It's true you couldn't use the full game before the code, but you hadn't paid for it yet.
Uhhh, WTF?
If I go into a store and see a product hanging on the wall saying "Game X, $10" and I buy it, I PAID FOR IT. If I get home and find out I need to buy a "code" to play this game, I'm pissed.
And that's exactly what happened with some games I bought through a local Office Max. SD cards with some old arcade games for the Palm. Heavily discounted/closeout, like $5, but nothing on the outside said anything about having to buy a code to play anything. I get the games in the Palm, wham, thanks for buying us, here's 10 seconds of demo, now go to this website and get the registration code for $x. Fuckers.
The problem with DRM is publishers retaining control on stuff you already paid for, after the fact.
Hmmm. A "nasty" email that doesn't seem very nasty. A "data breach" that released data that every business partner has access to. "Julie188", Julie Bort...
This isn't a non-event being blown into a mountain by a trade rag that wants web hits, is it?
Have you considered that they are not "scrambling" the digital signal, but rather compressing it to save bandwidth, and that the TV's QAM receiver is incapable of uncompressing it?
No, madam, the basic digital signals are encrypted nowadays. It's not compression, not intended to compress anything.
This is actually a perfectly valid strategy. If people will be humiliated every time they question anything related to science,
Calling someone a mouth breather doesn't humiliate them, it insults them. Since they are the taxpayers who fund your research, Dr. Science, you ought to be a little more polite. What insulting people DOES do is 1) make them angry, 2) make them assume you are speaking out your ass, and 3) makes you look like an asshole overall. Which gets us right back to the topic of this article, something about the inability of scientists to communicate with people.
...it will dawn on them that IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS TO MAKE DECISIONS related to science,...
Unfortunately, in a democracy, yes, it is their business to make decisions. It is their right to make decisions for themselves, since nobody died and left you in charge.
and it should be delegated to those who can operate on those concepts without getting laughed out of the room every time they open their mouth.
"Being laughed out of the room" should not be the result of asking questions about how science came to its conclusions. Any scientist who behaves so abysmally should NOT have power delegated to him.
After all, you don't see stupid people arguing with preachers in churches, do you?
Science isn't supposed to be a religion, although nowadays it often is.
Take drag on an object moving through a fluid. It varies as a function of velocity squared. So the last 5% can have an enormous effect on the drag force.
It will increase the drag by 10%, no matter how fast you are going. There is no reason to believe that CO2 has a square law effect on temperature. There is every reason to believe, however, that there are control systems that counteract increasing temperatures.
What the climate scientists have found is that the CO2 levels act in a non linear way on the amount of heat that is trapped by the atmosphere,
Upon which planet have they varied the CO2 concentration while keeping all other variable constant, so that they have observed this non-linear behaviour? Until they have performed this experiment they haven't found anything, they've only hypothesized.
If you do a thought experiment...
That's all that climate scientists have is thought experiments. "Let's think about what happens if the CO2 goes up by 3ppm."
Let's do a real thought experiment. If we are the cause of 5% of the CO2, then cutting back to 1970 levels will drop that to 4%. A one-percent reduction in CO2 will have little to no effect on the system. Money spent trying to cut back is better spent mitigating the effects, since we are neither the cause nor can we stop the real cause.
If our 5% truly puts us past the tipping point, then we would have rushed past tipping a long time ago, when CO2 levels were higher than they are now. Apparently the system is resilient enough to handle CO2. Maybe something will evolve that uses CO2 as food, the same way that some bacteria have evolved to use the SO2 found near underwater hydrothermal vents as food.
How about helping out with the search for the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis?
I have a novel proof of the the Riemann Hypothesis, but the space allowed for a/. post is insufficient to contain it.
At the very least, you should be able to look over the existing efforts and put forth some of your "just can't see" wisdom to filter out the dead-end proofs.
The problem is, you have no proof that the 5% IS significant any more than he has proof that it is not. You have the same religious faith that it IS that he has that it is not. How about some proof from YOU? Where is your experimental evidence?
