we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem. Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.
As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way,
People feel that is some one sneaks ahead, by what ever means, that their manhood is somehow besmirched.
I don't condone passing on the shoulders or the lane-splitting motorcyclist. But I'm content to let them get the hell away from me before they crack up. I never feel some how belittled just because some one managed to get in front of me.
Oddly, an amazingly small number of them do crack up, but most of the don't. The only reason most people don't drive that way is because its against the law in most places.
And those two guys prevented you from getting to work, and made it necessary to pull over and stop because you couldn't maintain a safe following distance?
Oh, wait, you DID make it to work, didn't you.
I never said people wouldn't pull in front of you, I said it didn't matter, except to your mistaken sense of manhood. You GOT TO WORK. You weren't late.
This proves it -- you really haven't driven in rush hour traffic.
You did NOT just say that. Seriously, who HASN'T driven in rush hour traffic?
Traffic flows smoothly at safe following distances in computer simulations because computer simulations behave in a rational and controlled fashion.
Computer simulations that simulated a non-real-world traffic pattern would be useless don't you think? And the engineers building these sims are sooooo much dumber than you that they would never notice this, unlike you, with all your real world experience, because they live under their desk and never drive anywhere. Right?
The truth of the matter is engineers have probably given up trying to educate people like you, and are now looking for systems that will force you to be safer inspite of yourself. And that's what this system is all about:
V2V communications enables a vehicle to: sense threats and hazards with a 360 degree awareness of the position of other vehicles and the threat or hazard they present; calculate risk; issue driver advisories or warnings; or take pre-emptive actions to avoid and mitigate crashes.
So, as others have pointed out, someone squeezes in, and then you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and in a very short time you might as well pull over and stop,
And as I have pointed in this thread, this is pure bunk without a shred of scientific evidence to support it. It does not happen in real life. When was the last time you found yourself parked at the side of the road because you let one car or 5 cars change into your lane? It doesn't happen in the real world except where unexpected lane closures force vehicles into single file.
All it takes is a FEW people in each lane with proper following distance to shut down this behavior.
Look, people STOP POSTING NONSENSE.
This has been studied to death by people who actually know something about traffic patterns.
Any system that can enforce a safe following distance totally shuts down this type of behavior, and eliminates any incentive to sneak into a too small slot.
Well, no, but then you slow down more to put a comfortable amount of distance between yourself and the new car in front of you...which causes everyone behind you to brake and/or pass you on the right.
It CAUSES no such thing. Further, with the majority of cars carrying technology to enforce safe following distance there would be no advantage to squeezing in because your car would slow you down to a safe following distance anyway. Infact, a truly well designed system would squawk the instant you tried to squeeze into a slot too small, and slow your vehicle.
Sorry, it just does not happen that way in real life. You made it up.
It only takes a few people dispersed in all lanes to follow safe following rules to totally shut down that type of behavior. Even if 80% of the drivers ignore the rules, a tiny percentage of users behaving properly would shut them down.
That argument works fine if it's just 3 cars on the road, you, the guy in front of you and the one guy who is going to slip into the safety zone. Now put 10,000 impatient fools on the same road and try to leave a safe gap without each and every driver within reach trying to fill it. The horrible truth is, either you leave the smallest possible gap you can (within _your_ safety margin) or the car in the next lane will force themselves into your safe gap.
Actually, that has been pretty much debunked as well. It simply does not happen in any meaningful way.
All it takes is a FEW cars on the road with proper inter-car gaps to totally shut down the behavior you (rationally) fear.
Imagine a FEW cars on the road, say 5%, that had a proper distance enforcing technology. They would naturally be randomly dispersed in all lanes. These would tend to block the impatient fools. They couldn't get to you to cut in front of you (well maybe a small hand full could) because all traffic would be flowing smoothly at safe following distances, and the fools would be more or less stuck where they are.
Agreed. Our track record for producing devices that can do good things while at the same time not doing bad things isn't so great. !
