Freedom of speech is about being free to express ideas and opinions, it is not about being free to express those ideas and opinions in whatever manner one chooses. Hate speech is not about express ideas and opinions but instead about intimidating and threatening others. You don't like blacks or Jews, fine, that is an idea or opinion you are free to express. Doing it in a manner that borders on inciting violence or is threatening or is an excercise of speech, but instead is one of power.
Either your grandfather fought to stop leaders of the Nazi party from excercising their right to free speech or he fought to stop the tyranny brought on by the leaders of the Nazi party. You can't have it both ways. Likewise, if hate speech is just another example of free speech to be protected, then so is child pornography, snuff films, and all sorts of other things. Maybe the Boston marathon bombers were simplly using an extreme method to excercise their free speech?
No, all the right enshrined in the notion of freedom of speech means is that one is free to express one's ideas and opinions. It does not protect all the means of that expression my take.
I don't understand how people call "improving civility" legitimate. It's literally the exact opposite. The first amendment exists because you can offend people and/or not be civil. If you disallow that, you're saying people don't have a right to speak freely. Yet, we here we have craznar trolling. go figure.
Free speech is freedom to express one's ideas and opinions, it does not include all the different ways those ideas and opinions can be communicated, unless the form of the communication is part of the idea itself (as is often the case with works of art). As such, uttering profanity is not considered free speech and is why decency laws do not infringe on one's free speech rights. Profanity, for example, is not an idea or an opinion, it may be used to express an idea or an opinion, but there is no right to allow all forms of expression. So, improving civility, does not limit one's right to express one's ideas or opinions, it only limits the form of expression that may be used.
Federal resources are appreciated in an emergency. They save lives. Federal bullying is not appreciated in an emergency. It can jeopardize lives. There are examples of them doing it right, and of them doing it wrong. This UAV incident seems to be the latter.
Unless there are regulations about federal agencies using drones/UAVs on the American public. It would seem that a mentality of the ends justifying the means is not really a good practice for the government to use.
ncidentally, when ObamaCare was being debated, most of the people I know familiar with this hoped that health insurance would be nationalized (for other reasons), but a convenient side effect would be it would quickly be cost effective to sequence the average American's DNA allowing them to provide better care.
Nationalized healthcare/insurance ore even mandating private insurance cover it doesn't make it any more cost effective. It simply solves the problem of who is going to pay for it. If the process isn't cost effective or the cost benefit ratio is poor, nationalizing the payment doesn't change that.
So there will be a universal database of sequenced genomes from this generation, on
Why would universal sequencing imply a database? You can get it on a media the same way you get a birth certificate. If you lose it, your problem (at least the genome can be re-sequenced, unlike other kinds of medical records).
It will be supported by liberals to "save the children"
How obviously reasonable medical regulations and procedures correspond with "liberalism" or "non-liberalism" is beyond me. I have yet to see "liberal" and "non-liberal" doctors - so far, I haven't seen any such dichotomy in my country. Doctors around here seem to be very uniform in how they deal with their work (which could be an artifact of our socialistic past, but still, I just can't see any one of them rejecting useful and money-saving preventative measures).
If the data isn't going to be stored, then why use it? Sure, you will know your genome (unless you lose it), but why should the government mandate this. You can go pay for it and get it done now. No, the only reason to do it to everyone is so it is stored and tracked, either for future research purposes, or more sinister reasons.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
What a pointless, unfunny comment. I don't know what a "bio-chemical reaction" is. If you mean a chemical reaction, then no, proteins do not react that way. The composition of the protein does not change, in the way that two reacting chemicals would change their bonding or electron counts. In general, the protein is simply shaped in a way that fits the molecule better than other molecules (i.e., it recognizes the molecule), holding it in place so that other reactions can happen more favorably. Metalloenzymes come closer to your notion of a chemical reaction with a protein, but the protein part of the enzyme is still there just to position the reactant close to the catalytic center.
Biochemical reactions are those chemical processes necessary for life as opposed chemical reactions which include all organic and inorganic reactions. As such a biochemical reaction does not mean that the different molecules combine with each other like sodium and chloride do. Enzymes are a prime example of molecule that reacts in a biochemical reaction.
But my actual point was with USA Today style of the description: Computer-designed proteins that can recognize and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality. Would be more accurately written as Computer-designed proteins that can target and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality.
Yes, to some it may just be semantics, but words are important and on a news site that says it caters to nerds and presumably other intellectuals, one would hope the bar would be higher than what can be found in pop magazines and the regular media.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
I don't think there's an established limit of complexity of the biochemical reactions where we're supposed to attribute or stop attributing meaning to what's no more than a chemical inevitable consequence.