People don't have the DESIRE to read them, even if time was abundant.
The point was that the information is available for free. Not having desire to access it is irrelevant if there is not enough time to make the effort productive.
(SciAm is increasingly so, sadly).
SciAm became increasingly dumbed-down, caustically skeptic, and fatally political, which is when I dropped my decades-old subscription. The month they inserted a gratuitous reference to Bush #1 into a summary explanation of something to do with crystal formation (as I recall) was the last month.
Worse, a lack of basic fundamentals, since "slope" is pretty easily grasped from very easy, earlier, concepts.
It is, if you think of physical things like roads and sidewalks. But many advanced image processing techniques deal with gradients and derivatives, and how does one have a "slope" when you are talking about a picture anwyay?
As an aside, why must teachers always teach to the slowest (especially in extreme examples such as this), at the determent of the average or exceptional?
The politically incorrect answer is that those people are in the class because of affirmative action, and a college that fails too many affirmative action students winds up with low affirmative action scores and has to "fix" things to keep the federal money.
But, back on the topic of "didn't we do this to ourselves?", here's another data point. I just opened up a copy of EOS (the American Geophysical Union bulletin). Here's a story of a "debate" about global warming held at the European Geophysical Union meeting. Four scientists debating a topic. That's good. Woops. All four were global warming proponents. Now, when I went to school and had to take part in debates, there were always TWO sides presented. Calling a lecture a "debate" makes scientists look silly or stupid at best, dishonest at worst.
Lenses bend light (bending light is very easy to show with a glass, water, and a spoon).
And why do lenses bend light, daddy?
HINT: It's because the speed of light CHANGES depending on the refractive index of the medium through which it passes, which is why the statement that "However, all light always moves at the same speed" is patently absurd and untrue. Your six year old child caught you in a deliberate lie by asking an obvious question.
Can I propose something simple and productive? Can we have a ban on articles about global warming and evolution, since they ALWAYS devolve into both sides repeating the same things and nobody learning anything new? In many cases, it just becomes "does/does not", "says who", and ad hominem.
Does anyone really enjoy wasting their time doing this?
...the dumbed down version says that humans are the descendants of monkeys (the theory actually says that we share a common ancestor with monkeys), and creationists love to play up that imprecision in order to confuse people and weaken the position of scientists.
If you create a false, dumbed-down version of the truth, is it the person who points out the falsity that is responsible for your bad impression, or are you responsible for not being honest in the first place?
...as well as making scientific journals available to the masses and encouraging people to read them...
Every city with a university or college (and that's a lot of them) have a college library with the journals available for free. People simply do not have time to read scientific journals (it's part of my job and I don't have enough time to read all of the ones I should). Nor are scientific journals meant to be a general education on anything. Each paper is so specific to a topic that it cannot stand alone. Yes, there are review papers, but not as many as are necessary. Reading papers requires a background to understand the things that everyone in the field knows and cannot be reprinted every time a paper is printed. ("We've invented a new algorithm for color production in Bayer-encoded CCD camera." What's a CCD? What's "Bayer"? What's "linear interpolation"? What's a "slope"?)
Carbon dioxide is like glass in a greenhouse:... What's so difficult about this?
Where do I start? 1) The earth has been warmer than this before with less CO2, allegedly. 2) You make no mention of the levels of incoming radiation changing. 3a) You make no mention of how you measure the CO2 levels from a hundred thousand years ago, which relies on some really grand assumptions. 3b) You make no mention of how you measured the temperatures from ten thousand years ago, or why we should believe that the current status is the "normal" status. 4) Remember a couple of years ago when scientists were going to prove how bad global warming was because there would be a bumper crop of hurricanes, and there weren't many at all? 5) You provide ZERO proof of causation and zero proof that any human action can stop the process, which means any costs of trying to stop the problem could be better spent dealing with the effects.
