You ever speed because you started for work a couple of minutes late? What about the worst-case scenerio there, running down some six-year-old that can't get out of the way in time? Should *you* be put in prison for ten years?
How about parking your car illegally in front of a store, near a driveway, or near a hydrant? A family could *burn to death* because a ladder or pump truck couldn't get close enough. Should *you* be put in prison for ten years?
It's easy to just say "ten years" if you're the one talking about it. When you choose to take ten years from someone's life, it should be for a darn serious reason. They are going to be ten years less skilled when they get out. They are going to be living on the taxpayer's dime for ten years. We went to the trouble of educating this guy, and now we want to throw him in a caged box for years? Is he likely to ever do this again?
If this were a repeat offense, I could see something like this. I claim that 99% of people out there have done something *stupid* like this are really unlikely to do it again, even without ten years in jail.
Let's say that he gets $21,000 in fines -- $1000 for each incident, potentially more if this guy is wealthy enough to shrug this off -- and maybe 200 hours of community service. Most appropriate would be assisting a local 911 center, so that he can realize how much hassle he's putting people through. He's out the equivalent of around a new car, and he's going to be spending a couple hundred hours of not-fun-time doing work to benefit the community, as opposed to mooching off of taxpayer money.
If he goes out and does it again, then you can nail his ass to the wall. This generated a small amount of annoyance.
If he were a repeat offender, I could see nailing his ass to the wall. There's no reason to drop someone in an iron box for a quarter of their working life because they did a really stupid prank.
One has to consider the actual dissuasion factor. This guy just got his ass nailed for a really dumb and not very nice prank. He's probably *not* going to run out and do this again if he gets fined. Does he *really* need to go to federal prison to ensure that he isn't going to do it again? No. Is he likely to be a danger to others if he isn't put in federal prison? No. So fine him, give the money to the 911 centers, give him some community service, and get him back to being a productive member of society, instead of rotting away in some cell and using taxpayer money.
The intention of the crime was to get his "enemies" in trouble for bogus 911 calls. Not very thought out, but it was definitely not intended to spread fear in the populace.
A counterexample: I place a vase on my windowsill so that the flowers in it can get some sunlight. A truck rolls by and the rumbling knocks the vase out the window. A mother sees the vase falling two stories onto her baby's head. Is she terrified? Absolutely. Were my actions reprehensible? Perhaps. Were they intented to cause terror in the populace? Certainly not. The intent is what matters, not the end effect.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
[syn: {act of terrorism}, {terrorist act}]
Terrorism-related acts are those intending to inflict terror on a *civilian* population.
This was pretty clearly not intended to "inflict terror".
Note that some serial killers, the kind that write letters to the paper to try to put the general populace in the state of fear, probably fall under this umbrella.
It's quite true that "terrorism" means something very much different from what it's been used for.
An assassin may or may not be a terrorist. If the assassin specifically hates the President and kills him, it is not terrorism. If the assassin kills the President because he is a member of an extremist ecology group and wants to demonstrate that politicians that ignore the environment will be killed, he could be considered a terrorist.
People that set off bombs are not necessarily terrorists.
Guerilla warfare aimed at military targets is *not* terrorism. It's guerilla warfare.
Actually, based on reading over old FBI files released under FOIA and seeing the sort of people that the FBI build files on (i.e. just about anyone of note), it wouldn't surprise me if Stallman has a file.
He stands to be a significant player in the next decade or so in the intellectual property world. He has an impact on politics, and is a rabid idealist.
I mean, China's pushing for a domestic software industry and relying on much of his work now, right?
Naw, they're just Satanists. They have the secret Book of Mozilla thing (*still* in Firefox), and their logos show a decided taste for giant flaming creatures looming over the globe.:-)
Heck, if you add in Carmack and all his Satanic symbols, the OSS world is really in deep shit with the religious right.;-)
If the US government wanted to monitor people who had an interest in producing security-related software (and real-world equivalents), they'd have a stack of documents at least tens of millions of pages long. It's possible to dig up data on people online, but it's a pain in the ass (i.e. there aren't great ways to do automated data mining on someone who maintains a set of unassociated pseudonyms, which many security-advocacy folks do), and given the number of people involved, not worth it unless the government decides to *really* panic (think of the FBI-PGP debacle).
I realize that this *sounds* funny, however this is apparently a seriousproblem.