I would like to see an explanation as to how a protein can recognize anything. Last I checked, there is not even the simplest nervous system. To recognize implies a higher brain function and if proteins have developed that, then we better all be worried. On the other hand, I do understand that proteins can be designed, as in this article, to target certain other molecules, but that is a simple chemical process.
Obviously it wasn't obvious, or Dcnjoe60 wouldn't have made that comment!
It was obvious, however, if I want metaphorical descriptions, I can go to the regular press. But on a site that is supposed to cater to educated people (nerds per the masthead), why not use a more technical description instead of one you might find in USA Today or some other media directed to a 6th grade education? Even the word target is much more accurate than recognize.
Time and time again, we discuss on/. the dumbing down of society, particularly in the areas of science and technology. It's just surprising to see/. contributing to that process by using metaphorical descriptions to summarize a technical article.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
It simply proves that through a process of survival of the fittest, English is evolving at the expense of weaker languages into the perfect language.:-)
Eventually all you will have is English, and all the programming languages derived from it.
Bob.
Actually, survival of the fittest has pretty much been discounted, at least Darwin's version. If anything, survival of the fittest would mean that humans would not be here because we are anything but the fittest for our environment, at least in terms of early man. Anthropologists hold that what enabled man to survive and eventually dominate the other species and the environment was our ability to cooperate and make up for our weaknesses. Now some would try and argue that that ability made humans the fittest, and in a way it is true, but it is not what is meant by the phrase survival of the fittest.
As for English being the dominant language, I wouldn't discount Mandrian. Besides English is by far an imperfect language based on simple basics like the lack of masculine and feminine nouns so that he means male and also neutral. It is also a very imprecise language where an individual word can have several meanings depending on context.
While I agree about the.. questionable nature of the patent, it was filed in 2010 -- i.e. before that functionality became part of Android. (Though if you could access the camera from the lockscreen with third-party apps, feel free to disregard my silly comment.)
I'm pretty sure that even my Treo let me answer the phone while the screen was locked and a few other features, too. And that was long before Android or iOS.
Either the patent office has the most computer-illiterate patent reviewers or there is an intentional just approve anything mentality there, at least where Apple is concerned. I wonder if Samsung had applied for this patent if it would have been approved?
Purely to play devil's advocate, because I agree that it sounds like a stupid patent...
If you get access to a different set of apps based on which passcode you enter, it's more like a context aware ACL -- when you're fully logged in you get everything, when you're 'partly' logged in you only get a subset.
Of course, I'm pretty sure the last release of Android lets you have profiles in which your kids can only access some of the apps, and you can access all of them. So I'm not entirely certain this is any different than that.
But it can definitely be likened to something like sudo, which we've had for years. This doesn't sound like it's much more than things we already have, but with a tablet. Which pretty much sums up my opinion of software patents -- a system and methodology for doing something exactly like a well-known real world analog, but with a computer.
That would assume that you are logged out when your phone's lock screen is displayed. If that were the case, then you wouldn't receive all of the various notices and alerts from your account. But, since you do, then you are still logged in. It would be more akin to having to access a higher level password in an application to access certain functions. The user id hasn't changed, just the access level. For normal use, these functions are available (receive calls, control music, etc.) To access other applications/more features, you need to enter a passcode. Compare that to any SQL type database, for normal use, you use your password, for advanced use you enter an administrator type password, but you are still logged in, your access level has been temporarily raised.
This ability has existed since the 1960s. What is a bit novel is that Apple is using gestures for entering passcodes. That's fine, then patent that process, but not the whole ACL thing.
I am not at all sure I follow your logic. If not for 9/11, we'd have none of this security theater nonsense. People born post 9/11 are affected by this even if they were not around on 9/11 (and relatively few people were directly affected -- closest I get is multiple friends-of-friends, and I live in a Boston suburb), and it may cause them to change their travel preferences. Most people experienced it only on television -- is there a difference between seeing it live, versus on video? It seems like you are make a fine distinction that is not necessarily justified.
I think we will need to just disagree. However, sociological research norms require that one only look at the population that was alive at the event to study the impact on the lives affected. That is because they aren't studying individual people, but the impact on society and that would be the society that was in existence at the time of the incident. Watching a video of the WTC being hit by the plane today but not living through those days is not the same thing. Just like watching the Challenger explosion today is not the same thing or watching the first man on the moon. That doesn't mean it might not impact one's life, but the further removed one is from the actual event, the less impact there is. Most of us read the Diary of Anne Frank in high school. For most of us, we didn't experience anything like she did or those who lived through those times. We can't because we weren't part of the culture. That doesn't mean we don't have emotions or we don't have feelings, but they are not the same as the lived experience.