I can imagine scientists back in the olden days spreading fear and panic over how our "one continent" (Pangea, didn't they call it?) was splitting up and how we had to take drastic steps to keep it all together. Today we know about plate tectonics. We know it's normal. Xerxes had his foot soldiers whipping the waves to keep back the normally occurring tide. Will our far far descendants look back at us and laugh, because they've figured out that the normal climate for earth is truly 10 degrees higher than what we have now and they'll wonder why we didn't all freeze to death in our ice age?
Nowadays, it seems healthy skepticism has turned unhealthy. Science isn't as respected... in fact, there's a lot of mistrust from the public.
Well, we've brought it upon ourselves, haven't we?
Two decades ago, scientific doomsayers were warning of a global ice age. Now they're warning of a global sauna. Water levels are going to rise to cover the coastal cities. Some coasts are actually rising. Doomsayers were warning that the atom bomb would split the earth into two pieces. Devastation of our food supply due to genetically engineered corn. Two words: cold fusion. One word: Malthus. Scientists talk of the "tricks" to get the data to look right. Those same scientists declare "the debate is over".
Cholesterol is bad for you. Cholesterol is good for you. HFCS is just sugar. Radiation will kill you. Radiation will protect us from terrorists. Alcohol is bad. Red wine is good. Thalidomide will cure you. Thalidomide will deform your fetus. DDT kills mosquitos that transmit fatal diseases, but saving the eggs of some birds is more important.
When science wandered into religion, science lost. How could it not?
In other words, the public wants to be pandered to and scientists have better things to do than explain in small words every detail of their work to people that have the attention span of a gnat.
If scientists want to regain the respect of the people who pay the taxes that fund their research, they have little better to do than explain things in terms the taxpayer can understand.
Probably just depends on whether or not the person is either (a.) overly concerned and diligent (and unable to make an assessment of what is reasonable) or (b.) has a far overdeveloped sense of authority and needs to boss someone around.
More like (c) is tasked with enforcing rules made by people well above her pay grade and in control of her continued employment.
It's like the "all electronic devices off" command. I almost always wear a Bose noice-cancelling headset plugged into the aircraft sound system. Of all the people on the plane, I can probably hear the official announcements better than anyone else, and yet I have had waitresses demand that I turn them off -- which leaves me not able to hear anything. I've taken to covering the red led with black tape so it cannot be seen.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, either. It may be worse having non-technical people trying to make decisions about technical devices than for blanket rules that create an inconvenience at worst.
The cop didn't want him to drive off. The cop told him not to in clear vernacular.
No, he did not. It's simple english. "Do not leave..." is clear vernacular for "do not leave". "You aren't going to..." is telling him that it would be a good idea to stay, but it is not a requirement. Requirements are different than "good idea".
Right, because nobody ever gets arrested for 'disrespecting an officer' --
It is not disrespecting an officer to not obey a demand that wasn't made.
here's what would have happened if the guy had driven off: the officer's report would have said that he gave the guy a direct and lawful order to stay put
That would be a lie. He gave no order. You are making that part up.
If nothing else escalated he would have made bail after spending a night in jail
Yes, if the officer is going to lie about what he said, the guy would go to jail for no reason. I think the point of the posting the guy made was that it turned out that the cop was a reasonable person doing his job keeping track of what is going on in the neighborhood and that treating him that way was a win/win for everyone involved. Now, YOU may have an issue with cops and assume that they lie every chance they get, but others don't have the same experience and find that making the assumptions you do isn't very productive.
If there was even the most minor of escalations then its immediately to resisting arrest
Yes, that's what "giving him enough rope to hang himself" means. The cop clearly did NOT order him to stay, so that if he chose to RUN there would not only be reasonable cause to actually detain him but something to charge him with. (Not "resisting arrest" based on his leaving -- because he wasn't being put under arrest in the first place, but "reckless driving" if he sped off, and then "failure to stop" if he doesn't stop.) If he was actually casing the joint, there is some chance that he would run, even if his record is clear. That's what the cop wanted, and that's why it clearly WAS NOT an order to stay.
