The pilot is sitting in an aircraft he doesn't own. There's almost never just one person in the cockpit (at least from now on in the Germanwings case.) A side-factor is the pilot is directly responsible for the lives of hundreds of people.
Exactly where does this right to privacy come from in this case?
If someone wants to stand behind me and watch while I work I could care less. Heck, when I pair-program that's exactly what happens. It's not my computer, not my desk, and not my office. If I wanted complete privacy I'd work as a contractor at my house.
Which is why zipcars make sense. Some people only need to drive once and a while. Some people can use public transportation some of the time but not all of the time. Some people can't use public transportation at all and have to drive everywhere.
Unless you know what mix you're going to end up with, throwing gobs of money at public transportation might be a waste. A mixed system is probably better.
At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component.
You're only looking at the demand side of things. You also need to look at the supply side. If you are going to greatly increase demand, you're going to have to increase supply. Public transportation systems don't always scale linearly in terms of cost per supply. In other words, you can't just throw more buses and trains at the problem to increase capacity. You need to hire more people, build more stations, which increases fixed costs in relation to maintenance and HR costs. Seemingly paradoxically, buses do more damage to roads than cars, so road maintenance costs will increase, even if you decrease the amount of traffic (all that really matters as far as road damage goes is the weight of the vehicle)
The last thing you need to look at is if you're actually going to reduce emissions. If there is a lot of traffic regardless - say in a downtown area during rush hour - buses generate significantly more pollution than cars. Unless each bus is completely full, the emissions benefit may not cover the number of vehicles on the road. This may be mitigated by building more efficient buses, or better traffic management, or trying to optimize your routes to increase ridership (not trivial - see traveling salesmen problem.)
Anyways, what you need to do is look at all these costs and decide if it makes sense. It might be cheaper and have more impact to simply subsidize the heck out of plug-in hybrids, or develop a Zipcar style system.
And here is the underlying problem with a good chunk of FCC regulation.
Basically, you can do anything you want until they decide it is against an arbitrary regulation. Then they can not only stop you from doing it, but fine you for having done it.
Think of the "decency" statues for broadcast TV. Sometimes you can swear (playing Saving Private Ryan) sometimes you can't (some random award show) Sometimes you can show nudity (NYPD Blue) sometimes you can't (Superbowl?) The FCC will let you know you violated the unspecified rules via a fine well after the fact.
This is the regulatory regime being imposed on the business practices of ISPs.
I don't like the big ISPs screwing around with the internet just as most anyone else, but this type of regulation is bonkers.
I think the future is subscribing to shows instead of channels. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a couple dozen really good shows to watch, than $100 a month for those same good shows, plus 200 other shows I never watch.
It's not our fault people have computers with webcams and microphones that we can easily hack into and install monitoring software to record everything they say and do, because we're involved with the encryption and security standards and can design-in backdoors that we can access easily.
It could also be a result of increased biomass eating up more CO2. Someone needs to compare biomass via satellite mapping with the usage levels of natural gas, wood, coal and oil.
My Nexus 7 is quite a bit worse after the 5 upgrade. I need to reboot every couple of days or it will slow to a crawl. Wifi is also dodgy - takes forever to come up after being switched off, and takes a *long* time to connect to new APs.
Again, depends on your definition of AAA. If you think that only huge companies spending lots of money can generate AAA titles, then no. If your definition is it's simply a successful game, then yes.
And I used to be able to do that with 68HC11, but it only had a few dozen opcodes, and programs could fit into 2K. Unless you're specifically a compiler or bootloader hacker, I don't see someone memorizing the several hundred opcodes in modern x86/64, or being able to follow program flow in multiple megabytes of compiled code using a simple hex dump utility.
1. Everything is connected to the internet. Refrigerators, traffic lights, mailboxes, lightbulbs... everything. And it all can be hacked and controlled remotely.
