This system is just a cell phone pluged into a computer that can send for help if needed.
Actually it is a bit more than a cellphone, but not worth $300/yr to me. (Only $25/month!!) (My current pay as you go is min $15 every 3 months)
The other features from the commercial like "I locked my keys in my running car" is just dumb. I can't lock the car with the remote or with the internal door locks if the doors are open when the keys are in the ignition on my current car. They should just design away the possiblity of those problems happening anyway.
The thermodynamics of this seems to require compressed air, not merely airflow.
There is a difference, and why supersonic (compressible) flow is so interesting. Most fluid dynamics assume incompressible flow (because it is easier).
Let the market fix it. As people get progressively more annoyed at less targetted advertising it will no longer be cost effective, and it will stop.
The less interested I am, the ruder I am. Maybe the companies will stop calling me, maybe that telemarketer will quit their job, maybe they'll go postal and take out their office. I don't really care. Drive up the cost of marketting like this, and never buy, then they'll stop.
As for wasting their time, I'm not willing to waste mine either.
Lets see, a large successful company is looking around at high profile software politicians.
Isn't this an acceptable way to figure out how to deal with the current software environment? Hire a few experienced people and they could understand, work compete and ultimately be successful in this new more open environment.
What would happen if RMS directed (MS/government) free software policy? If Ralph Nader directed automotive safety?
If there is any more rewriting than explicitly stating the implied requirements I don't think it will have such widespread acceptance.
For example an if you distribute a GPL work, you are also including an implied license to use any patents contained within that work. I expect this to be accepted.
If you use a work and provide only the output to others (ie a web service) you should not have to distribute the source of your application. I do not expect this to gain as widespread support. Mostly because many have already complained they don't like this idea.
Restrictions on use would also violate the philosophy behind free software. This is one of the reasons why there is such an outcry against changing the GPL to some sort of behaviour agreement instead of copyleft.
Wow how newsworthy, yet another f'ing article on what the GPL might contain.
Many oppose changing the GPL from a copyright licence to a usage licence. There are two reasons, 1. Copyright is easier to fight internationally. 2. Free as in freedom should include freedom of usage. Altering this IMO guts the core philosopy of the free software movement.
If you don't care about freedom, use open source instead.
After Canada refused to help in Iraq? That would cause the politicians more loss of face than they are willing.
Conveniently Iraq was a political hot potato on both sides of the Can/US border. With both countries pretty much in a 50/50 split on public opinion. The Canadian government just happened to stumble around like idiots which really didn't help the US. Unfortunately the US didn't focus public attention on how the "allies" were in Afghanistan, and it really is a lot to ask many of these countries to invade 2 countries at the same time. Would have been a nice way to save face for everyone, and it was missed.
We get this topic every now and then. A few years ago it was a rant and attack how dumb managers and supervisors were.
Now we get posts asking and explaining what managers should be doing, and why actual skill in the task of the workers isn't as important as one might think.
Anyone want to take bets on how long till slashdot argues that a MBA is valuable, and CEO's are underpaid?
I wouldn't say the products aren't good, just not good enough. I'll pay $5 + 2 hours of my time to watch a not great movie, I'm just not willing to put up with $40+ the rappy theater environment to watch it.
Music CD's aren't worth $20, so I don't buy them. I'll just turn on the radio. Sometimes I'll see a decent CD on clearance for $5, I might grab it.
I don't think they were underpaid by the industry.
I just think that these people are worth 25% more to google than they were to other companies.
If you work for my company you will make me $100k, I might say it is worthwhile for me to pay you $75k. However if a competator will make $150k from you, he could quite rightly pay you $110k.
I wasn't underpaying you, the job market has just changed. This is competition, and it's a step up.
Basically the market gets 50% more value from the same resource (you). In the economics this is productivity improvement.
I am claiming that this strategy will not achieve the stated goals. If a project will not succeed at its objectives, ie preventing terrorist attacks, it should not proceed.
If there is other merit to the project, ie catching criminals/terrorists after committing a crime, it should be evaluated on those realistic objectives instead.
I think it is dishonest to promote a solution that does not solve the target problem, even if it will result in other benefits.
These cameras will not PREVENT an attack. From the article "We will try everything, and deploy all technologies possible, to prevent an attack from happening,"
Your rebuttal agrees that in my examples attacks were not prevented. If the goal is prevention (as stated in the article). How will this solution achieve it? It won't, so why are we wasting money when it won't solve the problem?
This will work because A The cameras in London stopped the first attack B The cameras in London stopped the second attack. C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane. D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.
Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks. Adding information to overloaded analysis systems won't stop terrorist attacks. Adding more laws and giving more power to law enforcement won't stop terrorist attacks. Invading other countries won't stop terrorist attacks.
Properly analysing the information that is available might help thwart attacks.
In many of the recent attacks both the technique, target and perpetrators were already KNOWN. Law enforcement was just unable to effectively use that knowledge.
These plans seem to have it backwards, the problem isn't that the information doesn't exist, it's that people don't know what to do with it.