If he just got in the car and drove off, there is no 'arrest' that he resisted, and no escalation of anything.
But please, don't bother looking the words up, there is plenty of space in/. for you to be corrected over and over again. You aren't going to post yet another bit of nonsense about this are you? You may take that as a demand that you not post again, but it clearly isn't, except in your oddly shaped universe.
And the university gets much of it's product for free. Many of the professors cover their own salary through grants, the university only provides an office and work space.
You're 180 degrees off course.
Granting agencies expect people paid on grants to do work related to the grant. Period. Whatever time a prof teaches has to be covered by state funds. That's "the product".
That situation is so bad that post-docs, who are supposed to be learning how to be "docs" and writing their own grant requests, actually aren't supposed to write their own grant requests if they are funded from a grant. Grants don't pay for writing other grants, they pay for research.
The "office and work space" a university provides does NOT come from state money, it comes from overhead and returned overhead on grants. That is, a percentage the University skims off the top of a grant that goes to facilities and admin (overhead), and then what gets passed on to the college for the same purpose (returned overhead). Some colleges (heavy research oriented) basically fund the admin and facilities for the rest of the colleges that are heavy teaching oriented.
If the prof buys equipment, the university demands a cut of the grant in exchange for allowing the prof to buy the equipment.
That's the "overhead" that pays for office and labs. It comes not from the Uni, but from the grant.
I've already mentioned that my uncle is a retired cop in a another post under this story.
That's nice. You expect that I've read every article "under this story" looking for your name and memorized all the details. Who's in the fantasy world now?
Just to humor your foolish naivete I ran the original text by him, and he said, "Yep, that officer thought the guy was up to something and didn't want him to drive off."
That's nice. "Didn't want him to drive off" is not the same as detaining him or telling him not to drive off. YOU claimed he was under orders not to leave. YOU are wrong. YOU made it up.
The simple fact is, if he'd gotten in his car and driven off, the cop would not have any probable cause to stop him, not even "disobeying an officer". If the officer intended to detain him, he could have, and would have used appropriate language to convey that fact.
You forgot about step 4. Without the copyright grant, the journal won't publish the paper.
used to be. nowadays there's a move for open access. Some journals allow it for nothing, some require a payment. Either way, the journals get a copyright for their edition, author maintains for other use.
One where we speak english as a native language and know when something is an order and when it isn't. No, not fantasy. Better than one where you fear every encounter with a cop because you can't understand what he is saying to you. But please, turn around and put your hands on your head every time a copy says "hi, how are you" if that makes you feel smarter.
You've heard of the idea of "give someone enough rope to hang himself"? That's what the cop was doing by NOT ordering the OP to stick around.
Hardware is cheap. Migration and Training is not so cheap.
+mod insightful
Buying a new PC where the dealer has installed 7 is cheap. The productivity lost while every employee has to relearn the menu structure (and find all the routine tasks that word 2007 has turned into easter eggs), very expensive.
I know people who are computer literate productive people who are just baffled by office 2007. I had one of them ask me the other day how to slow down basic transitions in powerpoint. It must be a configurable option and not just tied to CPU speed, but he couldn't find it.
A reasonable speed limit in a 2010 Mustang is a lot higher than one for a 1998 Ford Explorer with Firestone tires or for an 18-wheeler
That's why many localities have different speed limits for cars and trucks. Trucks generally ignore that, which is good because otherwise they become impediments to car traffic.
Weather: A reasonable speed when it is dry and light without direct sunlight is higher than what it would be in the rain at night.
And that's why you can get a ticket for speeding ("too fast for conditions") even if you are going the posted speed limit or less. Or it may be written for careless or wreckless.
Traffic: How much space is there between you and the car in front of you, and the car behind you?
And that's called "tailgating" and you can get a ticket for that, too. In fact, in Oregon at least, they advertise that they have a radar that detects tailgaters and you will get a ticket for it.
Obviously intelligent, reasonable people are capable of making these decisions for themselves.
Any argument based on "obvious" is usually not.
