...Ah, yes, the "trained professional" chestnut. I'm special, you see, and only with my super powers is it OK to drive fast. See how elite I am:.000001% (or about 3 people in the whole US)!
Wrong. It's not rocket science to drive 75 MPH, on a sunny day, on a road designed for that speed, in a car designed for that speed, which is to say almost any car on the road today. The problem isn't you the driver, it is the other cars. If one of them changes lanes, or pulls out in front of you, you need to avoid them. It's your visibility that indicates your appropriate speed in most cases. On the flat open freeway, that's not a problem. And 20 years of driving experience beats a 25-year-old cop with "special training" in recognizing which is which.
If it was safe for the cop, it was safe for the other drivers. That said, the law is what it is.
Yes, I guess they
could, in theory, track your vehicle's location, but they're not doing that.
The point is that, today, they cannot, even in theory track your vehicle's location. That has been the state of affairs up until now, and it is liberty as we know it. We don't want to step over that line.
Sometimes inefficiency is a good thing. We know that the government could never pass a stupid law like "you need a travel pass to drive across state lines". It could never be enforced.
Sometimes "helping the police do their job" is not the ultimate goal.
Nobody's talking about constant state monitoring of your vehicle's position. Where in the bill does it say that?
Where in the bill does it say "The government shall not do that"? That's an important point. New paradigms need new limits. Take surveillance cameras on the street corner. The argument goes "you have no expectation of privacy in public". But when was that concept created? 1800? Earlier? They didn't imagine that something you did once could be recorded and passed around, or that you could be tracked. (I mean retroactively tracked; obviously one man can have a detective follow him around today). So if you change the paradigm, you have to create a new legal framework.
This next decade really will demand skepticism and vigilance. These days it is the government that is paranoid, not us. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I can't blame Microsoft for the auto-run thing. It was simply a way to make the computing experience easier on their users. Rather than needing to find the correct file to run (which is usually setup, but not always), simply make the CD come up by itself when inserted. It isn't their fault that some asshats have corrupted this in to installing software without user consent.
Yes I can blame Microsoft for setting up an environment where it's a constant wrestling match to maintain control of what is running on my system. A system where viewing a web page or email could possibly install software.
The correct UI would be: to have a "Run CD" item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer.
If you describe a UI: "I want a display that looks like this, and a scroll wheel to do that", isn't that just system requirements, not a design? Why is that patentable again?
The patent system has gotten off track. If the automobile were designed today, Henry Ford would have patented the steering wheel, gas pedal, and shift lever. Every time you got into a different car, the controls would be all different. You would wreck because you couldn't find the brakes in a panic situation.
We shouldn't have to use half-assed non-ergonomic UIs, just because one company took the good one first.
The entire concept of a "UI" should be considered prior art, in all it's wonderful permutations.
Unless someone comes up with something wild like something that screws into the flesh of my arm, it's all been-there-done-that. Buttons, wheels, dials, switches, etc etc etc.
I asked for a "paper ballot" -- an absentee ballot. Mailed in my request 2 weeks ago, sent in the vote 2 days ago, no muss, no fuss. Voting "in the comfort of my own home".
Although it would have been more satisfying to complain in person.
In 2006 when they add the paper receipts, I'll go back to the polls.
It also made me think, that if he'd lie over a ticket he'd sure as hell lie over more important matters.
Bingo! Remember that if you are ever sitting on a jury. If someone testifies, there are 3 possibilities:
They are telling the truth.
They think they are telling the truth, but are wrong (unobservant, incompetent, prejudiced)
They are lying out their asses
When you are on the jury, you have every right to say "this evidence is not credible" and ignore it. A not-guilty verdict is absolute and cannot be reversed by anyone. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I watched a trial in traffic court for a speeding ticket. The defendant brought photos that showed that there was no posted speed limit sign. The judge refused to look at the photos. He told the cop (the prosecution witness) to view the photos and tell him if the sign is on the road or not. The cop said that the speed limit sign existed but wasn't on the photo because it was "just off the edge". Guilty.
