> I also think it's fucked up that anyone who's been to prison for more than a year is denied, regardless of whether they've ever used a gun in a crime. For their whole life. It's unamerican.
I agree with your point but not because its unamerican, but because it just enocurages cirminals to get them illegally. I've always thought it was stupid the way that in the US, once you have a criminal record you basically remain marked for life. Its pretty much encouraging people to be lifetime criminals once they have a record, since its often much harder for them to get a job.
I prefer the UK approach that is once you've done your punishment its considered that you've paid your debt to society and you get a fresh start and your record wiped. I'm not sure of the details but I think employers aren't legally allowed to discriminate against ex-cons and often can't even tell if they ever had a criminal conviction. Obviously there are a few exceptions, such as, (I guess) allowing convicted paedos to work with kids, and probably multiple offenders, but it generally allows people to resume as functioning members of society so less of a chance of repeat offending.
OR the stupidity of the law that says you can carry a gun for protection in your car, but you have to lock the ammo in the trunk and the gun in the glovebox.
Sadly I can't find it now, but I definitely remember reading a study that found for radiation exposure, using wired headphones when your phone was transmitting (i.e. during a call) was actually significantly worse than holding the phone to your head, because the headphone wires/headphones themselves directly conducted the EM radiation straight into your ear canals.
Given multiple other studies have already concluded that there actually is no danger from EMR, I seems this must necessarily prove one of: a) every one of those other studies were wrong or have been corrupted, presumably by "big telco" or b) CA are just a bunch of ultra-paranoid wingnuts that want to live in fear.
Apple, Microsoft and Google are all walled gardens, just of different flavours.
I don't care unless the educators finally get a real clue and adopt Gnu/Linux for the classroom, but even I know that just isn't going to ever happen because the Apple/MS/Google all have too much money to ever let it.
Cars still use relays. The do so for current management reasons.
The fact that speed should be determined from the wheel sensor not the GPS is simply a safety issue which doesn't change based on whether cars are designed evolutionarily or if you happen to be a millennial or not.
The rest of your rant is just a ridiculous, illogical and childish personal attack based on total presumption and not even related to what I actually said. The only thing it actually communicates is your own mental immaturity.
>> Dealership removed my box that allowed me to use my phone for what it should be able to do from the factory
Did they check with you first before they did it? If a dealership undid any changes I'd made to my car, without seeking my permission first, I'd be REALLY pissed. I mean who's car do they think it is?
The only thing I could think of would be a speed input from the GPS but that makes no sense either because it should use the speed sensor. Does your speedo still work OK?
From working on avionics for large aircraft I know they get the aircrafts speed from several different sensor/signal inputs that are prioritized then averaged together. I wonder if GM are doing something like that? if they are it makes no sense that removing one sensor should screw the whole thing up, since the whole point of doing that is to make it more robust to individual failures.
That seems to make no sense. Sure the cruise control would use a speed input but that should come from the wheel sensor not the GPS. Its almost as if they purposely designed the car in such a way to stop you doing that.
>> You have ODB-III or similar system which can be read remotely by newer police vehicles.
Please cite references. I don't believe you're right. I've just been googling and everything I've read suggests my Jag only has OBD-II which means the cop has to at least physically plug in a reader into the OBD port to get that info.
But you've apparently identified yet another reason that strengthens my argument to never buy a new car.
I hate the idea that my car is under the control of the manufacturer and is always connected/spying on me (even if I dont pay the Onstar subscription).
Has anyone ever tried ripping the onstar module out of their GM car? I'd consider buying a Chevvy but only if I knew it was possible to rip out the OnStar module without also disabling any other parts of the car.
>> cars have been this way for years now, where ya been?
Not all cars/brands by a long way. Tesla and GM are by far the worst offenders though. My "toy" car I just use for fun/at weekends (2008 Jaguar XKR) definately doesn't have any always-connected or "phone home" crap in it.
>> you actually have to go all the way back to mid-90s and earlier if you want to avoid even the earliest models that had some sort of tracking built-in.
Thats fine by me. Most of the time I drive a 1997 4runner with nearly 200k miles on it. It was dirt cheap to buy, its dirt cheap to maintain and repair (not that I've ever had to), is incredibly reliable, runs great, looks like its going to keep running forever, and I most usually hate the styling of newer cars anyway.
