I used to work on SCADA systems documentation in a former job.
You'd be horrified to know how much SCADA stuff in the U.S. runs on Windows. You'd be hiding in your bomb shelter if you realized how many of those Windows systems are old and unpatched. And you'd be a quivering blob of liquefied terror if you grasped many of those systems are connected (in one way or another) to the Internet.
On another note though--it's at least possible that this is the work of the Iranian opposition, it's agents, or supporters. However, I think that the most likely culprit is Isreal; at this point they have to realize that Obama's "open hand" policy has utterly failed and that the Iranians are on the verge of building a bomb and using it to eliminate the "Zionist enemy" once and for all.
Except for pages where the history has been deleted. So there goes that argument up in smoke.
Wikipedia is fun to read, and sometimes points to interesting information (though I've clicked through a number of citations where the cited reference didn't agree with the article), but it's not really an encyclopedia.
If you're willing to take their "motto" seriously (... anyone can edit) and follow that thought to its logical conclusion, and keep that in mind while reading, there's nothing wrong with it. But if you're expecting "authority" or factual correctness, you're in the wrong place.
Yes. Often lost in all the hand-wringing about Wikipedia is that it is the ultimate temple to postmodernism.
Every edit has equal validity--the meth addict's edit to an article on ancient Egyptian culture is just as "correct" as that posted by someone actually digging at the Karnak Temple Complex. There's no reason why a Glen Back shouldn't edit President Obama's bio, or Keith Olbermann shouldn't edit Sarah Palin's--after all, we're all entitled to our own reality. Who are you to insist that the atomic weight of copper is 63.546? Susy Rottencrotch says it's 58.69 and that's OK.
Also lost is the orthagonal and almost humorous descent into an Animal Farm-like "equality" where some animals (article owners, trusted Wikipedians) are more equal than others. It is left as a exercise for the reader to determine who the pigs are in all of this.
It seems to me though that people are trying to have it both ways, but that's not an option. Either RFID could never be used for tracking people and this is all just FUD, or there are ways it could be done and we should be thinking about mitigation before everything from your underwear to your laptop contain them.
The interesting thing about this is that it means that those IDs were now tied to a photo. Which means that the IDs are no longer anonymous (one of the original arguments against RFID scraping being useful). In other words, I now know that tag 123456789 belongs to a person who matches this particular picture. Throw in facial recognition technology and off you go to Big Brother.
I agree that _at this moment_ there's little danger from RFID. But as it becomes ubiquitous and reader technology becomes cheaper and more accurate that may change. Doesn't it make sense to think about that now, instead of following the traditional strategy of trying to close the bard door _after_ the horse is loose?
Unfortunately, along with the rest of our debased currency, we've taken most of the copper out of pennies. Eventually I expect plastic penny coins, once the price of zinc goes up.
I think you're making a mistaken assumption that ads are intended to drive you to make an immediate purchase. While that's one reason they're aired, another is brand recognition and familiarity. If you happen to be in the market for a car three years from now, it's likely that at least some of what those car companies have communicated in their ads will stick with you.
This is especially true for less-well-known brands. Compare a Toyota ad ("We're having a sale this weekend") to a Hyundai ad ("Our cars are reliable and have feature x). Toyota expects you to already know and recognize the value of a Toyota, they're trying to get you into the showroom now, now! NOW! As a relative newcomer, Hyundai is working to get you comfortable enough to consider their car.
Reminds me of the dumbest guy in the office back when I was working in a drafting shop. The draftsmen were always playing tricks on each other and setting up Rube Goldberg-type booby traps. One of the guys was clearly not the sharpest stick in the bundle so on a day we knew he'd be the last one back from lunch we hung a cup filled with confetti from the ceiling with a string attached to a sign that said "Pull me." He did.
...using video tracking technology to follow white lines on the pavement.
So this wouldn't work in the U.S. where some drunk teenager bent on revenge over an imagined slight is bound to reroute the white line to their former-BFF's house.