Actually that's an unwarrantedly pessimistic view.
First, in this area (transportation) there are very few precedents for such a system, and even fewer that "at the same time did bad things". In fact most new systems from any field of endeavor have the existing bad things designed out of them at the get go.
Its easy enough to point to hacking and viruses of today's computer systems and say, oh, look at the "bad things" computers bring, without admitting that these "bad things" didn't show up for 20 years, until all of these computers were connected to a network.
In fact MOST "bad things" come along only later, when the conditions of use change drastically, and historically that is where the problems arise.
Its only reasonable to expect any new system to take into account current and easily foreseeable situations and add security for these. But its impossible to predict all possible "bad things" that might occur in the future when a system operational for many years, and someone hangs new functionality on it, or starts using it in unexpected ways.
Its unreasonable to pin this on a bad "track record".
Having an on-board automated system that would tell my wife she's following too closely would certainly end a lot of marital strife. Something about an impartial third party makes advice easier to accept.
Having something that actually reduced vehicle speed to maintain a safe following distance would be even better. With a technology enforced save following distance, some of the other human failures can be compensated for, as well as any problems introduced by the system itself inducing speed reductions. Sure, there is the problem of a mixed fleet, with some vehicles having it, and some not. But that problem solves itself in a few years.
The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.
So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?
Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.
And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.
There is something to be said for having the skill set you will use in the work place even at the expense of not knowing anything significant about the Battle of Jutland, or where in the world Jutland is. After all, with skill in using computers as tools, all of the other things you were supposed to learn in the 4th grade of the 4th year of college are available to you.
The tests used today are a legacy of the past where knowing details was the focus of education. I'd much rather employ someone who knew how do do computer assisted research or build a spread sheet to calculate unit costs than someone well versed in memorized facts that are obsolete as soon as you walk out of the test hall.
Asia is in general much nicer looking than western world. They put a lot of thought on how things look, even to the finest detail, and have done so for centuries.
Actually, the reason they look nice is because they are simply NEW. The west is is still using 100 year old infrastructure. But a much larger percentage of some Asian cities are the result of rapid growth, with most of the large buildings being built post 1960s.
That's not what this is about. It's about putting flywheels in the stations themselves. The energy put back into the 3rd rail is usually wasted since it would require another train to be close to the train braking.
Why, because electricity doesn't flow down the third rail? Are these 3rd rails composed of multiple short segments, fed every few blocks? Just askin9, because I've never seen the electrical connections up close.
Went to the Trouble? What trouble? He live in that same area. Probably knew the number already, or had easy access to it via a copy of Apple's internal phone book or a friend.
He didn't say he knew the guys name, the reporter found that out by calling the phone number. He didn't say he ever met that guy or that he was one of the people allegedly at his house. All he said was they gave him a number to call.
If he is going to make up a story to throw turds on Apple, why wouldn't he go to a little trouble? Especially since its no trouble at all.
Now if he had license plate numbers, and descriptions, I'd be impressed. If he had pictures on his cellphone camera, I'd maybe listen. I still say he made it up.
More likely, Mr Sergio Calderon realized this is the perfect time for a sequel to the iPhone 4 found-in-a-bar story and simply made the whole thing up, and Apple had nothing to do with the story at all.
There isn't a shred of proof the visit or the search ever happened.
I'm pretty sure Apple would come up with something more clever than this juvenile stunt which serves go give them a black eye rather than build demand for the iPhone 5.
Well if they searched the house, as the summary suggests, then it goes a LONG way past mistaking private security for police.
In this day and age, who is smart enough to pick up a lost phone in a bar and then try to sell it superstitiously and is still to dumb to tell a real cop from a rent-a-cop?
Not saying I believe any part of this story. The entire thing may be made from whole cloth since precisely one guy (Sergio Calderon, 22) is making this claim with nothing to back it up except a phone number that could easily be found via other means. (No business card, just a phone number).