There is reverse engineering work to do first.
XFree86/freedesktop-kernel interaction?
on
XFree86 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Alan,
I dunno how much you dabble with the related code, but how likely is a fork of X going to be to cause issues with the fact that X interfaces with kernel modules...say, freedesktop.org wants to go one way, and XFree86 wants to go another...which supporting code goes in the kernel, or is that a non-issue? I know that it's already caused fun for the Red Hat packagers, who never really expected to have to support multiple XFree86-libs-style packages...
* One: the GPL covers *far*, *far* more software than XFree86. The XFree86 codebase, large as it is perhaps a hundredth of a percent of the GPLed software out there.
* Two: This is not about the license so much as political crap about XFree86. Some people have wanted to fork for a while and are just looking for a reason.
Frankly, I think XFree86 is a lousy thing to fork, because it's the sort of software that's a bitch to maintain, but if KP is up to it, freedesktop.org may be worthwhile. He certainly has the backing of a lot of people, and RH's been making moves towards switching to freedesktop.org for a while.
This seems like a good idea, but NYC is not the whole world -- and if traffic lights in *some* cities are button operated and *some* automatic, it just creates a difficult situation for everyone.
The gripe about X10 imposing latency is pretty significant -- it's annoying even for general use.
X10 really sucks. I've been slowly forcing myself to come to grips with the fact ever since setting up an X10 controller. Among the things wrong with it:
* X10 does not mandate that devices respond to any kind of "ping" or "broadcast". If you misconfigure something, it's annoying to figure out what the addresses of everything are.
* X10 transfers data extremely slowly, giving the high latency that irritates people so much. I realize that fancy signal analysis may cost more, but I've very dubious that the incredibly slow trickle of bits is required.
* X10 as a parotocol is a bit of a hack, and the extensions to it are awful -- for example, my SmartHome light fixture doesn't even support the standard dimming commands -- it uses its own.
* X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.
* X10 isn't even all that inexpensive, which one would expect, given its extreme technical limitations.
Hmmm, your feelings couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're probabaly one of those jerks that sits in the far left hand lane and goes precisely the speed limit just to see how long of a line of traffic they can get stuck behind them would it?
What are you *talking* about? That's the *speed limit*. There's nothing at all wrong with driving the speed limit. It's the maximum speed you can go. You can decrease your speed, but don't call someone following the law a "jerk". If you want to break the law (and don't hurt anyone else) that's generally your deal, but hassling people because *they* aren't breaking the law to facilitate *you* breaking the law is ridiculous.
Computer controlled cars don't need to be remotely controlled. CMU's working on in-car computer systems that will drive your car for you. You can grab a snack or read or something. They've managed to go cross-country *almost* entirely computer-controlled (I don't think the computer understands complex issues like how to pull a car up properly in a gas station.)
While I tend to side with you, I see where the parent is coming from.
There is a set of rules that you are told to follow. However, they can be bypassed to a certain degree...and in general, the people that do so tend to benefit, because of poor and incomplete enforcement of said laws. So it's generally worth it for a company to break a few tax laws, and worth it for someone to generally speed.
It's much better to have a very clear, written set of laws that says "you can't get away with this" and *means* it, not "a small percentage of the time, you can't get away with this".
It's quite frusterating for Bob when Bob sees Al getting away with something and benefiting, when Bob is following the rules.
analog face buttons that feel just like digital click switches--WHY?? (really, they should have made the 4 triggers analog, although they would have probably still ended up being cheap feeling)
I agree, generally. There are a few games that use these usefully, but I don't get a whole lot of good out of these. You just don't have enough control over the small drop in the button to do too much with them.
I'd like to see the new triggers either be analog (the digital X-Box triggers were quite annoying) or to have feedback (a "click" or *sudden* drop in resistance as passing the press point)
poor positioning of the analog sticks (because they were after thoughts only put in due to the N64), not only do they cramp thumbs, but they make it difficult (if not impossible) to hit the start/select buttons without either hitting the sticks or contorting your thumb
Mmm...the start/select buttons usually do not need to be hit suddenly in games. And while I see what you're saying, there isn't much room for two analog sticks *unless* you stick them there.
