Oh, I don't think Microsoft thought it through this completely. I think the original idea was to be seen as a player in the ARM marketplace, and when that did not work out, they took what they could get. It was *not* to leverage Windows Phone 8, apparently, as they're two separate APIs that it would take a lot of effort to merge.
The RT has fixed in consumer minds that ARM isn't the right technology for tablets, Intel is where its at. Surface RT having successfully muddied the waters, it's time to cut the product loose.
The concept makes a little more sense if you think of it as a display that could double as a mirror. Although that would probably cost more. (The video appears to show a real mirror with display features built in.)
Then I asked myself, why aren't all displays also mirrors. I have a mirror app on my phone that uses the front facing camera. Should be an easy thing to do. And then I went oh yeah... Front facing cameras on internet enabled devices, hanging on the wall. No way that could be abused.
Yes. Absolutely. In a democratic system (which we're supposed to have but don't (and a "republic" in the Founder's sense is a subset of "democratic system)), if the people who constitute the government don't care, we're supposed to vote them out. Certainly the system as we have it now is broken, but in terms of "supposed to", abso-fraggin'-lutely the government is supposed to care.
Ok, then. So given that as you said the system is broken (with which I agree) one could say that the government at one time was supposed to care, because that's what we elected them to do. Ok, I'll accept that for the sake of argument. But what about now? Given the current state of things, where our choices are limited to tweedle dum and tweedle dee, with unelected bureaucrats making the real decisions, is this a good time to give the healthcare system (soon to be owned by the government, lock stock and little squidgy bits) the power to deliberately kill people? (With their consent, granted. At least, at first. And then, with their family's consent. And inevitably, when someone in the healthcare system thinks it's a good idea. And finally, when they need the room.)
Intention is determined in court. The police just arrest everyone with a secret compartment and let the courts sort out who is guilty. It isn't the job of the police to determine guilt or innocence. It is their job to arrest people they think might be guilty.
Or something. I don't know anything about society anymore.
Yeah. I think many would argue that most of the damage (physical and otherwise) resulting from a false accusation occurs in the arrest process.
I don't trust government officials, the same people who brought us the post office, healthcare.gov, and a system that when called to assist with a mentally disturbed relative, promptly sends out police to execute same in front of their children, to properly handle individual life-or-death issues. Do you?
I trust them more than a panel of insurance agents who will look as the financials for your expected future premiums and execute you if you aren't a good investment. At least the government is "suposed to" care, the insurance death panels that exist today are happy to kill you for $1.
Wait wait wait. I'm still trying to parse "At least the government is 'supposed to' care". (I'm not talking about the typo -- I knew what you meant.) So,... Is the government supposed to care? Even, for the sake of argument, more than some commercial insurance agent is supposed to care? Keeping in mind, "the government" is just a collection of people, just as any corporation is just a collection of people.
I'm trying to throttle back my incredulity to the point where I can ask this as an honest question, rather than rant, which isn't my intention.
...is that inevitably, knowing how the government works, doctor assisted suicide would inevitably become doctor mandated suicide. "First you give them a choice, then you make it compulsory."
That's why the Republicans are fighting against gay marriage so hard. It gets introduced has an option, but before we know it, gay marriage is going to be mandated.
Yes right put making a fucking idiotic political statement ahead of any realization of how the humane treatment that we give to lesser animals might be a benefit to people too.
I understand the issue. My father in law lingered for years. It took a huge toll on the family, financially and emotionally. I don't think mother-in-law or either of her daughters will ever fully recover.
Regardless of how I feel about the issue, what it comes down to is this: I don't trust government officials, the same people who brought us the post office, healthcare.gov, and a system that when called to assist with a mentally disturbed relative, promptly sends out police to execute same in front of their children, to properly handle individual life-or-death issues. Do you?
I think someone else mentioned that most cash will test positive for cocaine. I travel cross-country about once a year on vacation, so I try to keep track of what cops are looking for, in order to "keep my head down" and get to my destination without drama. I've read that it doesn't matter if nobody in your family has ever *seen* a joint, cops can still find "marijuana debris" in the carpet after ripping out your seats and panels. (Apparently any kind of straw or dried grass-like material counts.) I tell ya, it gives you real confidence in the justice system.
So at a stop, my attitude is "Officer, with all due respect, We both know you don't have probable cause. I am not going to give you permission to search my car, under any circumstances whatsoever. I'm on vacation, so we can stand here until your shift ends if you insist. So.... how 'bout them niners, huh?"
> What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?
Let's not fool ourselves. About the same percentage as the population. Plus a smaller percentage who are attracted to the power, because of what they can do with that power. So on the average, probably a higher percentage than the proles.
We need to understand. Cops are just people. Government officials are just people. Congresspeople are just people. They have no better moral compass than the population, and on average may have worse, because the attraction of naked power tends to filter out the wheat and keep the chaff. (And this goes for both parties, if you live in the US.) Please remember that the next time you vote to have a government official manage some new part of your life.