Unfortunately, such people are also rare, so the nanny state sets a speed limit based on some pessimistic-average-case scenario.
"Pessimistic" and "average case" are contradictory concepts. In the 50's and 60's, speed limits (for large highways) were based on design. In the 70's and 80's it became a political football based on oil prices. Some places have returned to design limits, most have not.
Considering this thing has to phone home to retreive the emails to print, preventing it from phoning home would cause it to stop working.(see the original post)
I don't recall anything in the original post saying it had to phone home to be able to print. The original article was rather sparse on details.
If you are completely preventing the printer from communicating with HP's email server,
I would have assumed it had its own SMTP server if it is going to have an email address. If it doesn't, then it doesn't really have its own email address, now does it?
The point was and still is, the person who said they needed to do deep packet inspection in order to keep it from phoning home was wrong. That's the only point I was making. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh, WTF?
If I go into a store and see a product hanging on the wall saying "Game X, $10" and I buy it, I PAID FOR IT. If I get home and find out I need to buy a "code" to play this game, I'm pissed.
And that's exactly what happened with some games I bought through a local Office Max. SD cards with some old arcade games for the Palm. Heavily discounted/closeout, like $5, but nothing on the outside said anything about having to buy a code to play anything. I get the games in the Palm, wham, thanks for buying us, here's 10 seconds of demo, now go to this website and get the registration code for $x. Fuckers.
The problem with DRM is publishers retaining control on stuff you already paid for, after the fact.
Yeah, like those games.
He's like the grandfather of relational database systems. Quel truly is the language of the Gods.
This isn't a non-event being blown into a mountain by a trade rag that wants web hits, is it?
No, madam, the basic digital signals are encrypted nowadays. It's not compression, not intended to compress anything.
Calling someone a mouth breather doesn't humiliate them, it insults them. Since they are the taxpayers who fund your research, Dr. Science, you ought to be a little more polite. What insulting people DOES do is 1) make them angry, 2) make them assume you are speaking out your ass, and 3) makes you look like an asshole overall. Which gets us right back to the topic of this article, something about the inability of scientists to communicate with people.
Unfortunately, in a democracy, yes, it is their business to make decisions. It is their right to make decisions for themselves, since nobody died and left you in charge.
and it should be delegated to those who can operate on those concepts without getting laughed out of the room every time they open their mouth.
"Being laughed out of the room" should not be the result of asking questions about how science came to its conclusions. Any scientist who behaves so abysmally should NOT have power delegated to him.
After all, you don't see stupid people arguing with preachers in churches, do you?
Science isn't supposed to be a religion, although nowadays it often is.
It will increase the drag by 10%, no matter how fast you are going. There is no reason to believe that CO2 has a square law effect on temperature. There is every reason to believe, however, that there are control systems that counteract increasing temperatures.
What the climate scientists have found is that the CO2 levels act in a non linear way on the amount of heat that is trapped by the atmosphere,
Upon which planet have they varied the CO2 concentration while keeping all other variable constant, so that they have observed this non-linear behaviour? Until they have performed this experiment they haven't found anything, they've only hypothesized.
If you do a thought experiment ...
That's all that climate scientists have is thought experiments. "Let's think about what happens if the CO2 goes up by 3ppm."
Let's do a real thought experiment. If we are the cause of 5% of the CO2, then cutting back to 1970 levels will drop that to 4%. A one-percent reduction in CO2 will have little to no effect on the system. Money spent trying to cut back is better spent mitigating the effects, since we are neither the cause nor can we stop the real cause.
If our 5% truly puts us past the tipping point, then we would have rushed past tipping a long time ago, when CO2 levels were higher than they are now. Apparently the system is resilient enough to handle CO2. Maybe something will evolve that uses CO2 as food, the same way that some bacteria have evolved to use the SO2 found near underwater hydrothermal vents as food.
I have a novel proof of the the Riemann Hypothesis, but the space allowed for a /. post is insufficient to contain it.