When the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, many WWII veterans had symptoms of PTSD brought on by the opening sequences. Those who fought in later wars didn't nor did the population as a whole, but for those who stormed the actual beaches, their life experience changed them. Likewise with 9/11, not being part of the event, not having the fabric of one's sensibilities torn asunder means that one cannot have the same experience as those who did experience it (and by experience it it doesn't mean having to be at ground zero). Sure those who come after us can study it and appreciate what we went through and even come to an understanding, but it is not the same as actually living through those days.
Assuming you are not ancient, you might be saddened by the loss of life from the sinking of the Titanic, but you can't share in the shock and awe that the people of the time did when the unsinkable ship sank. Nor can those who come after us do likewise for that grim day in September.
They would need a charge, which they would not have, or probable cause, which they would not have.
I think we're done here, if all that we have is speculation and bluster.
You are correct, you cannot be held without a charge with the except of suspicion of terrorism or links to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows you to be held pretty much indefinitely without being charged. Just ask all those people in Gitmo. That said, the boarder guards can't do that, that is why they would need to turn you over to homeland security. But they can detain you for as long as it takes for HS to get there and get you. Is it constitutional, no, but it is the Patriot Act.
Are you guys seriously arguing over hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) statistics, and whether those hypothetical data can be obtained at all?
Except this, of course:
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
Apparently you're pulling that very very small likelihood out of your ass.
The discussion itself was based on the OP's statement that more people have been killed post 9/11 but because of 9/11 and in reference specifically to those afraid to fly and choosing to drive instead. The math doesn't work for that statement to be true.For that to work, you would need an additional 300 long distance highway deaths of people traumatized by 9/11 each year. One the fatality rate hasn't increased 300 and has actually dropped and two it ignores other modes of long distance travel available to people besides automobile, such as rail (at least if in most of Europe).
Since the statistics have not significantly changed post 9/11 for traffic fatalities and airline passenger miles is actually increasing, it is hard to see how any statistic showing fatalities among the subset of drivers who chose to drive instead of fly because of the events of 9/11 would be anything other than insignificant. If you get me the actual figures, I'd be happy to do the actual math for you, but I am quite sure that qualitatively the numbers would be quite low and extrapolating it out would be far less than the number killed that day.
Now, if you include those killed in the Iraqi war and the like, that is a different story, but the OP was talking about driving and flying choices.
I see I didn't really make this clear, but the counter to your point is that schools don't necessarily want parental involvement. We get in the way. We cost money, and we question the judgement of professionals. You can see where that might be a problem.
Oh, that's a totally different problem. Whether they want parental involvement or not is not really up to them. It's easier for the teachers if the parents aren't involved, at least on some levels, but that is only because the teachers are caught between the parents and the administration and it is the administration that makes the rules. It's like complaining to the bank teller that the loan rates are too high or the deposit rates are too low. The teller doesn't have any say in setting those rates. Likewise, the teacher has very little say in what goes on in today's classroom. It is all based on policies that the teacher has to enforce without having any input. So when a parent steps forward with legitimate concerns or requests, it puts the teacher in a bind.
As for advanced or gifted students, they are a real problem in the public schools because over the past 40 years, the model has been to teach to the lowest common denominator, which leave these kids out. Prior to that, although still common in many parts of the world, the system emphasized the brightest kids in the classroom. The advantage of the old system is that the brightest kids, tomorrows doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. excel. The disadvantage was average kids did average and the lower kids did poorly. So the social engineers said we need to work on bringing educational equality to the public schools.
And they have, but not how they envisioned. They didn't raise the bottom up, but they lowered the top down. Today, for those who can afford it, if they have a bright or gifted child, they do just what the family you described did, they go to private schools for those who can't afford it, they hope for the best but it usually means their kids abilities will never reach their full potential. In the US, they work really hard to make sure that no kid gets left behind in the public schools, but they work equally hard to make sure no kid gets too far ahead either. Then they complain how US public school students fall so far behind other countries in math and science -- it's because a large portion of the kids with real abilities are no longer in the public schools because those schools were no longer equipped to meet their educational needs.
