devices, so I'd say that's probably a "no".
Don't try telling me I'm wrong, I drive on unlit roads pretty much every day.
Yeah, driving on unlit roads is a totally unique experience that only you have had. I manage to avoid problems on an 40-mile long unlit two-lane highway (replete with deer, armadillos, raccoons, possums, and other critters that can and will jump right out at you) that I frequently drive at night, as do the thousands of other people that use that highway every day. Put decent headlights on your car, don't stare into oncoming traffic, and keep your windshield clean as I mentioned before and you won't have problems. If you're driving fast enough where you can't react to something that happens beyond the reach of your headlights, then you're driving too fast for the conditions. Failing all that, simply don't drive those roads at night.
And try being a pedestrian on an unlit road.
[rolls eyes] That's also a real unique experience that I've *never* had myself, and that I addressed in my previous response.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Streetlights won't help reduce the glare of oncoming cars' headlights in the least, unless you're suggesting that the roads be so brightly lit that it won't be necessary to use headlights at all. Keeping one's windshield clean helps quite a lot with this problem.
:-)
For those walking at night along an unlit road at night, they have these devices called "flashlights" that can help with the other concerns you voiced, and reflective clothing goes a long way towards preventing an unpleasant encounter between pedestrians and traffic. I would say that five dollars spent on a flashlight for one's own safety is a far more efficient solution to the problem than to have everyone else pay thousands of dollars for streetlights and the power to run them, with the attendant light pollution problems.
And whether Alpha Centauri is visible isn't an issue for the vast majority of residents of the Northern Hemisphere as it's always below the horizon even on a totally dark, clear night for them.
I'd settle for just a durable power window mechanism, instead of those Bowden cable pieces of shit they use now.
How the hell did this get modded Flamebait?
Then he should be charged with fraud, not copyright infringement through some twisted interpretation of an already twisted law.