In the traffic light case, she should have brought in 3 witnesses to testify that "I drive there every day and there is no light there". Also supply photos as backup to the witnesses. The witnesses also can rebut the cop when he says "these photos really show I'm right". You have to convince the judge that "my witnesses are more credible than the cop witness", which is a MIGHTY tall order since most judges think that cops shit ice cream.
First, instead of offices, they put everybody in a big room with partitions. Now it would be everybody in a big room without partitions??
Or worse, you don't even have your own desk, and become a wandering nomad. And where exactly am I going to store my reference books, and that huge stack of ICDs and other documents? (Dead trees are here to stay, baby... deal with it). I suppose they could give me a company-issued shopping cart to wheel around. I could store it in my empty parking space when I leave for home.
Morale = productivity.
Morale also = less turnover (I might stay in my job due to seniority and comfort in my niche).
I am an Engineer. A professional does professional work. I can "work" under adverse conditions but at maybe half productivity. I'll bet my salary is more expensive than your cost savings.
And yes, I have spent lots of time in the machine room from the old mainframe days, but the pace and expectations were slower then; we were not on "Internet time".
If your Vice President says "work anywhere", say "Fine! I'll work in your office today! I'll be over here in the corner, you won't even notice me."
I agree that these proposed paperless systems are no good. I am not confident that the various state governments will listen to our concerns, when Diebold keeps assuring them that "everything is fine". But I do know a good way for everyone here to "vote" against such a system: use an absentee ballot.
What do you think would happen if, say, 50% of the voters submitted absentee ballots? Think of that mound of paper they would have to count (presumably by hand)! Maybe that would get their attention.
The news article is a layman's summary that doesn't tell the whole story.
This ruling applies to broadcast TV, and to those same channels when they are passed through on cable or satellite. The data stream contains the flag. Cable and satellite are working to set up their own copy restrictions; since their signals are encrypted, they can set any conditions they want on a manufacturer who wants a license to build a set-top box to decrypt the signal.
The whole point of CBS/Viacom getting into a snit was that if broadcast were to be the only one without copy protection, the copyright holders would supposedly boycott them and stay on cable/satellite.
The digital world opens up the door for detailed control over when and how the video is viewed, control not necessarily in the hands of the guy holding the remote. Like the DVD players that won't let you fast forward past the FBI warning (or in Disney's case, the commercials).
Furthermore, do you really want to record a football game on a VCR at standard resolution when the original was high-definition with 5-channel sound? That also depends on your HDTV tuner still supporting a legacy analog output. Eventually those will be phased out. And that new HDTV Tivo? Oops, sorry, this program has been deleted because the 3-day expiration date set by the copyright holder has been reached.
Slashdot Mirror
The real thieves are the ones (the stores) who shrink wrap a used item and try to sell it as new.
...Ah, yes, the "trained professional" chestnut. I'm special, you see, and only with my super powers is it OK to drive fast. See how elite I am: .000001% (or about 3 people in the whole US)!
Wrong. It's not rocket science to drive 75 MPH, on a sunny day, on a road designed for that speed, in a car designed for that speed, which is to say almost any car on the road today. The problem isn't you the driver, it is the other cars. If one of them changes lanes, or pulls out in front of you, you need to avoid them. It's your visibility that indicates your appropriate speed in most cases. On the flat open freeway, that's not a problem. And 20 years of driving experience beats a 25-year-old cop with "special training" in recognizing which is which.
If it was safe for the cop, it was safe for the other drivers. That said, the law is what it is.
This next decade really will demand skepticism and vigilance. These days it is the government that is paranoid, not us. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
A "song" is uncompressed audio, with no DRM. If they sell "songs", then yes, I would pay 5 cents for a song. Itunes does not sell songs.
Yes I can blame Microsoft for setting up an environment where it's a constant wrestling match to maintain control of what is running on my system. A system where viewing a web page or email could possibly install software.
The correct UI would be: to have a "Run CD" item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer.
It wouldn't be that hard to train the user:
Put the CD in
Close the drive
Select "Run CD"
Is it illegal to send the text message "FIRE!" if the recipient is in a crowded theater?
So if you put a fake plate on, what do you do if you are stopped by the police? Then you get in trouble for having fake plates on the car.