2. Hackers do not use mice or trackpads. They only use the keyboard, even when opening, moving and resizing windows in a GUI environment. 2a. Hackers only use LOUD keyboards. Even their laptop keyboards are buckling spring action so you can hear them go TAPYTAPYTAPYTAPY
3. Hackers are capable of accurately predicting anything. The trajectory of a car going over an open drawbridge, the food someone buys at a grocery store, which entrance someone will use at a shopping mall - ANYTHING. Because they have computers.
4. Any computer can be easily broken in to and controlled. Except for when you have a light plot and need to eat up time, in which case you have to physically break into a highly secure office building and do some technical thing to gain access. Hackers are good at doing that too. Because, you know, hackers.
5. Hackers can tell exactly what a program does by looking at a screen of hex code and random plaintext.
6. Hackers can pull signal out of noise floor in ANY SITUATION. Sharpening blurry photographs, pulling intelligible voice out of a noisy recording, un-deleting files, doesn't matter.
The USSR in particular did not "sink" until Gorbachev,
The USSR started sinking after it stopped raping it's Warsaw Pact allies for food, manpower and natural resources. It's easy to focus on industrialization and modernization when you can just steal food from eastern European countries you have control over. My Romanian and Ukrainian friends have stories about that...
I also notice your timeline of the great successes of the USSR seems to bounce over Stalin, under whom most of the modernization and industrialization took place (Lenin was only in charge for roughly 7 years.)
Slashdot Mirror
OK, then a clarification: Since they've lost nearly every motion and case that's been in front of a judge, it *hasn't been* going well for them.
The pilot is sitting in an aircraft he doesn't own. There's almost never just one person in the cockpit (at least from now on in the Germanwings case.) A side-factor is the pilot is directly responsible for the lives of hundreds of people.
Exactly where does this right to privacy come from in this case?
If someone wants to stand behind me and watch while I work I could care less. Heck, when I pair-program that's exactly what happens. It's not my computer, not my desk, and not my office. If I wanted complete privacy I'd work as a contractor at my house.
Sounds like a rehash of the (failed) SCO argument. We licensed UNIX, we're the only "official" seller of UNIX, therefore we ARE UNIX.
Didn't go so well for them.
Which is why zipcars make sense. Some people only need to drive once and a while. Some people can use public transportation some of the time but not all of the time. Some people can't use public transportation at all and have to drive everywhere.
Unless you know what mix you're going to end up with, throwing gobs of money at public transportation might be a waste. A mixed system is probably better.
At a guess, I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it; for the poorer demographic the cost part is probably a greater component.
You're only looking at the demand side of things. You also need to look at the supply side. If you are going to greatly increase demand, you're going to have to increase supply. Public transportation systems don't always scale linearly in terms of cost per supply. In other words, you can't just throw more buses and trains at the problem to increase capacity. You need to hire more people, build more stations, which increases fixed costs in relation to maintenance and HR costs. Seemingly paradoxically, buses do more damage to roads than cars, so road maintenance costs will increase, even if you decrease the amount of traffic (all that really matters as far as road damage goes is the weight of the vehicle)
The last thing you need to look at is if you're actually going to reduce emissions. If there is a lot of traffic regardless - say in a downtown area during rush hour - buses generate significantly more pollution than cars. Unless each bus is completely full, the emissions benefit may not cover the number of vehicles on the road. This may be mitigated by building more efficient buses, or better traffic management, or trying to optimize your routes to increase ridership (not trivial - see traveling salesmen problem.)
Anyways, what you need to do is look at all these costs and decide if it makes sense. It might be cheaper and have more impact to simply subsidize the heck out of plug-in hybrids, or develop a Zipcar style system.
And here is the underlying problem with a good chunk of FCC regulation.
Basically, you can do anything you want until they decide it is against an arbitrary regulation. Then they can not only stop you from doing it, but fine you for having done it.
Think of the "decency" statues for broadcast TV. Sometimes you can swear (playing Saving Private Ryan) sometimes you can't (some random award show) Sometimes you can show nudity (NYPD Blue) sometimes you can't (Superbowl?) The FCC will let you know you violated the unspecified rules via a fine
well after the fact.
This is the regulatory regime being imposed on the business practices of ISPs.