I phoned GM about 6 months ago with the following question: "Which model car do any of their brands make that I can buy without onStar being already installed?". Once the agent got over their quite large initial shock that anyone could even possibly want such a thing, and yes I actually did mean what I was asking for, they went away to research it. I got a call back about 30 minutes later with the news that there isn't a single car in all of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC's entire range where OnStar is even an option. You can't buy any GM car without it being already installed. She told me that you get it free for 6 motnhs or something, but I didn;t have to renew the service. She couldn't/wouldn't confirm that even if you don't renew, it isn't still spying on you, and that they couldn;t control your car through it if they wanted.
Therefore I refuse to buy any GM brands, apart from used ones from pre-onstar years.
Because GM want to include something in your car that they can get continue to charge you monthly payments for, and you have already been sufficiency brainwashed with FUD about "extra safety" etc that you are now a good little consumer sheep.
It seems like the UOC is just the latest in a long string of companies/institutions to repeat this experiment. They could save themselves a LOT of trouble by just looking around at the many others in the industry that already tried this and switched back, but for some reason these mangement types are always arrogant/clueless enough to think they automatically know better and are somehow different.
UOC will now take multiple years of inflicting tremendous pain on themselves before the bean counters will finally admit that they might have got it wrong, and they finallylearn the universal truth that everyone else already knows: Cheap engineers produce very low quality work which pisses off all your customers/users and costs FAR more and takes FAR longer to put right, than just hiring good engineers in the first place ever would have.
>> HTC didn't make the move to save space, but rather to incorporate its "USonic" feature,
Its fine (although rater stupid if avoidable) to include a feature that only works with USB3-connected headphones, but it is completely retarded to then use that as justification to remove the 3.5 jack.
You've just eliminated your product from a (probably very large) market sector of people that care far less about some new DSP gimmick than compatibility with their existing headphones, and not having to spend more money to buy more headphones that now possibly bring further potential issues/limitations because they now have their own batteries.
I'm sure that if you really wanted to go quickly, you could easily find a way. For example if you gave in your notice then just started turning up way late or not at all etc, or worse, became anti-productive, they would let you go or fire you ASAP just to get you out the way.
Slashdot Mirror
> I also think it's fucked up that anyone who's been to prison for more than a year is denied, regardless of whether they've ever used a gun in a crime. For their whole life. It's unamerican.
I agree with your point but not because its unamerican, but because it just enocurages cirminals to get them illegally.
I've always thought it was stupid the way that in the US, once you have a criminal record you basically remain marked for life. Its pretty much encouraging people to be lifetime criminals once they have a record, since its often much harder for them to get a job.
I prefer the UK approach that is once you've done your punishment its considered that you've paid your debt to society and you get a fresh start and your record wiped. I'm not sure of the details but I think employers aren't legally allowed to discriminate against ex-cons and often can't even tell if they ever had a criminal conviction. Obviously there are a few exceptions, such as, (I guess) allowing convicted paedos to work with kids, and probably multiple offenders, but it generally allows people to resume as functioning members of society so less of a chance of repeat offending.
Just reporting on a study I read. I can't explain or validate their findings.
The truth is that even the majority of NRA members back more background checks on all gun purchases.
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
OR the stupidity of the law that says you can carry a gun for protection in your car, but you have to lock the ammo in the trunk and the gun in the glovebox.
Without the same concern, because the old kind of telelphone didn't use microwave radiation to communicate to the exchange.
Sadly I can't find it now, but I definitely remember reading a study that found for radiation exposure, using wired headphones when your phone was transmitting (i.e. during a call) was actually significantly worse than holding the phone to your head, because the headphone wires/headphones themselves directly conducted the EM radiation straight into your ear canals.
Given multiple other studies have already concluded that there actually is no danger from EMR, I seems this must necessarily prove one of:
a) every one of those other studies were wrong or have been corrupted, presumably by "big telco"
or
b) CA are just a bunch of ultra-paranoid wingnuts that want to live in fear.
So which is it actually?
Apple, Microsoft and Google are all walled gardens, just of different flavours.
I don't care unless the educators finally get a real clue and adopt Gnu/Linux for the classroom, but even I know that just isn't going to ever happen because the Apple/MS/Google all have too much money to ever let it.
Cars still use relays. The do so for current management reasons.
The fact that speed should be determined from the wheel sensor not the GPS is simply a safety issue which doesn't change based on whether cars are designed evolutionarily or if you happen to be a millennial or not.
The rest of your rant is just a ridiculous, illogical and childish personal attack based on total presumption and not even related to what I actually said. The only thing it actually communicates is your own mental immaturity.
If that's actually true of GM vehicles, just making that news common knowledge might significantly kill their business.
>> Dealership removed my box that allowed me to use my phone for what it should be able to do from the factory
Did they check with you first before they did it? If a dealership undid any changes I'd made to my car, without seeking my permission first, I'd be REALLY pissed. I mean who's car do they think it is?