At the very least, you should be able to look over the existing efforts and put forth some of your "just can't see" wisdom to filter out the dead-end proofs.
The problem is, you have no proof that the 5% IS significant any more than he has proof that it is not. You have the same religious faith that it IS that he has that it is not. How about some proof from YOU? Where is your experimental evidence?
My being is always generous. Thanks for noticing.
People don't have the DESIRE to read them, even if time was abundant.
The point was that the information is available for free. Not having desire to access it is irrelevant if there is not enough time to make the effort productive.
(SciAm is increasingly so, sadly).
SciAm became increasingly dumbed-down, caustically skeptic, and fatally political, which is when I dropped my decades-old subscription. The month they inserted a gratuitous reference to Bush #1 into a summary explanation of something to do with crystal formation (as I recall) was the last month.
Worse, a lack of basic fundamentals, since "slope" is pretty easily grasped from very easy, earlier, concepts.
It is, if you think of physical things like roads and sidewalks. But many advanced image processing techniques deal with gradients and derivatives, and how does one have a "slope" when you are talking about a picture anwyay?
As an aside, why must teachers always teach to the slowest (especially in extreme examples such as this), at the determent of the average or exceptional?
The politically incorrect answer is that those people are in the class because of affirmative action, and a college that fails too many affirmative action students winds up with low affirmative action scores and has to "fix" things to keep the federal money.
But, back on the topic of "didn't we do this to ourselves?", here's another data point. I just opened up a copy of EOS (the American Geophysical Union bulletin). Here's a story of a "debate" about global warming held at the European Geophysical Union meeting. Four scientists debating a topic. That's good. Woops. All four were global warming proponents. Now, when I went to school and had to take part in debates, there were always TWO sides presented. Calling a lecture a "debate" makes scientists look silly or stupid at best, dishonest at worst.
And why do lenses bend light, daddy?
HINT: It's because the speed of light CHANGES depending on the refractive index of the medium through which it passes, which is why the statement that "However, all light always moves at the same speed" is patently absurd and untrue. Your six year old child caught you in a deliberate lie by asking an obvious question.
Can I propose something simple and productive? Can we have a ban on articles about global warming and evolution, since they ALWAYS devolve into both sides repeating the same things and nobody learning anything new? In many cases, it just becomes "does/does not", "says who", and ad hominem.
Does anyone really enjoy wasting their time doing this?
Daddy, how do the lenses in my eyeglasses work? Why do the stars twinkle at night?
If you create a false, dumbed-down version of the truth, is it the person who points out the falsity that is responsible for your bad impression, or are you responsible for not being honest in the first place?
Every city with a university or college (and that's a lot of them) have a college library with the journals available for free. People simply do not have time to read scientific journals (it's part of my job and I don't have enough time to read all of the ones I should). Nor are scientific journals meant to be a general education on anything. Each paper is so specific to a topic that it cannot stand alone. Yes, there are review papers, but not as many as are necessary. Reading papers requires a background to understand the things that everyone in the field knows and cannot be reprinted every time a paper is printed. ("We've invented a new algorithm for color production in Bayer-encoded CCD camera." What's a CCD? What's "Bayer"? What's "linear interpolation"? What's a "slope"?)
Where do I start? 1) The earth has been warmer than this before with less CO2, allegedly. 2) You make no mention of the levels of incoming radiation changing. 3a) You make no mention of how you measure the CO2 levels from a hundred thousand years ago, which relies on some really grand assumptions. 3b) You make no mention of how you measured the temperatures from ten thousand years ago, or why we should believe that the current status is the "normal" status. 4) Remember a couple of years ago when scientists were going to prove how bad global warming was because there would be a bumper crop of hurricanes, and there weren't many at all? 5) You provide ZERO proof of causation and zero proof that any human action can stop the process, which means any costs of trying to stop the problem could be better spent dealing with the effects.