I'm have 20-20 sight (corrected) and a fine sense of touch but I have to hunt for the power button on my wife's iMac. Not that it gets turned on/off all that often, but the power switch seems to have been professionally hidden/disguised.
But in terms of economic drag (let's spare readers the broken window fallacy, for the moment) how much will forcing compliance on non-government sites cost? For instance, if every small business in America (see "possible exemption for small businesses" in TFS for relevance) has to comply, what more profitable use of their time/money will they be missing out on? What's the opportunity cost here? If a business doesn't see a need to create a ADA-compliant version of their site, should they be compelled? If the manufacturer of automotive accessories doesn't think that the cost of re-coding their site for accessibility to blind people isnt' likely to be offset by sales, will the government use force to change their tune? Keep in mind that force, clothed in the glove of our civil law, but nonetheless a mailed fist, is what compels compliance.
The real problem with the current system (IMO) is that--as always--regulation and government-created scarcity has lead to efforts to game the system and unintended consequences out the wazoo.
This results in things like a morbidly obese patient slipping the doctor a $100 and getting a handicapped placard. So the fatty who most needs to walk the extra 100 ft a week now parks as close to the ice cream aisle as possible. Or to people either holding on to their placards after they've expired or making fake ones.
When I worked in construction in L.A (putting myself through college) with my dad's company I saw two projects canceled because of the cost of complying with the ADA. One was a parking structure where the powers-that-be decided that it wasn't sufficient to have the "correct" number of handicapped spaces on the ground level--there must be an elevator in case some handicapped person parked in a non-handicapped spot on the 2nd floor and couldn't use the stairs.
Unintended consequences, my friends: it's the gift of government that keeps on giving and giving and giving.
And you can be sure that any effort to label the Web as a "public accommodation" will be evenhandedly applied by whichever of our two corrupt parties is currently in power. They'd never even think of using the "Justice" Department to harass website owners whose sites are ideologically opposed. Never, ever... pinky-swear, cross their hearts and hope to die.
Yes, and because we're 100% sure that the oh-so-enlightened Obama administration would never, ever use such a provision to quell free speech rights (unlike that bad ole' satan-worshiping Bush). It's going to be a total coincidence that "Justice" department lawyers only contact Web site owners who publish views opposed to the current administration's policies.
This year, they've contacted the NRA about their non-compliant Web site, while ignoring NOW. Once the sheeple vote in 2012, they'll be harassing PETA and ignoring the Chamber of Commerce.
In fact, I've been shocked, shocked! to find out that the Democrats are owned by lobbyists just like the Republicans. Not the SAME lobbyists, of course, but just as much a wholly owned subsidiary. Whodda thunk it?
It;s not cheap to them, it's affordable and sustainable.
I think you mean imaginary and not-probable.
Nothing against this specific device, but this is another one of those tired stories (much like the XO... and how did that pan out?) about how <entity name> is going to produce this amazing new gadget with <specs> for only <price>. Usually, when the pipe dream hoopla is over and the actual product ships, it turns out that the specs given are wildly overstated and/or the price originally "guestimated" is about 20% of what the device actually winds up costing.
Anyone can build a prototype gadget and pull some production cost numbers out of their hindquarters. What really matters is if those numbers are at all realistic. In this case (again, much like the XO) the numbers (2 GB RAM, 9" display, $35 price) don't seem to add up.
I think you mean decreasing radius turns. Turns that get "less sharp" aren't as difficult to manage as turns that get sharper. As I posted elsewhere, there's a freeway on ramp in south San Jose with a decreasing radius turn where there are two or three motorcycle accidents each year.
In my opinion, decreasing radius curves should be illegal. There's one freeway on ramp in the southern part of San Jose where there are two or three motorcycle accidents every year, because it's a blind curve with a decreasing radius.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought you could only obtain that by trading in a Mr. Accessory
I used to work on SCADA systems documentation in a former job.
You'd be horrified to know how much SCADA stuff in the U.S. runs on Windows. You'd be hiding in your bomb shelter if you realized how many of those Windows systems are old and unpatched. And you'd be a quivering blob of liquefied terror if you grasped many of those systems are connected (in one way or another) to the Internet.