Just because they own it is not a good reason to make it compulsory, but hey thats fine by me, it just means they lost a potential sale because of it.
The only thing I could think of would be a speed input from the GPS but that makes no sense either because it should use the speed sensor.
Does your speedo still work OK?
From working on avionics for large aircraft I know they get the aircrafts speed from several different sensor/signal inputs that are prioritized then averaged together.
I wonder if GM are doing something like that? if they are it makes no sense that removing one sensor should screw the whole thing up, since the whole point of doing that is to make it more robust to individual failures.
That seems to make no sense. Sure the cruise control would use a speed input but that should come from the wheel sensor not the GPS. Its almost as if they purposely designed the car in such a way to stop you doing that.
>> losing radio/nav/bluetooth features
Ugh thanks. This sort of thing is exactly what I was worrying about.
>> You have ODB-III or similar system which can be read remotely by newer police vehicles.
Please cite references. I don't believe you're right. I've just been googling and everything I've read suggests my Jag only has OBD-II which means the cop has to at least physically plug in a reader into the OBD port to get that info.
But you've apparently identified yet another reason that strengthens my argument to never buy a new car.
> You have ODB-III or similar system which can be read remotely by newer police vehicles.
Wait whut? they can read that wirelessly? as in they don't need to even jack into the ODB port to read that shit?
I hate the idea that my car is under the control of the manufacturer and is always connected/spying on me (even if I dont pay the Onstar subscription).
Has anyone ever tried ripping the onstar module out of their GM car? I'd consider buying a Chevvy but only if I knew it was possible to rip out the OnStar module without also disabling any other parts of the car.
>> cars have been this way for years now, where ya been?
Not all cars/brands by a long way. Tesla and GM are by far the worst offenders though. My "toy" car I just use for fun/at weekends (2008 Jaguar XKR) definately doesn't have any always-connected or "phone home" crap in it.
>> you actually have to go all the way back to mid-90s and earlier if you want to avoid even the earliest models that had some sort of tracking built-in.
Thats fine by me. Most of the time I drive a 1997 4runner with nearly 200k miles on it. It was dirt cheap to buy, its dirt cheap to maintain and repair (not that I've ever had to), is incredibly reliable, runs great, looks like its going to keep running forever, and I most usually hate the styling of newer cars anyway.
I phoned GM about 6 months ago with the following question: "Which model car do any of their brands make that I can buy without onStar being already installed?".
Once the agent got over their quite large initial shock that anyone could even possibly want such a thing, and yes I actually did mean what I was asking for, they went away to research it.
I got a call back about 30 minutes later with the news that there isn't a single car in all of Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC's entire range where OnStar is even an option. You can't buy any GM car without it being already installed.
She told me that you get it free for 6 motnhs or something, but I didn;t have to renew the service. She couldn't/wouldn't confirm that even if you don't renew, it isn't still spying on you, and that they couldn;t control your car through it if they wanted.
Therefore I refuse to buy any GM brands, apart from used ones from pre-onstar years.
Because GM want to include something in your car that they can get continue to charge you monthly payments for, and you have already been sufficiency brainwashed with FUD about "extra safety" etc that you are now a good little consumer sheep.
It seems like the UOC is just the latest in a long string of companies/institutions to repeat this experiment. They could save themselves a LOT of trouble by just looking around at the many others in the industry that already tried this and switched back, but for some reason these mangement types are always arrogant/clueless enough to think they automatically know better and are somehow different.
UOC will now take multiple years of inflicting tremendous pain on themselves before the bean counters will finally admit that they might have got it wrong, and they finallylearn the universal truth that everyone else already knows: Cheap engineers produce very low quality work which pisses off all your customers/users and costs FAR more and takes FAR longer to put right, than just hiring good engineers in the first place ever would have.
>> HTC didn't make the move to save space, but rather to incorporate its "USonic" feature,
Its fine (although rater stupid if avoidable) to include a feature that only works with USB3-connected headphones, but it is completely retarded to then use that as justification to remove the 3.5 jack.
You've just eliminated your product from a (probably very large) market sector of people that care far less about some new DSP gimmick than compatibility with their existing headphones, and not having to spend more money to buy more headphones that now possibly bring further potential issues/limitations because they now have their own batteries.
I'm sure that if you really wanted to go quickly, you could easily find a way.
For example if you gave in your notice then just started turning up way late or not at all etc, or worse, became anti-productive, they would let you go or fire you ASAP just to get you out the way.
>> compress it without affecting the image quality,
If the compression used is in any way lossy, affecting image quality is by definition inevitable.