Until there is a decision by another Circuit, this ruling serves as precedent for the entire country.
ONLY if a different circuit rules contrary is there any need for SCOTUS to get involved. Its very rare for you to have one right in one part of the country and a lesser right in another. It does happen, but such things are quickly appealed. The equal protection clause (14th) has long since been applied to the Federal level as well as original state level. There is no other Appeals court ruling as directly on point as this one in any other circuit.
All the way to the Supreme Court, and we can have a final ruling that recording public officials in public is, you know, legal.
You don't need it to go that far. I can't see any city or state wanting to contest this much higher, in light of the fact that the ruling was pretty clear. It was after all, just the officers that contested it this far. They didn't have any governmental backing, and the Boston Municipal court had already bitch slapped the officers down and dismissed all charges. I just don't see those guys having the financial backing to go much further.
Unless some other circuit rules contrary, this is the precedent that will be cited country wide.
Slashdot Mirror
we as a society have an interest in seeing the bargain upheld or at least renegotiated to reflect the changing circumstances so that it can continue to be upheld.
Well then trot out these authors, or the heirs of those who are dead AND have abandoned their works and lets us sit down and renegotiate. Google has long asked for any information to find these people or their heirs. They are a search company. They couldn't find them. Your level of indignation suggests you know where they are and how badly they have been treated.
Dead before the cut-off date, (i forget the exact date here, but its somewhere in the 20s IIRC) then there is no problem.
Living and already have given permission or withheld it, again no problem.
But this middle ground of unknown authors, who are quite probably dead with no heirs accounts for a tiny tiny number books, which Google will immediately remove if the authors should appear. Too date, not a one of them have.
As part of society I say abandoned works should be in the public domain and since Google wants to treat them that way then its only fair that everybody get to treat them that way,
And Google prevents this HOW?
Ahem...
Authors in question are DEAD or unknown.
Thats all part of the same problem.
People feel that is some one sneaks ahead, by what ever means, that their manhood is somehow besmirched.
I don't condone passing on the shoulders or the lane-splitting motorcyclist. But I'm content to let them get the hell away from me before they crack up. I never feel some how belittled just because some one managed to get in front of me.
Oddly, an amazingly small number of them do crack up, but most of the don't. The only reason most people don't drive that way is because its against the law in most places.
And those two guys prevented you from getting to work, and made it necessary to pull over and stop because you couldn't maintain a safe following distance?
Oh, wait, you DID make it to work, didn't you.
I never said people wouldn't pull in front of you, I said it didn't matter, except to your mistaken sense of manhood.
You GOT TO WORK. You weren't late.
This proves it -- you really haven't driven in rush hour traffic.
You did NOT just say that. Seriously, who HASN'T driven in rush hour traffic?
Traffic flows smoothly at safe following distances in computer simulations because computer simulations behave in a rational and controlled fashion.
Computer simulations that simulated a non-real-world traffic pattern would be useless don't you think? And the engineers building these sims are sooooo much dumber than you that they would never notice this, unlike you, with all your real world experience, because they live under their desk and never drive anywhere. Right?
The truth of the matter is engineers have probably given up trying to educate people like you, and are now looking for systems that will force you to be safer inspite of yourself. And that's what this system is all about:
V2V communications enables a vehicle to: sense threats and hazards with a 360 degree awareness of the position of other vehicles and the threat or hazard they present; calculate risk; issue driver advisories or warnings; or take pre-emptive actions to avoid and mitigate crashes.
See: http://www.its.dot.gov/research/v2v.htm
So, as others have pointed out, someone squeezes in, and then you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and another squeezes in and you slow down some more and in a very short time you might as well pull over and stop,
And as I have pointed in this thread, this is pure bunk without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.
It does not happen in real life. When was the last time you found yourself parked at the side of the road because you let one car or 5 cars change into your lane? It doesn't happen in the real world except where unexpected lane closures force vehicles into single file.