On another note though--it's at least possible that this is the work of the Iranian opposition, it's agents, or supporters. However, I think that the most likely culprit is Isreal; at this point they have to realize that Obama's "open hand" policy has utterly failed and that the Iranians are on the verge of building a bomb and using it to eliminate the "Zionist enemy" once and for all.
I thought he was talking about the members of both parties in congress
The same arguments could be made for any other kind of mind-altering, highly-institutionalized scenarios, like prison.
Or college.
Except for pages where the history has been deleted. So there goes that argument up in smoke.
Wikipedia is fun to read, and sometimes points to interesting information (though I've clicked through a number of citations where the cited reference didn't agree with the article), but it's not really an encyclopedia.
If you're willing to take their "motto" seriously (... anyone can edit) and follow that thought to its logical conclusion, and keep that in mind while reading, there's nothing wrong with it. But if you're expecting "authority" or factual correctness, you're in the wrong place.
Yes. Often lost in all the hand-wringing about Wikipedia is that it is the ultimate temple to postmodernism.
Every edit has equal validity--the meth addict's edit to an article on ancient Egyptian culture is just as "correct" as that posted by someone actually digging at the Karnak Temple Complex. There's no reason why a Glen Back shouldn't edit President Obama's bio, or Keith Olbermann shouldn't edit Sarah Palin's--after all, we're all entitled to our own reality. Who are you to insist that the atomic weight of copper is 63.546? Susy Rottencrotch says it's 58.69 and that's OK.
Also lost is the orthagonal and almost humorous descent into an Animal Farm-like "equality" where some animals (article owners, trusted Wikipedians) are more equal than others. It is left as a exercise for the reader to determine who the pigs are in all of this.
Around here, we call it "agile"--manager code for "we don't need no stinkin' plan"
It seems to me though that people are trying to have it both ways, but that's not an option. Either RFID could never be used for tracking people and this is all just FUD, or there are ways it could be done and we should be thinking about mitigation before everything from your underwear to your laptop contain them.
The interesting thing about this is that it means that those IDs were now tied to a photo. Which means that the IDs are no longer anonymous (one of the original arguments against RFID scraping being useful). In other words, I now know that tag 123456789 belongs to a person who matches this particular picture. Throw in facial recognition technology and off you go to Big Brother.
I agree that _at this moment_ there's little danger from RFID. But as it becomes ubiquitous and reader technology becomes cheaper and more accurate that may change. Doesn't it make sense to think about that now, instead of following the traditional strategy of trying to close the bard door _after_ the horse is loose?
Unfortunately, along with the rest of our debased currency, we've taken most of the copper out of pennies. Eventually I expect plastic penny coins, once the price of zinc goes up.
I think you're making a mistaken assumption that ads are intended to drive you to make an immediate purchase. While that's one reason they're aired, another is brand recognition and familiarity. If you happen to be in the market for a car three years from now, it's likely that at least some of what those car companies have communicated in their ads will stick with you.
This is especially true for less-well-known brands. Compare a Toyota ad ("We're having a sale this weekend") to a Hyundai ad ("Our cars are reliable and have feature x). Toyota expects you to already know and recognize the value of a Toyota, they're trying to get you into the showroom now, now! NOW! As a relative newcomer, Hyundai is working to get you comfortable enough to consider their car.
Reminds me of the dumbest guy in the office back when I was working in a drafting shop. The draftsmen were always playing tricks on each other and setting up Rube Goldberg-type booby traps. One of the guys was clearly not the sharpest stick in the bundle so on a day we knew he'd be the last one back from lunch we hung a cup filled with confetti from the ceiling with a string attached to a sign that said "Pull me." He did.
I think he's now a /. editor.
So true. There's one road near my house that was re-paved about a year and a half ago that still hasn't been striped.
...using video tracking technology to follow white lines on the pavement.
So this wouldn't work in the U.S. where some drunk teenager bent on revenge over an imagined slight is bound to reroute the white line to their former-BFF's house.