Sure, but even sub-consciously, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. Why do you think so many baseball players use amphetamines during games? And fuggedaboud 'roids...
and this is why we have a world full of unhappy people doing nothing hoping for a quick fix. They don't want to put in the effort to reach their maximum potential. Or they're right at the top of their field and they'll do anything to get ahead, regardless of the cost.
Finally, look for compounds in this class to be used to make people "better than well" for selected reasons
Yeah I'm waiting for a few years after that when they find the side effects from chronic usage. Good diet and physical activity will make you better, and there are no known side effects.
I'm pretty sure this wonder drug (and the next) just like every other artificial booster will end up having a problem. There are no shortcuts.
Well the London bombing happened years after invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasions did NOT stop it from happening. I don't understand your disagreement.
Saddam and Osama have never worked together, they don't even have the same idealogy.
How many attacks were there before the invasion of Iraq (almost none), and how many are there now (almost none). The arguement that it is making things better is not provable by end results.
This situation and the proper actions will have to be debated endlessly as there is no clear answer.
I think the invasion of Iraq was basically wrong, although now the US has a moral obligation to provide security until the new government is established. I think the invasion of Afghanistan should have probably come years ago.
Good points, I agree fully. I've never been deployed and now being out never will be.
The next time someone tells you that this is wrong, think about how many people in the US have been killed by terrorists since we sent our forces over there. Which over there? How many terrorist attacks happened BEFORE US forces were sent over? Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London, wouldn't have stopped 9/11, or the 1993 World trade center bombing nor would it have stopped Oklahoma city.
Don't get respect for vetrans and the armed forces confused with support for government policy. I support the military, they are fighting for us and deserve the best support before and after we can provide.
If invading Iraq is wrong, it is the fault of the American people for letting it happen, not the soldiers doing what they're told.
Slashdot Mirror
You are missing 2 points that make your comparison less applicable.
The ice caps are
1. Partially above sea level because ice floats.
2. Partially/fully above sea level because they rest on land.
This system is just a cell phone pluged into a computer that can send for help if needed.
Actually it is a bit more than a cellphone, but not worth $300/yr to me. (Only $25/month!!)
(My current pay as you go is min $15 every 3 months)
The other features from the commercial like "I locked my keys in my running car" is just dumb.
I can't lock the car with the remote or with the internal door locks if the doors are open when the keys are in the ignition on my current car.
They should just design away the possiblity of those problems happening anyway.
The thermodynamics of this seems to require compressed air, not merely airflow.
There is a difference, and why supersonic (compressible) flow is so interesting. Most fluid dynamics assume incompressible flow (because it is easier).
My cheap ($30 CAN 14.4V) cordless drill has an adjustable clutch, levels, keyless chuck and 2 holders for double ended screwdriver bits.
Not really much of a reason to not get all the toys.
A cordless drill is better than a screwdriver.
Other than the normal bits and pieces you already have, hopefully in bins what more do you need?
Where would you get the compressed air?
This doesn't work with wind.
Let the market fix it.
As people get progressively more annoyed at less targetted advertising it will no longer be cost effective, and it will stop.
The less interested I am, the ruder I am. Maybe the companies will stop calling me, maybe that telemarketer will quit their job, maybe they'll go postal and take out their office. I don't really care. Drive up the cost of marketting like this, and never buy, then they'll stop.
As for wasting their time, I'm not willing to waste mine either.
Lets see, a large successful company is looking around at high profile software politicians.
Isn't this an acceptable way to figure out how to deal with the current software environment? Hire a few experienced people and they could understand, work compete and ultimately be successful in this new more open environment.
What would happen if RMS directed (MS/government) free software policy? If Ralph Nader directed automotive safety?
If there is any more rewriting than explicitly stating the implied requirements I don't think it will have such widespread acceptance.
For example an if you distribute a GPL work, you are also including an implied license to use any patents contained within that work. I expect this to be accepted.
If you use a work and provide only the output to others (ie a web service) you should not have to distribute the source of your application. I do not expect this to gain as widespread support. Mostly because many have already complained they don't like this idea.
Restrictions on use would also violate the philosophy behind free software.
This is one of the reasons why there is such an outcry against changing the GPL to some sort of behaviour agreement instead of copyleft.
Wow how newsworthy, yet another f'ing article on what the GPL might contain.
Many oppose changing the GPL from a copyright licence to a usage licence.
There are two reasons,
1. Copyright is easier to fight internationally.
2. Free as in freedom should include freedom of usage. Altering this IMO guts the core philosopy of the free software movement.
If you don't care about freedom, use open source instead.
After Canada refused to help in Iraq? That would cause the politicians more loss of face than they are willing.
Conveniently Iraq was a political hot potato on both sides of the Can/US border. With both countries pretty much in a 50/50 split on public opinion.
The Canadian government just happened to stumble around like idiots which really didn't help the US.
Unfortunately the US didn't focus public attention on how the "allies" were in Afghanistan, and it really is a lot to ask many of these countries to invade 2 countries at the same time.
Would have been a nice way to save face for everyone, and it was missed.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/03/katrina.unus edgear/index.html
Forget coordinating donations.
Take the available equipment you ALREADY have, and use it.