The patent system has gotten off track. If the automobile were designed today, Henry Ford would have patented the steering wheel, gas pedal, and shift lever. Every time you got into a different car, the controls would be all different. You would wreck because you couldn't find the brakes in a panic situation. We shouldn't have to use half-assed non-ergonomic UIs, just because one company took the good one first.
The entire concept of a "UI" should be considered prior art, in all it's wonderful permutations. Unless someone comes up with something wild like something that screws into the flesh of my arm, it's all been-there-done-that. Buttons, wheels, dials, switches, etc etc etc.
I asked for a "paper ballot" -- an absentee ballot. Mailed in my request 2 weeks ago, sent in the vote 2 days ago, no muss, no fuss. Voting "in the comfort of my own home". Although it would have been more satisfying to complain in person. In 2006 when they add the paper receipts, I'll go back to the polls.
It also made me think, that if he'd lie over a ticket he'd sure as hell lie over more important matters.
Bingo! Remember that if you are ever sitting on a jury. If someone testifies, there are 3 possibilities:
They are telling the truth.
They think they are telling the truth, but are wrong (unobservant, incompetent, prejudiced)
They are lying out their asses
When you are on the jury, you have every right to say "this evidence is not credible" and ignore it. A not-guilty verdict is absolute and cannot be reversed by anyone. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
I watched a trial in traffic court for a speeding ticket. The defendant brought photos that showed that there was no posted speed limit sign. The judge refused to look at the photos. He told the cop (the prosecution witness) to view the photos and tell him if the sign is on the road or not. The cop said that the speed limit sign existed but wasn't on the photo because it was "just off the edge". Guilty.
In the traffic light case, she should have brought in 3 witnesses to testify that "I drive there every day and there is no light there". Also supply photos as backup to the witnesses. The witnesses also can rebut the cop when he says "these photos really show I'm right". You have to convince the judge that "my witnesses are more credible than the cop witness", which is a MIGHTY tall order since most judges think that cops shit ice cream.
Or worse, you don't even have your own desk, and become a wandering nomad. And where exactly am I going to store my reference books, and that huge stack of ICDs and other documents? (Dead trees are here to stay, baby... deal with it). I suppose they could give me a company-issued shopping cart to wheel around. I could store it in my empty parking space when I leave for home.
Morale = productivity.
Morale also = less turnover (I might stay in my job due to seniority and comfort in my niche).
I am an Engineer. A professional does professional work. I can "work" under adverse conditions but at maybe half productivity. I'll bet my salary is more expensive than your cost savings.
And yes, I have spent lots of time in the machine room from the old mainframe days, but the pace and expectations were slower then; we were not on "Internet time".
If your Vice President says "work anywhere", say "Fine! I'll work in your office today! I'll be over here in the corner, you won't even notice me."
I agree that these proposed paperless systems are no good. I am not confident that the various state governments will listen to our concerns, when Diebold keeps assuring them that "everything is fine". But I do know a good way for everyone here to "vote" against such a system: use an absentee ballot. What do you think would happen if, say, 50% of the voters submitted absentee ballots? Think of that mound of paper they would have to count (presumably by hand)! Maybe that would get their attention.
The news article is a layman's summary that doesn't tell the whole story. This ruling applies to broadcast TV, and to those same channels when they are passed through on cable or satellite. The data stream contains the flag. Cable and satellite are working to set up their own copy restrictions; since their signals are encrypted, they can set any conditions they want on a manufacturer who wants a license to build a set-top box to decrypt the signal. The whole point of CBS/Viacom getting into a snit was that if broadcast were to be the only one without copy protection, the copyright holders would supposedly boycott them and stay on cable/satellite. The digital world opens up the door for detailed control over when and how the video is viewed, control not necessarily in the hands of the guy holding the remote. Like the DVD players that won't let you fast forward past the FBI warning (or in Disney's case, the commercials).
Furthermore, do you really want to record a football game on a VCR at standard resolution when the original was high-definition with 5-channel sound?
That also depends on your HDTV tuner still supporting a legacy analog output. Eventually those will be phased out.
And that new HDTV Tivo? Oops, sorry, this program has been deleted because the 3-day expiration date set by the copyright holder has been reached.