I don't like the big ISPs screwing around with the internet just as most anyone else, but this type of regulation is bonkers.
Wouldn't the most "extreme" title be AO? GTA is still M, isn't it?
I always thought that Uber was more expensive, the idea being you could usually get an Uber car more easily than hailing a cab.
I think the future is subscribing to shows instead of channels. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a couple dozen really good shows to watch, than $100 a month for those same good shows, plus 200 other shows I never watch.
It's not our fault people have computers with webcams and microphones that we can easily hack into and install monitoring software to record everything they say and do, because we're involved with the encryption and security standards and can design-in backdoors that we can access easily.
That's not our fault at all. Stupid citizens.
It could also be a result of increased biomass eating up more CO2. Someone needs to compare biomass via satellite mapping with the usage levels of natural gas, wood, coal and oil.
I use systemd as my window manager and email client. It's Eudora emulation mode has much improved in the last release.
I always thought Pretty Hate Machine sounded quite a bit like Front by Front.
There are a lot of us. Don't forget the secret handshake at the next meeting :)
Because I don't think anyone should own something that expensive. And for some reason that sparks outrage.
You see, I am the arbiter of utility. I decide what other people should and shouldn't buy, and what they should pay for it.
Because I know more than them. I understand their needs and wants better than they do.
If I can't afford something, nobody else should be able to buy it.
2013 N7. It's plenty fast, it's just not stable.
I just hope Kyocera has the balls to fight this shit and win.
Well, Samsung, LG, Sony, and HTC all pay the MS tax on their Android devices. Does Kyocera have a larger legal war-chest than those companies?
My Nexus 7 is quite a bit worse after the 5 upgrade. I need to reboot every couple of days or it will slow to a crawl. Wifi is also dodgy - takes forever to come up after being switched off, and takes a *long* time to connect to new APs.
I'm hoping 5.1 will be better.
Again, depends on your definition of AAA. If you think that only huge companies spending lots of money can generate AAA titles, then no. If your definition is it's simply a successful game, then yes.
Depends on what your definition of AAA is, I guess. Minecraft is written in Java, and from what I can tell is one of the best selling games right now.
And I used to be able to do that with 68HC11, but it only had a few dozen opcodes, and programs could fit into 2K. Unless you're specifically a compiler or bootloader hacker, I don't see someone memorizing the several hundred opcodes in modern x86/64, or being able to follow program flow in multiple megabytes of compiled code using a simple hex dump utility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Regarding computers and the internets:
1. Everything is connected to the internet. Refrigerators, traffic lights, mailboxes, lightbulbs... everything. And it all can be hacked and controlled remotely.
2. Hackers do not use mice or trackpads. They only use the keyboard, even when opening, moving and resizing windows in a GUI environment.
2a. Hackers only use LOUD keyboards. Even their laptop keyboards are buckling spring action so you can hear them go TAPYTAPYTAPYTAPY
3. Hackers are capable of accurately predicting anything. The trajectory of a car going over an open drawbridge, the food someone buys at a grocery store, which entrance someone will use at a shopping mall - ANYTHING. Because they have computers.
4. Any computer can be easily broken in to and controlled. Except for when you have a light plot and need to eat up time, in which case you have to physically break into a highly secure office building and do some technical thing to gain access. Hackers are good at doing that too. Because, you know, hackers.
5. Hackers can tell exactly what a program does by looking at a screen of hex code and random plaintext.
6. Hackers can pull signal out of noise floor in ANY SITUATION. Sharpening blurry photographs, pulling intelligible voice out of a noisy recording, un-deleting files, doesn't matter.
The USSR in particular did not "sink" until Gorbachev,
The USSR started sinking after it stopped raping it's Warsaw Pact allies for food, manpower and natural resources. It's easy to focus on industrialization and modernization when you can just steal food from eastern European countries you have control over. My Romanian and Ukrainian friends have stories about that...
I also notice your timeline of the great successes of the USSR seems to bounce over Stalin, under whom most of the modernization and industrialization took place (Lenin was only in charge for roughly 7 years.)
Bitte?