It reeks of a specific someone who's either a) getting a kickback or b) is a big Apple fan and believes everyone should be using Apple because it's clearly the superior platform.
It reeks of someone who got a virus on his PC and decided he wanted better for his students.
I'm always wondering if I should go to the city council meeting and ask why they're supporting terrorists with this inane system. The loss in gas mileage is atrocious, and the reason for it is just plain stupidity.
Seems to me the reasons for stupidly-timed lights is threefold:
1) Lowball bids from traffic light installers. To keep their bids low, a simple timer is way cheaper than a smart computer.
2) Politicians who pull strings so their development's side-road gets priority over the main thoroughfare.
3) Citizens like you and me who are too busy to attend council meetings and object.
To the misguided person who modded this "flamebait", please feel free to explain how the word "lame" is not subjective, and why it's wrong to tell someone who thinks the iPad is "lame" to go read non-iPad stories.
Certain people should not be given moderator points.
Actually there is a reason [for turning off electronics during takeoff & landing]
No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.
Two problems with that theory:
1) Anyone able to afford an airline ticket is able to afford real electronics instead of homebrewing.
2) Anyone independent enough to homebrew a device is also independent enough to not turn it off during takeoff & landing.
Marketing stunt, perhaps. Lame, well, that's extraordinarily subjective. Kind of like the "icrap" tag you put on the story and all the other anti-iPad posts you've put up on Slashdot. If you don't like the iPad (even though odds are you've never used one), fine. But perhaps you could just let it exist and go read stories about things you do like.
The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.
BS. They allow you to hold heavy hardback books in your hands during takeoff/landing. Also if they didn't want these items flying around they'd be banned the whole flight because there is always a danger of turbulence.
If I lived near Palo Alto, I'd gladly join in picketing Dr. Weissman's house and office. But since I'm 3000 miles away, the best I can do is relay information about him for those of us who need to protest remotely:
This patent would be much less necessary if cities would install intelligent traffic lights that allowed traffic to flow and thus minimized idling engines.
Let me guess...you're married? Funny how as soon as one person's needs are met, they no longer see a need for anyone else to have access to services that would supply them similarly.
And where are all the teabaggers who go around saying the government never does anything right? Seems to me this is government working exactly as it should be, in the best interests of the public. A win for Washington, no?
If Texas wants to eliminate liberal bias and insert some neoconservative/christian right bias then so be it.
That Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the U.S. and Isaac Newton authored three famous laws of motion are not "liberal bias". Texas claims they are and is thus eliminating them, but they are not. They are facts. And for you to parrot that they are liberal bias does a disservice to any children (yours or otherwise) who may be educated by you.
Isaac Newton vs. military technology:
Well gosh--I can see the insidious hand of Sarah Palin here, too. Or...perhaps, it might be worthwhile to consider that the intentional pursuit of military technology as a means of achieving battlefield superiority has been a hallmark of U.S. strategy since the Civil War.
It's the either-or part that bothers me. For students to not be taught Newton at all but instead to be taught how great a war machine the U.S. has.... that demonstrates some seriously fucked up priorities in the classroom.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
Funny how those who use "period" in their statements are those who put the least thought into their postings. Your kid? You set the rules? So you can feed your kid candy 3 meals a day every day, for example? No, that is legally child abuse. Ahhh, not so "period" anymore is it? Plus you are completely ignoring the fact that kids full of sugar from lunch are essentially unteachable for the next 1-2 hours. The school, by enforcing nutrition, is also performing its duty of teaching the kids the whole day instead of just the part of the day before lunch. Ahhh, even less "period" now, eh?
Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?
1) You do not have to buy an Apple; you can get other smartphones. But much of America has no choice but to get TV from their cable company. I cannot get FiOS where I live (been on waiting list for 4 years) and trees prevent me from having satellite. So I'm stuck with that set top box. You know, the box I shouldn't even have to have if Comcast were to use a STANDARD to encode their digital so that my Media Center could work without an IR blaster? That box right there.
2) Apple is a vendor. Comcast is a vendor. The MPAA is not a vendor. You cannot choose to or not to purchase from them. They insidiously work behind the scenes on crap like this, whereas you know up front when buying an Apple that it's locked down. It's a minor but notable distinction from the point above.
funny since gamefly's disks are wrapped in rigid cardboard and much more secure than netflix...
Which makes them larger and therefore more likely to be difficult to fit into some mailboxes. That makes them more likely to be bent by mailcarriers, leading to damage. This is something GameFly probably needed to put more R&D into and on that point, score one for the USPS.
Sounds like the definition of a government agency to me.;)
If portrayed that way (as the summary was) and/or as viewed that way (as you seemed inclined to do). But other posters have points: GameFly's mailers are NOT the same as NetFlix's, and I've seen documentaries showing that a lot of R&D went into NetFlix' mailers. Anyone receving a complaint such as GameFly's would be quite prudent to question if they researched other mailer designs. While their questions did go too far, I feel you were a bit too eager to perpetuate the stereotype that all government agencies are bad all the time.
Re:Morality of providing such advice to readers?
on
The Laidoff Ninja
·
· Score: 1
There are some tips about maximizing your available financial resources by delaying payment on some utility bills. While legally OK, I question the morality of providing such advice to readers. Good lord, aren't we all just a bit past that sort of sanctimonious BS? The banks and credit card companies would dig up sell our dead grandmothers for hamburger seasoning if it helped their quarterly numbers a bit. Do you think we really owe them *any* moral consideration?