I don't understand why you would only count deaths of people alive on 9/11 -- if some sort of idiotic cultural reaction to 9/11 resulted in a permanent increase in early deaths, that effect applies to people born afterwards. These events are not single-points of change -- we still have our rainbow alert system, we have all the security theater at airports to remind us that Evildoers might want to sneak onto airplanes, etc.
You would only count deaths of people alive on 9/11 because that is the population you are studying. people born post 9/11 couldn't have been included in the death tolls of 9/11 nor were they traumatized by the events of 9/11, so they are outside the scope of comparison. If you are comparing deaths caused by some event (9/11) you have to use the population at that point.
Now when studying the impact of the events of 9/11, it is mainly the impact of people who were alive to experience those events. That is not totally true, there have been societal changes and the like, but the onset of the fear of flying post 9/11 that is linked to the events of that day would be symptomatic of PTSD. For that to be, one has to experience the event first hand.
Look at it this way. Many young people today may know that JFK was assassinated, but it doesn't impact their lives the way it did their parents or grandparents, that is people who were alive at the time it happened. How could it. All they have are the accounts of what happened, but they don't have the experience of what happened. Likewise with somebody born after 9/11. They may be afraid to fly but that fear cannot be blamed directly on 9/11. How could it, they never experienced 9/11. It may be blamed on all the security in airports or things their parents have said or any number of different stimuli, but that isn't the same as being caused by 9/11 itself. All of those other things simply point to a correlation, but not causation. If you were born after 9/11, you would be a young teenager now. For that person, 9/11 was a lifetime ago.
That is why if you are studying the effects of 9/11 and looking for behavior changes caused by 9/11 you must look at the people who were alive at the time. Any other group, never experienced 9/11, so any behavior changes would be caused by something other than the events of that day (which doesn't lessen their fears, any, it simply means their PTSD or their phobia, depending on how it presents, wasn't caused by an event that occurred before they were even born or had awareness of the event at all).
Be careful of generalizations. Slashdot is not a homogenous population.
But with that said, I will lay good money that eventually, automated cars will be driving faster than currently posted speed limits.
Driving faster than currently posted speed limits is not the same as driving faster than the posted speed limit. Although it would make for an interesting court case. "I wasn't speeding, your honor, it was my car."
you assume the effect is ended, which does not strike a particular chord with me. My wife, for one, is now scared of flying.
Your wife is still alive, so, she is not a fatality caused by people changing their travel habits post 9/11. Note that the statement was that most the fatalities of 9/11 happened after 9/11. That statement was made a particular date and time and therefore should be measurable as of the date and time. Even if we extend it out to infinity, it would only include the people who were alive on 9/11 (because if you weren't born, you couldn't be included as a fatality that day) and then only those who perished in a travel related accident where there was a conscious decision to not fly because of the events of 9/11. So, that eliminates all short distance travel and only includes travel in lieu of the flight portion (or related to the flight such as commute to/from airport). Finally, to further complicate the calculation, there were already those as of 9/11 who were afraid to fly and would chose other modes of transport to avoid flying. Any accidents leading to deaths for this group from non-flying would also be eliminated because the phobia was pre-existing and not 9/11 related.
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
How are these speed limiters going to be shown to be active and functional in vehicles? What means are going to be used for testing? I suspect the means, if people are exceeding the speed limit then they will be stopped and ticketed. How is that different than now? Perhaps I am missing an important detail. I'd like the people advocating for this law to enlighten me on what it is that I may have missed.
The stop and ticket method doesn't seem very effective now, maybe that is the important detail you are missing. As for all the other stuff you listed in your post, Some people will always want to break the law for whatever reason, whether to drive fast or to make meth. That doesn't mean that society should bend over backwards to assist them. If you want to drive 100mph on your private property, disable the limiter and go for it. If you want to be able to drive a vehicle on public roads, then abide by the law. Is that too hard of a concept?
It's really funny that on/. people are really enamoured with google's self-driving cars and also really against limited cars to the speed limit. Does anybody really believe that google's cars are going to drive faster than the posted speed limit?
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of speech is about being free to express ideas and opinions, it is not about being free to express those ideas and opinions in whatever manner one chooses. Hate speech is not about express ideas and opinions but instead about intimidating and threatening others. You don't like blacks or Jews, fine, that is an idea or opinion you are free to express. Doing it in a manner that borders on inciting violence or is threatening or is an excercise of speech, but instead is one of power.