I can imagine scientists back in the olden days spreading fear and panic over how our "one continent" (Pangea, didn't they call it?) was splitting up and how we had to take drastic steps to keep it all together. Today we know about plate tectonics. We know it's normal. Xerxes had his foot soldiers whipping the waves to keep back the normally occurring tide. Will our far far descendants look back at us and laugh, because they've figured out that the normal climate for earth is truly 10 degrees higher than what we have now and they'll wonder why we didn't all freeze to death in our ice age?
Well, we've brought it upon ourselves, haven't we?
Two decades ago, scientific doomsayers were warning of a global ice age. Now they're warning of a global sauna. Water levels are going to rise to cover the coastal cities. Some coasts are actually rising. Doomsayers were warning that the atom bomb would split the earth into two pieces. Devastation of our food supply due to genetically engineered corn. Two words: cold fusion. One word: Malthus. Scientists talk of the "tricks" to get the data to look right. Those same scientists declare "the debate is over".
Cholesterol is bad for you. Cholesterol is good for you. HFCS is just sugar. Radiation will kill you. Radiation will protect us from terrorists. Alcohol is bad. Red wine is good. Thalidomide will cure you. Thalidomide will deform your fetus. DDT kills mosquitos that transmit fatal diseases, but saving the eggs of some birds is more important.
When science wandered into religion, science lost. How could it not?
In other words, the public wants to be pandered to and scientists have better things to do than explain in small words every detail of their work to people that have the attention span of a gnat.
If scientists want to regain the respect of the people who pay the taxes that fund their research, they have little better to do than explain things in terms the taxpayer can understand.
More like (c) is tasked with enforcing rules made by people well above her pay grade and in control of her continued employment.
It's like the "all electronic devices off" command. I almost always wear a Bose noice-cancelling headset plugged into the aircraft sound system. Of all the people on the plane, I can probably hear the official announcements better than anyone else, and yet I have had waitresses demand that I turn them off -- which leaves me not able to hear anything. I've taken to covering the red led with black tape so it cannot be seen.
I'm not sure if this is a bad thing, either. It may be worse having non-technical people trying to make decisions about technical devices than for blanket rules that create an inconvenience at worst.
No, he did not. It's simple english. "Do not leave..." is clear vernacular for "do not leave". "You aren't going to ..." is telling him that it would be a good idea to stay, but it is not a requirement. Requirements are different than "good idea".
Right, because nobody ever gets arrested for 'disrespecting an officer' --
It is not disrespecting an officer to not obey a demand that wasn't made.
here's what would have happened if the guy had driven off: the officer's report would have said that he gave the guy a direct and lawful order to stay put
That would be a lie. He gave no order. You are making that part up.
If nothing else escalated he would have made bail after spending a night in jail
Yes, if the officer is going to lie about what he said, the guy would go to jail for no reason. I think the point of the posting the guy made was that it turned out that the cop was a reasonable person doing his job keeping track of what is going on in the neighborhood and that treating him that way was a win/win for everyone involved. Now, YOU may have an issue with cops and assume that they lie every chance they get, but others don't have the same experience and find that making the assumptions you do isn't very productive.
If there was even the most minor of escalations then its immediately to resisting arrest
Yes, that's what "giving him enough rope to hang himself" means. The cop clearly did NOT order him to stay, so that if he chose to RUN there would not only be reasonable cause to actually detain him but something to charge him with. (Not "resisting arrest" based on his leaving -- because he wasn't being put under arrest in the first place, but "reckless driving" if he sped off, and then "failure to stop" if he doesn't stop.) If he was actually casing the joint, there is some chance that he would run, even if his record is clear. That's what the cop wanted, and that's why it clearly WAS NOT an order to stay.
If he just got in the car and drove off, there is no 'arrest' that he resisted, and no escalation of anything.
But please, don't bother looking the words up, there is plenty of space in /. for you to be corrected over and over again. You aren't going to post yet another bit of nonsense about this are you? You may take that as a demand that you not post again, but it clearly isn't, except in your oddly shaped universe.
You're 180 degrees off course.