(3 things) analog stick is too loose, rubbery surface gives no grip for your thumb
I would have liked the analog sticks to be a bit tighter as well, but that might have been fatiguing. I disagree with the thumb grip -- I found that the PS2 controllers have *excellent* grip, and that grip is a major reason why I like the pad so much...the analog sticks don't feel cheap, light, and plasticy like some other consoles.
the broken up d-pad (killer on the thumb) which I do not understand because it's actually one piece of plastic under the surface
That weirded me out at first. Then I used a fully joined circular Logitech pad. It's *much* easier to accidently roll the controller to a diagonal without the separation.
I agree that the Dual Shock 2 (PS2) controller is just about the best gamepad you could buy, unless you have *very* specific needs for one thing or another. If you buy one and a USB adapter from Lik-Sang, you have just about the best gamepad in existence for playing Game Boy, GBA, NES, SNES, Neo-Geo, etc games on your computer.
I do think that a couple changes could be made worthwhile.
People joked about the size of the X-Box controller. While I do think that the thing was a bit awkward (and it was unusual), it did teach me that larger controllers aren't a particularly bizarre idea. I *would* like to have larger grips on the PS2 controller -- thicker and longer.
If Sony can put triggers on the PS2 without ruining the balance, more power to them. One thing I'd like to see -- the triggers being *analog*, unlike the X-Box's ridiculous digital triggers. It's so frusterating to both have no feedback in a trigger to know when it's activated, no click or anything, and to lack analog control, which would make up for not having said feedback.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is, the bigest boogyman is our own damn selves.
I'm a lot more scared of Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfield affecting my life than Osama bin Laden, actually.
You ever speed because you started for work a couple of minutes late? What about the worst-case scenerio there, running down some six-year-old that can't get out of the way in time? Should *you* be put in prison for ten years?
How about parking your car illegally in front of a store, near a driveway, or near a hydrant? A family could *burn to death* because a ladder or pump truck couldn't get close enough. Should *you* be put in prison for ten years?
It's easy to just say "ten years" if you're the one talking about it. When you choose to take ten years from someone's life, it should be for a darn serious reason. They are going to be ten years less skilled when they get out. They are going to be living on the taxpayer's dime for ten years. We went to the trouble of educating this guy, and now we want to throw him in a caged box for years? Is he likely to ever do this again?
If this were a repeat offense, I could see something like this. I claim that 99% of people out there have done something *stupid* like this are really unlikely to do it again, even without ten years in jail.
Let's say that he gets $21,000 in fines -- $1000 for each incident, potentially more if this guy is wealthy enough to shrug this off -- and maybe 200 hours of community service. Most appropriate would be assisting a local 911 center, so that he can realize how much hassle he's putting people through. He's out the equivalent of around a new car, and he's going to be spending a couple hundred hours of not-fun-time doing work to benefit the community, as opposed to mooching off of taxpayer money.
If he goes out and does it again, then you can nail his ass to the wall. This generated a small amount of annoyance.
If he were a repeat offender, I could see nailing his ass to the wall. There's no reason to drop someone in an iron box for a quarter of their working life because they did a really stupid prank.
Agreed.
One has to consider the actual dissuasion factor. This guy just got his ass nailed for a really dumb and not very nice prank. He's probably *not* going to run out and do this again if he gets fined. Does he *really* need to go to federal prison to ensure that he isn't going to do it again? No. Is he likely to be a danger to others if he isn't put in federal prison? No. So fine him, give the money to the 911 centers, give him some community service, and get him back to being a productive member of society, instead of rotting away in some cell and using taxpayer money.
That's not the point.
The intention of the crime was to get his "enemies" in trouble for bogus 911 calls. Not very thought out, but it was definitely not intended to spread fear in the populace.
A counterexample: I place a vase on my windowsill so that the flowers in it can get some sunlight. A truck rolls by and the rumbling knocks the vase out the window. A mother sees the vase falling two stories onto her baby's head. Is she terrified? Absolutely. Were my actions reprehensible? Perhaps. Were they intented to cause terror in the populace? Certainly not. The intent is what matters, not the end effect.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Terrorism \Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.]
The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode
of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence)
against civilians in order to attain goals that are
political or religious or ideological in nature; this is
done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear
[syn: {act of terrorism}, {terrorist act}]
Terrorism-related acts are those intending to inflict terror on a *civilian* population.
This was pretty clearly not intended to "inflict terror".