And I have seen these sort of things for sale in the uk mainly for sales guys to lock their laptops/valuables away. We had an instance where a load (well over a thousand) of our mangers went to a conference to hear the CEO speak. When they all came out they found that some one had smashed the widows on a load of company cars and made off with peoples laptops.
Well yes. Happens here at the convention center all the time. It's almost like it's a side-business for professional seminars.
And note, this is smash-and-grab, not steal-car-take-to-safe-location-strip-to-frame. It's exactly a situation where a hidey hole would be most beneficial, with an entirely legal purpose.
...is that inevitably, knowing how the government works, doctor assisted suicide would inevitably become doctor mandated suicide. "First you give them a choice, then you make it compulsory."
> It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.
As someone else pointed out, the law reads in part ""No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." (Emphasis mine.) How does one gauge the intention of such a compartment?
I used to work a convenience store back in college days. Once a day the supervisor would come by and pick up the receipts. The money was enough to make robbery tempting, but not enough to justify a Brinks service. His car had a small key safe incorporated into the bodywork, welded to the frame, and hidden by a false panel. It was big enough to hold the receipts for all the stores under his control, and was hidden cleverly enough to make discovery unlikely if the car was broken into, and perhaps even if the car was stolen. It's interesting to me that such a law would make this legitimate use of hidden compartments illegal.
I think you've hit on a major point. "Differentiation" is part of the problem. What the customer (in this case -- the Enterprise employee) wants is efficient access to email. Not ads, not cute graphics and sounds, not fancy colors or fancy guis, just to be able to pound through a pile of emails and easily save, reply forward, and send/receive attachments in some reasonably efficient fashion.
My mom was at one time sold on some dumb-ass email service called "incredimail", because it spoke to her and had cute animations and supported putting those sickening kitten graphics and rich flowery formatting that just looks like garbage on non-incredimail clients. It was a pain in the ass to communicate with her. She finally gave up on the tool because it was causing problems for her and for all her relatives, and I managed to transition her to Yahoo Mail. The point is, it took her awhile to realize that there is a price for all those cute little proprietary features. Now she still has to deal with a gooey interface, but at least it's more straightforward and plays better with others.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, keep multiple copies of your data in obscure, geographically diverse locations, and *not* in your house, in case your identity *is* discovered.
Ok, then. She had an expensive hobby, and it made it into Slashdot. I'm good.
At least, the ones that can't fly...
We're such geeks. :-)
Oh, I don't think Microsoft thought it through this completely. I think the original idea was to be seen as a player in the ARM marketplace, and when that did not work out, they took what they could get. It was *not* to leverage Windows Phone 8, apparently, as they're two separate APIs that it would take a lot of effort to merge.
The RT has fixed in consumer minds that ARM isn't the right technology for tablets, Intel is where its at. Surface RT having successfully muddied the waters, it's time to cut the product loose.
The concept makes a little more sense if you think of it as a display that could double as a mirror. Although that would probably cost more. (The video appears to show a real mirror with display features built in.)
Then I asked myself, why aren't all displays also mirrors. I have a mirror app on my phone that uses the front facing camera. Should be an easy thing to do. And then I went oh yeah ... Front facing cameras on internet enabled devices, hanging on the wall. No way that could be abused.
> thanks to poor diets and sedentary lifestyles
So it really was Facebook, then.
And you know this because.....
The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all.
Yes. Absolutely. In a democratic system (which we're supposed to have but don't (and a "republic" in the Founder's sense is a subset of "democratic system)), if the people who constitute the government don't care, we're supposed to vote them out. Certainly the system as we have it now is broken, but in terms of "supposed to", abso-fraggin'-lutely the government is supposed to care.
Ok, then. So given that as you said the system is broken (with which I agree) one could say that the government at one time was supposed to care, because that's what we elected them to do. Ok, I'll accept that for the sake of argument. But what about now? Given the current state of things, where our choices are limited to tweedle dum and tweedle dee, with unelected bureaucrats making the real decisions, is this a good time to give the healthcare system (soon to be owned by the government, lock stock and little squidgy bits) the power to deliberately kill people? (With their consent, granted. At least, at first. And then, with their family's consent. And inevitably, when someone in the healthcare system thinks it's a good idea. And finally, when they need the room.)
Intention is determined in court. The police just arrest everyone with a secret compartment and let the courts sort out who is guilty. It isn't the job of the police to determine guilt or innocence. It is their job to arrest people they think might be guilty.
Or something. I don't know anything about society anymore.
Yeah. I think many would argue that most of the damage (physical and otherwise) resulting from a false accusation occurs in the arrest process.
I don't trust government officials, the same people who brought us the post office, healthcare.gov, and a system that when called to assist with a mentally disturbed relative, promptly sends out police to execute same in front of their children, to properly handle individual life-or-death issues. Do you?