Either your grandfather fought to stop leaders of the Nazi party from excercising their right to free speech or he fought to stop the tyranny brought on by the leaders of the Nazi party. You can't have it both ways. Likewise, if hate speech is just another example of free speech to be protected, then so is child pornography, snuff films, and all sorts of other things. Maybe the Boston marathon bombers were simplly using an extreme method to excercise their free speech?
No, all the right enshrined in the notion of freedom of speech means is that one is free to express one's ideas and opinions. It does not protect all the means of that expression my take.
I don't understand how people call "improving civility" legitimate. It's literally the exact opposite. The first amendment exists because you can offend people and/or not be civil. If you disallow that, you're saying people don't have a right to speak freely. Yet, we here we have craznar trolling. go figure.
Free speech is freedom to express one's ideas and opinions, it does not include all the different ways those ideas and opinions can be communicated, unless the form of the communication is part of the idea itself (as is often the case with works of art). As such, uttering profanity is not considered free speech and is why decency laws do not infringe on one's free speech rights. Profanity, for example, is not an idea or an opinion, it may be used to express an idea or an opinion, but there is no right to allow all forms of expression. So, improving civility, does not limit one's right to express one's ideas or opinions, it only limits the form of expression that may be used.
Federal resources are appreciated in an emergency. They save lives. Federal bullying is not appreciated in an emergency. It can jeopardize lives. There are examples of them doing it right, and of them doing it wrong. This UAV incident seems to be the latter.
Unless there are regulations about federal agencies using drones/UAVs on the American public. It would seem that a mentality of the ends justifying the means is not really a good practice for the government to use.
No, the problem is that there is no mechanism to punish the government when it does such stuff, other than revolution.
That mechanism has to be created.
That mechanism already exists, it's called a ballot box. However, it is often far too late for the people actually harmed by the government.
ncidentally, when ObamaCare was being debated, most of the people I know familiar with this hoped that health insurance would be nationalized (for other reasons), but a convenient side effect would be it would quickly be cost effective to sequence the average American's DNA allowing them to provide better care.
Nationalized healthcare/insurance ore even mandating private insurance cover it doesn't make it any more cost effective. It simply solves the problem of who is going to pay for it. If the process isn't cost effective or the cost benefit ratio is poor, nationalizing the payment doesn't change that.
So there will be a universal database of sequenced genomes from this generation, on
Why would universal sequencing imply a database? You can get it on a media the same way you get a birth certificate. If you lose it, your problem (at least the genome can be re-sequenced, unlike other kinds of medical records).
It will be supported by liberals to "save the children"
How obviously reasonable medical regulations and procedures correspond with "liberalism" or "non-liberalism" is beyond me. I have yet to see "liberal" and "non-liberal" doctors - so far, I haven't seen any such dichotomy in my country. Doctors around here seem to be very uniform in how they deal with their work (which could be an artifact of our socialistic past, but still, I just can't see any one of them rejecting useful and money-saving preventative measures).
If the data isn't going to be stored, then why use it? Sure, you will know your genome (unless you lose it), but why should the government mandate this. You can go pay for it and get it done now. No, the only reason to do it to everyone is so it is stored and tracked, either for future research purposes, or more sinister reasons.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
What a pointless, unfunny comment. I don't know what a "bio-chemical reaction" is. If you mean a chemical reaction, then no, proteins do not react that way. The composition of the protein does not change, in the way that two reacting chemicals would change their bonding or electron counts. In general, the protein is simply shaped in a way that fits the molecule better than other molecules (i.e., it recognizes the molecule), holding it in place so that other reactions can happen more favorably. Metalloenzymes come closer to your notion of a chemical reaction with a protein, but the protein part of the enzyme is still there just to position the reactant close to the catalytic center.
Biochemical reactions are those chemical processes necessary for life as opposed chemical reactions which include all organic and inorganic reactions. As such a biochemical reaction does not mean that the different molecules combine with each other like sodium and chloride do. Enzymes are a prime example of molecule that reacts in a biochemical reaction.
But my actual point was with USA Today style of the description: Computer-designed proteins that can recognize and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality. Would be more accurately written as Computer-designed proteins that can target and interact with small biological molecules are now a reality.
Yes, to some it may just be semantics, but words are important and on a news site that says it caters to nerds and presumably other intellectuals, one would hope the bar would be higher than what can be found in pop magazines and the regular media.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
Proteins can recognize biological molecules as much as people can recognize other people. Or do you think there's anything but biochemical reactions involved.
I don't think there's an established limit of complexity of the biochemical reactions where we're supposed to attribute or stop attributing meaning to what's no more than a chemical inevitable consequence.