All it takes is a FEW people in each lane with proper following distance to shut down this behavior.
Look, people STOP POSTING NONSENSE.
This has been studied to death by people who actually know something about traffic patterns.
Any system that can enforce a safe following distance totally shuts down this type of behavior, and eliminates any incentive to sneak into a too small slot.
soooo redundant. Do you never read a thread before you jump in to respond?
Well, no, but then you slow down more to put a comfortable amount of distance between yourself and the new car in front of you...which causes everyone behind you to brake and/or pass you on the right.
It CAUSES no such thing.
Further, with the majority of cars carrying technology to enforce safe following distance there would be no advantage to squeezing in because your car would slow you down to a safe following distance anyway. Infact, a truly well designed system would squawk the instant you tried to squeeze into a slot too small, and slow your vehicle.
Sorry, it just does not happen that way in real life. You made it up.
It only takes a few people dispersed in all lanes to follow safe following rules to totally shut down that type of behavior. Even if 80% of the drivers ignore the rules, a tiny percentage of users behaving properly would shut them down.
http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html read it.
That argument works fine if it's just 3 cars on the road, you, the guy in front of you and the one guy who is going to slip into the safety zone. Now put 10,000 impatient fools on the same road and try to leave a safe gap without each and every driver within reach trying to fill it. The horrible truth is, either you leave the smallest possible gap you can (within _your_ safety margin) or the car in the next lane will force themselves into your safe gap.
Actually, that has been pretty much debunked as well. It simply does not happen in any meaningful way.
All it takes is a FEW cars on the road with proper inter-car gaps to totally shut down the behavior you (rationally) fear.
See this: http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html
Imagine a FEW cars on the road, say 5%, that had a proper distance enforcing technology. They would naturally be randomly dispersed in all lanes. These would tend to block the impatient fools. They couldn't get to you to cut in front of you (well maybe a small hand full could) because all traffic would be flowing smoothly at safe following distances, and the fools would be more or less stuck where they are.
Agreed. Our track record for producing devices that can do good things while at the same time not doing bad things isn't so great. !
Actually that's an unwarrantedly pessimistic view.
First, in this area (transportation) there are very few precedents for such a system, and even fewer that "at the same time did bad things".
In fact most new systems from any field of endeavor have the existing bad things designed out of them at the get go.
Its easy enough to point to hacking and viruses of today's computer systems and say, oh, look at the "bad things" computers bring, without admitting that these "bad things" didn't show up for 20 years, until all of these computers were connected to a network.
In fact MOST "bad things" come along only later, when the conditions of use change drastically, and historically that is where the problems arise.
Its only reasonable to expect any new system to take into account current and easily foreseeable situations and add security for these.
But its impossible to predict all possible "bad things" that might occur in the future when a system operational for many years, and someone hangs new functionality on it, or starts using it in unexpected ways.
Its unreasonable to pin this on a bad "track record".
Having an on-board automated system that would tell my wife she's following too closely would certainly end a lot of marital strife. Something about an impartial third party makes advice easier to accept.
Having something that actually reduced vehicle speed to maintain a safe following distance would be even better. With a technology enforced save following distance, some of the other human failures can be compensated for, as well as any problems introduced by the system itself inducing speed reductions. Sure, there is the problem of a mixed fleet, with some vehicles having it, and some not. But that problem solves itself in a few years.
The problem is, if you put adequate distance between you and the car in front of you for your rate of speed, another driver sees this as an opportunity to squeeze in, which is arguably *more* dangerous.
So what? One more guy ahead of you. Big deal. So F'ing What if someone sneaks in between you and the next car. Did your manhood just get dissed?
Its this "I can't let anyone ahead of me" mentality that is so totally insane, especially when you are in a 40 mile stream of traffic, that is at the heart of some of the stupidest driving you see on the road today.