I trust them more than a panel of insurance agents who will look as the financials for your expected future premiums and execute you if you aren't a good investment. At least the government is "suposed to" care, the insurance death panels that exist today are happy to kill you for $1.
Wait wait wait. I'm still trying to parse "At least the government is 'supposed to' care". (I'm not talking about the typo -- I knew what you meant.) So, ... Is the government supposed to care? Even, for the sake of argument, more than some commercial insurance agent is supposed to care? Keeping in mind, "the government" is just a collection of people, just as any corporation is just a collection of people.
I'm trying to throttle back my incredulity to the point where I can ask this as an honest question, rather than rant, which isn't my intention.
Why? Just... why?
That's why the Republicans are fighting against gay marriage so hard. It gets introduced has an option, but before we know it, gay marriage is going to be mandated.
sigh....
But seriously, if all we had to worry about is compulsory gayness, that would be ok with me.
Yes right put making a fucking idiotic political statement ahead of any realization of how the humane treatment that we give to lesser animals might be a benefit to people too.
I understand the issue. My father in law lingered for years. It took a huge toll on the family, financially and emotionally. I don't think mother-in-law or either of her daughters will ever fully recover.
Regardless of how I feel about the issue, what it comes down to is this: I don't trust government officials, the same people who brought us the post office, healthcare.gov, and a system that when called to assist with a mentally disturbed relative, promptly sends out police to execute same in front of their children, to properly handle individual life-or-death issues. Do you?
And yes, that last example was personal.
I think someone else mentioned that most cash will test positive for cocaine. I travel cross-country about once a year on vacation, so I try to keep track of what cops are looking for, in order to "keep my head down" and get to my destination without drama. I've read that it doesn't matter if nobody in your family has ever *seen* a joint, cops can still find "marijuana debris" in the carpet after ripping out your seats and panels. (Apparently any kind of straw or dried grass-like material counts.) I tell ya, it gives you real confidence in the justice system.
So at a stop, my attitude is "Officer, with all due respect, We both know you don't have probable cause. I am not going to give you permission to search my car, under any circumstances whatsoever. I'm on vacation, so we can stand here until your shift ends if you insist. So.... how 'bout them niners, huh?"
> What percentage of police do you suppose are criminals?
Let's not fool ourselves. About the same percentage as the population. Plus a smaller percentage who are attracted to the power, because of what they can do with that power. So on the average, probably a higher percentage than the proles.
We need to understand. Cops are just people. Government officials are just people. Congresspeople are just people. They have no better moral compass than the population, and on average may have worse, because the attraction of naked power tends to filter out the wheat and keep the chaff. (And this goes for both parties, if you live in the US.) Please remember that the next time you vote to have a government official manage some new part of your life.
And I have seen these sort of things for sale in the uk mainly for sales guys to lock their laptops/valuables away. We had an instance where a load (well over a thousand) of our mangers went to a conference to hear the CEO speak. When they all came out they found that some one had smashed the widows on a load of company cars and made off with peoples laptops.
Well yes. Happens here at the convention center all the time. It's almost like it's a side-business for professional seminars.
And note, this is smash-and-grab, not steal-car-take-to-safe-location-strip-to-frame. It's exactly a situation where a hidey hole would be most beneficial, with an entirely legal purpose.
This.
> It would not. The compartment is not being used for drugs. That seems to be what everyone is glazing over.
As someone else pointed out, the law reads in part ""No person shall knowingly operate, possess, or use a vehicle with a hidden compartment with knowledge that the hidden compartment is used or intended to be used to facilitate the unlawful concealment or transportation of a controlled substance." (Emphasis mine.) How does one gauge the intention of such a compartment?
> or intended to be used [...]
And how do they determine that, I wonder?
I used to work a convenience store back in college days. Once a day the supervisor would come by and pick up the receipts. The money was enough to make robbery tempting, but not enough to justify a Brinks service. His car had a small key safe incorporated into the bodywork, welded to the frame, and hidden by a false panel. It was big enough to hold the receipts for all the stores under his control, and was hidden cleverly enough to make discovery unlikely if the car was broken into, and perhaps even if the car was stolen. It's interesting to me that such a law would make this legitimate use of hidden compartments illegal.
I think you've hit on a major point. "Differentiation" is part of the problem. What the customer (in this case -- the Enterprise employee) wants is efficient access to email. Not ads, not cute graphics and sounds, not fancy colors or fancy guis, just to be able to pound through a pile of emails and easily save, reply forward, and send/receive attachments in some reasonably efficient fashion.
My mom was at one time sold on some dumb-ass email service called "incredimail", because it spoke to her and had cute animations and supported putting those sickening kitten graphics and rich flowery formatting that just looks like garbage on non-incredimail clients. It was a pain in the ass to communicate with her. She finally gave up on the tool because it was causing problems for her and for all her relatives, and I managed to transition her to Yahoo Mail. The point is, it took her awhile to realize that there is a price for all those cute little proprietary features. Now she still has to deal with a gooey interface, but at least it's more straightforward and plays better with others.