I would like to see an explanation as to how a protein can recognize anything. Last I checked, there is not even the simplest nervous system. To recognize implies a higher brain function and if proteins have developed that, then we better all be worried. On the other hand, I do understand that proteins can be designed, as in this article, to target certain other molecules, but that is a simple chemical process.
Obviously it wasn't obvious, or Dcnjoe60 wouldn't have made that comment!
It was obvious, however, if I want metaphorical descriptions, I can go to the regular press. But on a site that is supposed to cater to educated people (nerds per the masthead), why not use a more technical description instead of one you might find in USA Today or some other media directed to a 6th grade education? Even the word target is much more accurate than recognize.
Time and time again, we discuss on /. the dumbing down of society, particularly in the areas of science and technology. It's just surprising to see /. contributing to that process by using metaphorical descriptions to summarize a technical article.
Really, proteins can recognize small biological molecules? Here I thought that proteins, like other molecules would react with other molecules in a bio-chemical reaction, but to find out that they can actually recognize other molecules is really amazing!
It simply proves that through a process of survival of the fittest, English is evolving at the expense of weaker languages into the perfect language. :-)
Eventually all you will have is English, and all the programming languages derived from it.
Bob.
Actually, survival of the fittest has pretty much been discounted, at least Darwin's version. If anything, survival of the fittest would mean that humans would not be here because we are anything but the fittest for our environment, at least in terms of early man. Anthropologists hold that what enabled man to survive and eventually dominate the other species and the environment was our ability to cooperate and make up for our weaknesses. Now some would try and argue that that ability made humans the fittest, and in a way it is true, but it is not what is meant by the phrase survival of the fittest.
As for English being the dominant language, I wouldn't discount Mandrian. Besides English is by far an imperfect language based on simple basics like the lack of masculine and feminine nouns so that he means male and also neutral. It is also a very imprecise language where an individual word can have several meanings depending on context.
While I agree about the.. questionable nature of the patent, it was filed in 2010 -- i.e. before that functionality became part of Android. (Though if you could access the camera from the lockscreen with third-party apps, feel free to disregard my silly comment.)
I'm pretty sure that even my Treo let me answer the phone while the screen was locked and a few other features, too. And that was long before Android or iOS.
Either the patent office has the most computer-illiterate patent reviewers or there is an intentional just approve anything mentality there, at least where Apple is concerned. I wonder if Samsung had applied for this patent if it would have been approved?
Purely to play devil's advocate, because I agree that it sounds like a stupid patent ...
If you get access to a different set of apps based on which passcode you enter, it's more like a context aware ACL -- when you're fully logged in you get everything, when you're 'partly' logged in you only get a subset.
Of course, I'm pretty sure the last release of Android lets you have profiles in which your kids can only access some of the apps, and you can access all of them. So I'm not entirely certain this is any different than that.
But it can definitely be likened to something like sudo, which we've had for years. This doesn't sound like it's much more than things we already have, but with a tablet. Which pretty much sums up my opinion of software patents -- a system and methodology for doing something exactly like a well-known real world analog, but with a computer.
That would assume that you are logged out when your phone's lock screen is displayed. If that were the case, then you wouldn't receive all of the various notices and alerts from your account. But, since you do, then you are still logged in. It would be more akin to having to access a higher level password in an application to access certain functions. The user id hasn't changed, just the access level. For normal use, these functions are available (receive calls, control music, etc.) To access other applications/more features, you need to enter a passcode. Compare that to any SQL type database, for normal use, you use your password, for advanced use you enter an administrator type password, but you are still logged in, your access level has been temporarily raised.
This ability has existed since the 1960s. What is a bit novel is that Apple is using gestures for entering passcodes. That's fine, then patent that process, but not the whole ACL thing.
It sounds rather a lot like an Access Control List to me. I fail to see what's new about it
Because Apple said it's new, that's what.
I am not at all sure I follow your logic. If not for 9/11, we'd have none of this security theater nonsense. People born post 9/11 are affected by this even if they were not around on 9/11 (and relatively few people were directly affected -- closest I get is multiple friends-of-friends, and I live in a Boston suburb), and it may cause them to change their travel preferences. Most people experienced it only on television -- is there a difference between seeing it live, versus on video? It seems like you are make a fine distinction that is not necessarily justified.