As for immediate help, deploy the appropriate military units from the US and accept assistance from allied nations (ie Canada).
We get this topic every now and then.
A few years ago it was a rant and attack how dumb managers and supervisors were.
Now we get posts asking and explaining what managers should be doing, and why actual skill in the task of the workers isn't as important as one might think.
Anyone want to take bets on how long till slashdot argues that a MBA is valuable, and CEO's are underpaid?
I wouldn't say the products aren't good, just not good enough.
I'll pay $5 + 2 hours of my time to watch a not great movie, I'm just not willing to put up with $40+ the rappy theater environment to watch it.
Music CD's aren't worth $20, so I don't buy them. I'll just turn on the radio. Sometimes I'll see a decent CD on clearance for $5, I might grab it.
I don't think they were underpaid by the industry.
I just think that these people are worth 25% more to google than they were to other companies.
If you work for my company you will make me $100k, I might say it is worthwhile for me to pay you $75k.
However if a competator will make $150k from you, he could quite rightly pay you $110k.
I wasn't underpaying you, the job market has just changed. This is competition, and it's a step up.
Basically the market gets 50% more value from the same resource (you). In the economics this is productivity improvement.
I am not claiming there is a conspiracy.
I am claiming that this strategy will not achieve the stated goals.
If a project will not succeed at its objectives, ie preventing terrorist attacks, it should not proceed.
If there is other merit to the project, ie catching criminals/terrorists after committing a crime, it should be evaluated on those realistic objectives instead.
I think it is dishonest to promote a solution that does not solve the target problem, even if it will result in other benefits.
You missed my point.
These cameras will not PREVENT an attack.
From the article
"We will try everything, and deploy all technologies possible, to prevent an attack from happening,"
Your rebuttal agrees that in my examples attacks were not prevented. If the goal is prevention (as stated in the article). How will this solution achieve it?
It won't, so why are we wasting money when it won't solve the problem?
This will work because
A The cameras in London stopped the first attack
B The cameras in London stopped the second attack.
C The 9/11 attackers used their own ID to board the plane.
D In all the above attacks the perpetrators were caught on film before the attacks, so this is obviously effective somehow.
Massive invasions of privacy and surveillance don't stop terrorist attacks. Adding information to overloaded analysis systems won't stop terrorist attacks. Adding more laws and giving more power to law enforcement won't stop terrorist attacks. Invading other countries won't stop terrorist attacks.
Properly analysing the information that is available might help thwart attacks.
In many of the recent attacks both the technique, target and perpetrators were already KNOWN. Law enforcement was just unable to effectively use that knowledge.
These plans seem to have it backwards, the problem isn't that the information doesn't exist, it's that people don't know what to do with it.
Sure, but even sub-consciously, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. Why do you think so many baseball players use amphetamines during games? And fuggedaboud 'roids...
and this is why we have a world full of unhappy people doing nothing hoping for a quick fix.
They don't want to put in the effort to reach their maximum potential.
Or they're right at the top of their field and they'll do anything to get ahead, regardless of the cost.
Finally, look for compounds in this class to be used to make people "better than well" for selected reasons
Yeah I'm waiting for a few years after that when they find the side effects from chronic usage.
Good diet and physical activity will make you better, and there are no known side effects.
I'm pretty sure this wonder drug (and the next) just like every other artificial booster will end up having a problem. There are no shortcuts.
Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London
I strongly disagree
Well the London bombing happened years after invading Iraq and Afghanistan, the invasions did NOT stop it from happening. I don't understand your disagreement.
Saddam and Osama have never worked together, they don't even have the same idealogy.
How many attacks were there before the invasion of Iraq (almost none), and how many are there now (almost none). The arguement that it is making things better is not provable by end results.
This situation and the proper actions will have to be debated endlessly as there is no clear answer.
I think the invasion of Iraq was basically wrong, although now the US has a moral obligation to provide security until the new government is established.
I think the invasion of Afghanistan should have probably come years ago.
Good points, I agree fully. I've never been deployed and now being out never will be.
The next time someone tells you that this is wrong, think about how many people in the US have been killed by terrorists since we sent our forces over there.
Which over there?
How many terrorist attacks happened BEFORE US forces were sent over?
Invading Iraq/Afghanistan didn't stop London, wouldn't have stopped 9/11, or the 1993 World trade center bombing nor would it have stopped Oklahoma city.
Don't get respect for vetrans and the armed forces confused with support for government policy.
I support the military, they are fighting for us and deserve the best support before and after we can provide.
If invading Iraq is wrong, it is the fault of the American people for letting it happen, not the soldiers doing what they're told.
Sorry, that just isn't going to happen.
The US has experienced a level of relative saftey and prosperity for so long the population doesn't understand there is any other way.
You might have fought to keep them safe, but most people never felt in any real danger, so they don't care.
You've seen the real world, now welcome back to the surreal life, where having to spend $2 in gas to get to Starbucks is a national crisis.
And even if it mattered, the author was just summarizing another article, which doesn't actually require any knowledge.
If you want an intelligent summary it does require knowledge. Which is exactly the point I am making and you seem to be missing.