Note that some serial killers, the kind that write letters to the paper to try to put the general populace in the state of fear, probably fall under this umbrella.
It's quite true that "terrorism" means something very much different from what it's been used for.
An assassin may or may not be a terrorist. If the assassin specifically hates the President and kills him, it is not terrorism. If the assassin kills the President because he is a member of an extremist ecology group and wants to demonstrate that politicians that ignore the environment will be killed, he could be considered a terrorist.
People that set off bombs are not necessarily terrorists.
Guerilla warfare aimed at military targets is *not* terrorism. It's guerilla warfare.
Actually, based on reading over old FBI files released under FOIA and seeing the sort of people that the FBI build files on (i.e. just about anyone of note), it wouldn't surprise me if Stallman has a file.
He stands to be a significant player in the next decade or so in the intellectual property world. He has an impact on politics, and is a rabid idealist.
I mean, China's pushing for a domestic software industry and relying on much of his work now, right?
Naw, they're just Satanists. They have the secret Book of Mozilla thing (*still* in Firefox), and their logos show a decided taste for giant flaming creatures looming over the globe. :-)
;-)
Heck, if you add in Carmack and all his Satanic symbols, the OSS world is really in deep shit with the religious right.
If the US government wanted to monitor people who had an interest in producing security-related software (and real-world equivalents), they'd have a stack of documents at least tens of millions of pages long. It's possible to dig up data on people online, but it's a pain in the ass (i.e. there aren't great ways to do automated data mining on someone who maintains a set of unassociated pseudonyms, which many security-advocacy folks do), and given the number of people involved, not worth it unless the government decides to *really* panic (think of the FBI-PGP debacle).
I realize that this *sounds* funny, however this is apparently a serious problem.
There is reverse engineering work to do first.
Alan,
I dunno how much you dabble with the related code, but how likely is a fork of X going to be to cause issues with the fact that X interfaces with kernel modules...say, freedesktop.org wants to go one way, and XFree86 wants to go another...which supporting code goes in the kernel, or is that a non-issue? I know that it's already caused fun for the Red Hat packagers, who never really expected to have to support multiple XFree86-libs-style packages...
Two reasons why the GPL shouldn't be changed:
* One: the GPL covers *far*, *far* more software than XFree86. The XFree86 codebase, large as it is perhaps a hundredth of a percent of the GPLed software out there.
* Two: This is not about the license so much as political crap about XFree86. Some people have wanted to fork for a while and are just looking for a reason.
Frankly, I think XFree86 is a lousy thing to fork, because it's the sort of software that's a bitch to maintain, but if KP is up to it, freedesktop.org may be worthwhile. He certainly has the backing of a lot of people, and RH's been making moves towards switching to freedesktop.org for a while.
This seems like a good idea, but NYC is not the whole world -- and if traffic lights in *some* cities are button operated and *some* automatic, it just creates a difficult situation for everyone.
Wouldn't you say that that statement is kind of antisocial?
The gripe about X10 imposing latency is pretty significant -- it's annoying even for general use.
X10 really sucks. I've been slowly forcing myself to come to grips with the fact ever since setting up an X10 controller. Among the things wrong with it:
* X10 does not mandate that devices respond to any kind of "ping" or "broadcast". If you misconfigure something, it's annoying to figure out what the addresses of everything are.
* X10 transfers data extremely slowly, giving the high latency that irritates people so much. I realize that fancy signal analysis may cost more, but I've very dubious that the incredibly slow trickle of bits is required.
* X10 as a parotocol is a bit of a hack, and the extensions to it are awful -- for example, my SmartHome light fixture doesn't even support the standard dimming commands -- it uses its own.
* X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.
* X10 isn't even all that inexpensive, which one would expect, given its extreme technical limitations.
The Mac's refresh rate just always seems to give that extra kick over the PC.
This is akin to saying "the fire hydrant's extra boggle makes it better than a giraffe."
Speed limit? Moot. There is no speed limit. Flow of traffic determines speed limit. Period.
That is ridiculous.
You're allowed to break the speed limit when overtaking a vehicle.
While I wouldn't be surprised, I also wouldn't be suprised if this only applies to single-lane highways.
Furthermore, if you are going the speed limit, nobody short of an emergency vehicle has a legitimate reason to pass you.