And, No, it is not arguable more dangerous than flying down the road at 50mph with 8 feet off someone's bumper. Don't even go there.
There is something to be said for having the skill set you will use in the work place even at the expense of not knowing anything significant about the Battle of Jutland, or where in the world Jutland is. After all, with skill in using computers as tools, all of the other things you were supposed to learn in the 4th grade of the 4th year of college are available to you.
The tests used today are a legacy of the past where knowing details was the focus of education. I'd much rather employ someone who knew how do do computer assisted research or build a spread sheet to calculate unit costs than someone well versed in memorized facts that are obsolete as soon as you walk out of the test hall.
Asia is in general much nicer looking than western world. They put a lot of thought on how things look, even to the finest detail, and have done so for centuries.
Actually, the reason they look nice is because they are simply NEW. The west is is still using 100 year old infrastructure. But a much larger percentage of some Asian cities are the result of rapid growth, with most of the large buildings being built post 1960s.
That's not what this is about. It's about putting flywheels in the stations themselves. The energy put back into the 3rd rail is usually wasted since it would require another train to be close to the train braking.
Why, because electricity doesn't flow down the third rail? Are these 3rd rails composed of multiple short segments, fed every few blocks?
Just askin9, because I've never seen the electrical connections up close.
Went to the Trouble?
What trouble?
He live in that same area. Probably knew the number already, or had easy access to it via a copy of Apple's internal phone book or a friend.
He didn't say he knew the guys name, the reporter found that out by calling the phone number.
He didn't say he ever met that guy or that he was one of the people allegedly at his house.
All he said was they gave him a number to call.
If he is going to make up a story to throw turds on Apple, why wouldn't he go to a little trouble?
Especially since its no trouble at all.
Now if he had license plate numbers, and descriptions, I'd be impressed.
If he had pictures on his cellphone camera, I'd maybe listen.
I still say he made it up.
Linkedin?
Facebook?
Friends?
Web?
Apple's own web site?
No business card. He just had a number.
More likely, Mr Sergio Calderon realized this is the perfect time for a sequel to the iPhone 4 found-in-a-bar story and simply made the whole thing up, and Apple had nothing to do with the story at all.
There isn't a shred of proof the visit or the search ever happened.
I'm pretty sure Apple would come up with something more clever than this juvenile stunt which serves go give them a black eye rather than build demand for the iPhone 5.
Well if they searched the house, as the summary suggests, then it goes a LONG way past mistaking private security for police.
In this day and age, who is smart enough to pick up a lost phone in a bar and then try to sell it superstitiously and is still to dumb to tell a real cop from a rent-a-cop?
Not saying I believe any part of this story. The entire thing may be made from whole cloth since precisely one guy (Sergio Calderon, 22) is making this claim with nothing to back it up except a phone number that could easily be found via other means. (No business card, just a phone number).
Until there is a decision by another Circuit, this ruling serves as precedent for the entire country.
ONLY if a different circuit rules contrary is there any need for SCOTUS to get involved. Its very rare for you to have one right in one part of the country and a lesser right in another. It does happen, but such things are quickly appealed. The equal protection clause (14th) has long since been applied to the Federal level as well as original state level. There is no other Appeals court ruling as directly on point as this one in any other circuit.
Yes, but it is not binding precedent across the entire country, unless it comes from the Supreme Court.
Yes it is binding, unless and until a different Federal District has a different ruling. The US is one country.
The state was never part of this. The appeal was made by the officers involved.
All the way to the Supreme Court, and we can have a final ruling that recording public officials in public is, you know, legal.
You don't need it to go that far. I can't see any city or state wanting to contest this much higher, in light of the fact that the ruling was pretty clear. It was after all, just the officers that contested it this far. They didn't have any governmental backing, and the Boston Municipal court had already bitch slapped the officers down and dismissed all charges. I just don't see those guys having the financial backing to go much further.
Unless some other circuit rules contrary, this is the precedent that will be cited country wide.