I think we will need to just disagree. However, sociological research norms require that one only look at the population that was alive at the event to study the impact on the lives affected. That is because they aren't studying individual people, but the impact on society and that would be the society that was in existence at the time of the incident. Watching a video of the WTC being hit by the plane today but not living through those days is not the same thing. Just like watching the Challenger explosion today is not the same thing or watching the first man on the moon. That doesn't mean it might not impact one's life, but the further removed one is from the actual event, the less impact there is. Most of us read the Diary of Anne Frank in high school. For most of us, we didn't experience anything like she did or those who lived through those times. We can't because we weren't part of the culture. That doesn't mean we don't have emotions or we don't have feelings, but they are not the same as the lived experience.
When the movie Saving Private Ryan was released, many WWII veterans had symptoms of PTSD brought on by the opening sequences. Those who fought in later wars didn't nor did the population as a whole, but for those who stormed the actual beaches, their life experience changed them. Likewise with 9/11, not being part of the event, not having the fabric of one's sensibilities torn asunder means that one cannot have the same experience as those who did experience it (and by experience it it doesn't mean having to be at ground zero). Sure those who come after us can study it and appreciate what we went through and even come to an understanding, but it is not the same as actually living through those days.
Assuming you are not ancient, you might be saddened by the loss of life from the sinking of the Titanic, but you can't share in the shock and awe that the people of the time did when the unsinkable ship sank. Nor can those who come after us do likewise for that grim day in September.
They would need a charge, which they would not have, or probable cause, which they would not have.
I think we're done here, if all that we have is speculation and bluster.
You are correct, you cannot be held without a charge with the except of suspicion of terrorism or links to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows you to be held pretty much indefinitely without being charged. Just ask all those people in Gitmo. That said, the boarder guards can't do that, that is why they would need to turn you over to homeland security. But they can detain you for as long as it takes for HS to get there and get you. Is it constitutional, no, but it is the Patriot Act.
Are you guys seriously arguing over hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) statistics, and whether those hypothetical data can be obtained at all?
Except this, of course:
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
Apparently you're pulling that very very small likelihood out of your ass.
The discussion itself was based on the OP's statement that more people have been killed post 9/11 but because of 9/11 and in reference specifically to those afraid to fly and choosing to drive instead. The math doesn't work for that statement to be true.For that to work, you would need an additional 300 long distance highway deaths of people traumatized by 9/11 each year. One the fatality rate hasn't increased 300 and has actually dropped and two it ignores other modes of long distance travel available to people besides automobile, such as rail (at least if in most of Europe).
Since the statistics have not significantly changed post 9/11 for traffic fatalities and airline passenger miles is actually increasing, it is hard to see how any statistic showing fatalities among the subset of drivers who chose to drive instead of fly because of the events of 9/11 would be anything other than insignificant. If you get me the actual figures, I'd be happy to do the actual math for you, but I am quite sure that qualitatively the numbers would be quite low and extrapolating it out would be far less than the number killed that day.
Now, if you include those killed in the Iraqi war and the like, that is a different story, but the OP was talking about driving and flying choices.
I see I didn't really make this clear, but the counter to your point is that schools don't necessarily want parental involvement. We get in the way. We cost money, and we question the judgement of professionals. You can see where that might be a problem.
Oh, that's a totally different problem. Whether they want parental involvement or not is not really up to them. It's easier for the teachers if the parents aren't involved, at least on some levels, but that is only because the teachers are caught between the parents and the administration and it is the administration that makes the rules. It's like complaining to the bank teller that the loan rates are too high or the deposit rates are too low. The teller doesn't have any say in setting those rates. Likewise, the teacher has very little say in what goes on in today's classroom. It is all based on policies that the teacher has to enforce without having any input. So when a parent steps forward with legitimate concerns or requests, it puts the teacher in a bind.
As for advanced or gifted students, they are a real problem in the public schools because over the past 40 years, the model has been to teach to the lowest common denominator, which leave these kids out. Prior to that, although still common in many parts of the world, the system emphasized the brightest kids in the classroom. The advantage of the old system is that the brightest kids, tomorrows doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. excel. The disadvantage was average kids did average and the lower kids did poorly. So the social engineers said we need to work on bringing educational equality to the public schools.
And they have, but not how they envisioned. They didn't raise the bottom up, but they lowered the top down. Today, for those who can afford it, if they have a bright or gifted child, they do just what the family you described did, they go to private schools for those who can't afford it, they hope for the best but it usually means their kids abilities will never reach their full potential. In the US, they work really hard to make sure that no kid gets left behind in the public schools, but they work equally hard to make sure no kid gets too far ahead either. Then they complain how US public school students fall so far behind other countries in math and science -- it's because a large portion of the kids with real abilities are no longer in the public schools because those schools were no longer equipped to meet their educational needs.