I'm have 20-20 sight (corrected) and a fine sense of touch but I have to hunt for the power button on my wife's iMac. Not that it gets turned on/off all that often, but the power switch seems to have been professionally hidden/disguised.
But in terms of economic drag (let's spare readers the broken window fallacy, for the moment) how much will forcing compliance on non-government sites cost? For instance, if every small business in America (see "possible exemption for small businesses" in TFS for relevance) has to comply, what more profitable use of their time/money will they be missing out on? What's the opportunity cost here? If a business doesn't see a need to create a ADA-compliant version of their site, should they be compelled? If the manufacturer of automotive accessories doesn't think that the cost of re-coding their site for accessibility to blind people isnt' likely to be offset by sales, will the government use force to change their tune? Keep in mind that force, clothed in the glove of our civil law, but nonetheless a mailed fist, is what compels compliance.
The real problem with the current system (IMO) is that--as always--regulation and government-created scarcity has lead to efforts to game the system and unintended consequences out the wazoo.
This results in things like a morbidly obese patient slipping the doctor a $100 and getting a handicapped placard. So the fatty who most needs to walk the extra 100 ft a week now parks as close to the ice cream aisle as possible. Or to people either holding on to their placards after they've expired or making fake ones.
When I worked in construction in L.A (putting myself through college) with my dad's company I saw two projects canceled because of the cost of complying with the ADA. One was a parking structure where the powers-that-be decided that it wasn't sufficient to have the "correct" number of handicapped spaces on the ground level--there must be an elevator in case some handicapped person parked in a non-handicapped spot on the 2nd floor and couldn't use the stairs.
Unintended consequences, my friends: it's the gift of government that keeps on giving and giving and giving.
And you can be sure that any effort to label the Web as a "public accommodation" will be evenhandedly applied by whichever of our two corrupt parties is currently in power. They'd never even think of using the "Justice" Department to harass website owners whose sites are ideologically opposed. Never, ever... pinky-swear, cross their hearts and hope to die.
Yes, and because we're 100% sure that the oh-so-enlightened Obama administration would never, ever use such a provision to quell free speech rights (unlike that bad ole' satan-worshiping Bush). It's going to be a total coincidence that "Justice" department lawyers only contact Web site owners who publish views opposed to the current administration's policies.
This year, they've contacted the NRA about their non-compliant Web site, while ignoring NOW. Once the sheeple vote in 2012, they'll be harassing PETA and ignoring the Chamber of Commerce.
In fact, I've been shocked, shocked! to find out that the Democrats are owned by lobbyists just like the Republicans. Not the SAME lobbyists, of course, but just as much a wholly owned subsidiary. Whodda thunk it?
It;s not cheap to them, it's affordable and sustainable.
I think you mean imaginary and not-probable.
Nothing against this specific device, but this is another one of those tired stories (much like the XO... and how did that pan out?) about how <entity name> is going to produce this amazing new gadget with <specs> for only <price>. Usually, when the pipe dream hoopla is over and the actual product ships, it turns out that the specs given are wildly overstated and/or the price originally "guestimated" is about 20% of what the device actually winds up costing.
Anyone can build a prototype gadget and pull some production cost numbers out of their hindquarters. What really matters is if those numbers are at all realistic. In this case (again, much like the XO) the numbers (2 GB RAM, 9" display, $35 price) don't seem to add up.
So, shadow a cruise liner, then?
next life?
with tiny, tweezer-like arms?
Would you happen to have a daughter-in-law (in a very real and legally binding sense) with huge... tracts of land?
[...] dangerous increasing-radius corners
I think you mean decreasing radius turns. Turns that get "less sharp" aren't as difficult to manage as turns that get sharper. As I posted elsewhere, there's a freeway on ramp in south San Jose with a decreasing radius turn where there are two or three motorcycle accidents each year.
In my opinion, decreasing radius curves should be illegal. There's one freeway on ramp in the southern part of San Jose where there are two or three motorcycle accidents every year, because it's a blind curve with a decreasing radius.
Injecting "assuming" and "intelligent" into a discussion about the California Legislature?
> head explodes <