Granting agencies expect people paid on grants to do work related to the grant. Period. Whatever time a prof teaches has to be covered by state funds. That's "the product".
That situation is so bad that post-docs, who are supposed to be learning how to be "docs" and writing their own grant requests, actually aren't supposed to write their own grant requests if they are funded from a grant. Grants don't pay for writing other grants, they pay for research.
The "office and work space" a university provides does NOT come from state money, it comes from overhead and returned overhead on grants. That is, a percentage the University skims off the top of a grant that goes to facilities and admin (overhead), and then what gets passed on to the college for the same purpose (returned overhead). Some colleges (heavy research oriented) basically fund the admin and facilities for the rest of the colleges that are heavy teaching oriented.
If the prof buys equipment, the university demands a cut of the grant in exchange for allowing the prof to buy the equipment.
That's the "overhead" that pays for office and labs. It comes not from the Uni, but from the grant.
That's nice. You expect that I've read every article "under this story" looking for your name and memorized all the details. Who's in the fantasy world now?
Just to humor your foolish naivete I ran the original text by him, and he said, "Yep, that officer thought the guy was up to something and didn't want him to drive off."
That's nice. "Didn't want him to drive off" is not the same as detaining him or telling him not to drive off. YOU claimed he was under orders not to leave. YOU are wrong. YOU made it up.
The simple fact is, if he'd gotten in his car and driven off, the cop would not have any probable cause to stop him, not even "disobeying an officer". If the officer intended to detain him, he could have, and would have used appropriate language to convey that fact.
used to be. nowadays there's a move for open access. Some journals allow it for nothing, some require a payment. Either way, the journals get a copyright for their edition, author maintains for other use.
One where we speak english as a native language and know when something is an order and when it isn't. No, not fantasy. Better than one where you fear every encounter with a cop because you can't understand what he is saying to you. But please, turn around and put your hands on your head every time a copy says "hi, how are you" if that makes you feel smarter.
You've heard of the idea of "give someone enough rope to hang himself"? That's what the cop was doing by NOT ordering the OP to stick around.
He didn't leave because he decided to go over and talk to the cop. He was free to leave at any time.
+mod insightful
Buying a new PC where the dealer has installed 7 is cheap. The productivity lost while every employee has to relearn the menu structure (and find all the routine tasks that word 2007 has turned into easter eggs), very expensive.
I know people who are computer literate productive people who are just baffled by office 2007. I had one of them ask me the other day how to slow down basic transitions in powerpoint. It must be a configurable option and not just tied to CPU speed, but he couldn't find it.
That's why many localities have different speed limits for cars and trucks. Trucks generally ignore that, which is good because otherwise they become impediments to car traffic.
Weather: A reasonable speed when it is dry and light without direct sunlight is higher than what it would be in the rain at night.
And that's why you can get a ticket for speeding ("too fast for conditions") even if you are going the posted speed limit or less. Or it may be written for careless or wreckless.
Traffic: How much space is there between you and the car in front of you, and the car behind you?
And that's called "tailgating" and you can get a ticket for that, too. In fact, in Oregon at least, they advertise that they have a radar that detects tailgaters and you will get a ticket for it.
Obviously intelligent, reasonable people are capable of making these decisions for themselves.
Any argument based on "obvious" is usually not.
Unfortunately, such people are also rare, so the nanny state sets a speed limit based on some pessimistic-average-case scenario.
"Pessimistic" and "average case" are contradictory concepts. In the 50's and 60's, speed limits (for large highways) were based on design. In the 70's and 80's it became a political football based on oil prices. Some places have returned to design limits, most have not.
I don't recall anything in the original post saying it had to phone home to be able to print. The original article was rather sparse on details.
If you are completely preventing the printer from communicating with HP's email server,
I would have assumed it had its own SMTP server if it is going to have an email address. If it doesn't, then it doesn't really have its own email address, now does it?
The point was and still is, the person who said they needed to do deep packet inspection in order to keep it from phoning home was wrong. That's the only point I was making. Period.