I don't understand why you would only count deaths of people alive on 9/11 -- if some sort of idiotic cultural reaction to 9/11 resulted in a permanent increase in early deaths, that effect applies to people born afterwards. These events are not single-points of change -- we still have our rainbow alert system, we have all the security theater at airports to remind us that Evildoers might want to sneak onto airplanes, etc.
You would only count deaths of people alive on 9/11 because that is the population you are studying. people born post 9/11 couldn't have been included in the death tolls of 9/11 nor were they traumatized by the events of 9/11, so they are outside the scope of comparison. If you are comparing deaths caused by some event (9/11) you have to use the population at that point.
Now when studying the impact of the events of 9/11, it is mainly the impact of people who were alive to experience those events. That is not totally true, there have been societal changes and the like, but the onset of the fear of flying post 9/11 that is linked to the events of that day would be symptomatic of PTSD. For that to be, one has to experience the event first hand.
Look at it this way. Many young people today may know that JFK was assassinated, but it doesn't impact their lives the way it did their parents or grandparents, that is people who were alive at the time it happened. How could it. All they have are the accounts of what happened, but they don't have the experience of what happened. Likewise with somebody born after 9/11. They may be afraid to fly but that fear cannot be blamed directly on 9/11. How could it, they never experienced 9/11. It may be blamed on all the security in airports or things their parents have said or any number of different stimuli, but that isn't the same as being caused by 9/11 itself. All of those other things simply point to a correlation, but not causation. If you were born after 9/11, you would be a young teenager now. For that person, 9/11 was a lifetime ago.
That is why if you are studying the effects of 9/11 and looking for behavior changes caused by 9/11 you must look at the people who were alive at the time. Any other group, never experienced 9/11, so any behavior changes would be caused by something other than the events of that day (which doesn't lessen their fears, any, it simply means their PTSD or their phobia, depending on how it presents, wasn't caused by an event that occurred before they were even born or had awareness of the event at all).
Authoritarian Tattle Tales, that's what.
Be careful of generalizations. Slashdot is not a homogenous population.
But with that said, I will lay good money that eventually, automated cars will be driving faster than currently posted speed limits.
Driving faster than currently posted speed limits is not the same as driving faster than the posted speed limit. Although it would make for an interesting court case. "I wasn't speeding, your honor, it was my car."
From my earlier post, and directly from what you quoted:
Why are you pointing out what I already clearly acknowledged?
I was responding to the post I responded to, not your earlier post.
you assume the effect is ended, which does not strike a particular chord with me. My wife, for one, is now scared of flying.
Your wife is still alive, so, she is not a fatality caused by people changing their travel habits post 9/11. Note that the statement was that most the fatalities of 9/11 happened after 9/11. That statement was made a particular date and time and therefore should be measurable as of the date and time. Even if we extend it out to infinity, it would only include the people who were alive on 9/11 (because if you weren't born, you couldn't be included as a fatality that day) and then only those who perished in a travel related accident where there was a conscious decision to not fly because of the events of 9/11. So, that eliminates all short distance travel and only includes travel in lieu of the flight portion (or related to the flight such as commute to/from airport). Finally, to further complicate the calculation, there were already those as of 9/11 who were afraid to fly and would chose other modes of transport to avoid flying. Any accidents leading to deaths for this group from non-flying would also be eliminated because the phobia was pre-existing and not 9/11 related.
When it is all said and done, while there are people who have died in cross country auto accidents who would not have perished if they had flown, the likelihood of those persons who have died choosing to have driven cross country because of 9/11 is statically very, very small.
How are these speed limiters going to be shown to be active and functional in vehicles? What means are going to be used for testing? I suspect the means, if people are exceeding the speed limit then they will be stopped and ticketed. How is that different than now? Perhaps I am missing an important detail. I'd like the people advocating for this law to enlighten me on what it is that I may have missed.
The stop and ticket method doesn't seem very effective now, maybe that is the important detail you are missing. As for all the other stuff you listed in your post, Some people will always want to break the law for whatever reason, whether to drive fast or to make meth. That doesn't mean that society should bend over backwards to assist them. If you want to drive 100mph on your private property, disable the limiter and go for it. If you want to be able to drive a vehicle on public roads, then abide by the law. Is that too hard of a concept?
It's really funny that on /. people are really enamoured with google's self-driving cars and also really against limited cars to the speed limit. Does anybody really believe that google's cars are going to drive faster than the posted speed limit?