Hmmm, your feelings couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're probabaly one of those jerks that sits in the far left hand lane and goes precisely the speed limit just to see how long of a line of traffic they can get stuck behind them would it?
What are you *talking* about? That's the *speed limit*. There's nothing at all wrong with driving the speed limit. It's the maximum speed you can go. You can decrease your speed, but don't call someone following the law a "jerk". If you want to break the law (and don't hurt anyone else) that's generally your deal, but hassling people because *they* aren't breaking the law to facilitate *you* breaking the law is ridiculous.
Computer controlled cars don't need to be remotely controlled. CMU's working on in-car computer systems that will drive your car for you. You can grab a snack or read or something. They've managed to go cross-country *almost* entirely computer-controlled (I don't think the computer understands complex issues like how to pull a car up properly in a gas station.)
While I tend to side with you, I see where the parent is coming from.
There is a set of rules that you are told to follow. However, they can be bypassed to a certain degree...and in general, the people that do so tend to benefit, because of poor and incomplete enforcement of said laws. So it's generally worth it for a company to break a few tax laws, and worth it for someone to generally speed.
It's much better to have a very clear, written set of laws that says "you can't get away with this" and *means* it, not "a small percentage of the time, you can't get away with this".
It's quite frusterating for Bob when Bob sees Al getting away with something and benefiting, when Bob is following the rules.
And what if it gave you data that could be used to your benefit ("Bullshit, I was *not* speeding!")
I doubt the adjective was there to indicate amazement -- just to reassure the readers that there was no video splicing or similar going on.
Playing IF with a spouse that also appreciates it does sound like a blast. :-)
I remember watching a friend and his girlfriend play graphic adventures for hours, but there's less thinking involved in most graphic adventures...
No...I know that's a common trick, but some of these sections are *long*.
They have one page per person they interview.
I was actually rather impressed with this "1up" site, which I'd never been at before.
AAAAACCCCKKKK!
:-)
Wait!
You're the SCARE maintainer? I've got patches for you that have been sitting around, and couldn't get in contact with you via email!
One of those adds a command history!
analog face buttons that feel just like digital click switches--WHY?? (really, they should have made the 4 triggers analog, although they would have probably still ended up being cheap feeling)
I agree, generally. There are a few games that use these usefully, but I don't get a whole lot of good out of these. You just don't have enough control over the small drop in the button to do too much with them.
I'd like to see the new triggers either be analog (the digital X-Box triggers were quite annoying) or to have feedback (a "click" or *sudden* drop in resistance as passing the press point)
poor positioning of the analog sticks (because they were after thoughts only put in due to the N64), not only do they cramp thumbs, but they make it difficult (if not impossible) to hit the start/select buttons without either hitting the sticks or contorting your thumb
Mmm...the start/select buttons usually do not need to be hit suddenly in games. And while I see what you're saying, there isn't much room for two analog sticks *unless* you stick them there.
(3 things) analog stick is too loose, rubbery surface gives no grip for your thumb
I would have liked the analog sticks to be a bit tighter as well, but that might have been fatiguing. I disagree with the thumb grip -- I found that the PS2 controllers have *excellent* grip, and that grip is a major reason why I like the pad so much...the analog sticks don't feel cheap, light, and plasticy like some other consoles.
the broken up d-pad (killer on the thumb) which I do not understand because it's actually one piece of plastic under the surface
That weirded me out at first. Then I used a fully joined circular Logitech pad. It's *much* easier to accidently roll the controller to a diagonal without the separation.
I agree that the Dual Shock 2 (PS2) controller is just about the best gamepad you could buy, unless you have *very* specific needs for one thing or another. If you buy one and a USB adapter from Lik-Sang, you have just about the best gamepad in existence for playing Game Boy, GBA, NES, SNES, Neo-Geo, etc games on your computer.
I do think that a couple changes could be made worthwhile.
People joked about the size of the X-Box controller. While I do think that the thing was a bit awkward (and it was unusual), it did teach me that larger controllers aren't a particularly bizarre idea. I *would* like to have larger grips on the PS2 controller -- thicker and longer.
If Sony can put triggers on the PS2 without ruining the balance, more power to them. One thing I'd like to see -- the triggers being *analog*, unlike the X-Box's ridiculous digital triggers. It's so frusterating to both have no feedback in a trigger to know when it's activated, no click or anything, and to lack analog control, which would make up for not having said feedback.