Perhaps the reviewer meant it is immoral to suggest anyone get themselves in arrears and thus in danger of losing their electricity/water. At least that's how I read it.
Except when responding to email within time period X is part of your job requirements.
What if one does not own a computer? It still happens, y'know. So tell the employer you don't own one. It's none of their business whether you do or not. "I don't own a PC. If you want me to answer e-mail when not on the clock, then you need to provide me a PC. Otherwise it's physically impossible for me to comply." Would they fire you for not spending your own money on a PC to do work? If so, everyone who's been saying you need a new job is right. But don't quit--make them fire you. It won't be with cause and you'll collect unemployment.
Summary: If you find yourself flying into an ash cloud, turn around immediately.
So, yeah, maybe Branson wants a check, but flying into ash clouds is a very bad idea. And they don't show up on weather radar.
There are thick ash clouds and thin ones. No, you shouldn't have been flying planes in Iceland or northern UK, but halting flights as far south as Turkey certainly seems to have been unwarranted. There is particle-per-million level below which the Boeing bulletin fails to be applicable, and it appears most of Europe was below that level during most of the ban.
If you're not sure, and you don't have time to do the tests necessary to make sure, then it's usually best to err on the side of caution.
Except that there was time to do tests. Lufthansa flew two dozen repositioning flights as early as just two days after the flight ban went into effect and all planes landed safely. All the governments imposed bans WITHOUT REAL DATA. OK, fine, be kneejerk if you must, but at least start doing testing immediately and don't continue to err on the side of caution for a week using only guesswork!
We already have evidence of at least one plane nearly crashing due to volcanic ashes. Is this guy saying that we should take the chance? Would he say that to the families of those who could die because of it?
We have evidence of planes crashing for a wide variety of reasons, some of which were never explained at all. Are you saying we should continue to allow planes to take off when we have reason to believe one will eventually crash? Should any family allow any of its members to ever fly again given that flying is a slightly risky endeavor?/sarcasm
Better losing billions with no flights and than one crashing flight..
You are assuming that those are the only two choices. But in fact there were options in between those, such as canceling only those flights nearer the volcano and permitting others to go.
Further, by your logic, no flight should ever take off since there is always a greater than zero chance of the flight crashing via means other than volcanic ash. Everything in life is a risk, including driving in a car and getting in a bathtub. I side with those who say we should not allow our society to be paralyzed by fear of even tiny risks. We cease to be intelligent beings if we succumb to every little threat.
He argues that artistic judgment is the disinterested contemplation of beauty or the sublime
I suppose if you consider the game creator as the artist and the player as the appreciator, then I can see your point. But suppose you see the player as artist, and the game as his canvas? A good run through a Far Cry level can surely be considered art, at least as much as an improvisational dancer can.
I think you're onto something here. Good games allow more than one way to win, and the best allow many/nearly-limitless ways to win. In such scenarios, it's fun to go back after winning once and try innovative and unconventional solutions; the goal changes from just winning (you know you can, so its importance wanes) to finding ways of winning that you didn't try at first, were unlikely to work, and may have been unimaginable to the game creator. As such the game designer was a toolmaker and you become the artist using the tools.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
It creates whole new classes of problem, where an employee is motivated to do poor work in order to get fired so that they don't have to pay for their training. And since they can be dismissed for a whole host of reasons, then there is ample opportunity for a court battle over who foots the bill.
I believe you're engaging in a straw man argument. Just because you envision a problem could happen, I challenge you to cite an example where it did happen or stats showing that it routinely happens. Don't shoot down good ideas with hypotheticals unless you have real data. 'kthanxby
Slashdot Mirror
It reeks of a specific someone who's either a) getting a kickback or b) is a big Apple fan and believes everyone should be using Apple because it's clearly the superior platform.
It reeks of someone who got a virus on his PC and decided he wanted better for his students.
I'm always wondering if I should go to the city council meeting and ask why they're supporting terrorists with this inane system. The loss in gas mileage is atrocious, and the reason for it is just plain stupidity.
Seems to me the reasons for stupidly-timed lights is threefold:
1) Lowball bids from traffic light installers. To keep their bids low, a simple timer is way cheaper than a smart computer.
2) Politicians who pull strings so their development's side-road gets priority over the main thoroughfare.
3) Citizens like you and me who are too busy to attend council meetings and object.
Certain people should not be given moderator points.
Actually there is a reason [for turning off electronics during takeoff & landing]
No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.
Two problems with that theory:
1) Anyone able to afford an airline ticket is able to afford real electronics instead of homebrewing.
2) Anyone independent enough to homebrew a device is also independent enough to not turn it off during takeoff & landing.
This sounds like a lame marketing stunt.
Marketing stunt, perhaps. Lame, well, that's extraordinarily subjective. Kind of like the "icrap" tag you put on the story and all the other anti-iPad posts you've put up on Slashdot. If you don't like the iPad (even though odds are you've never used one), fine. But perhaps you could just let it exist and go read stories about things you do like.
The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.
BS. They allow you to hold heavy hardback books in your hands during takeoff/landing. Also if they didn't want these items flying around they'd be banned the whole flight because there is always a danger of turbulence.
http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/stemcell/researcher/Irving_Weissman/
irv@stanford.edu
Admin. aide: ljquinn@stanford.edu, 650-723-6520
This patent would be much less necessary if cities would install intelligent traffic lights that allowed traffic to flow and thus minimized idling engines.
I'd add dating sites
Let me guess...you're married? Funny how as soon as one person's needs are met, they no longer see a need for anyone else to have access to services that would supply them similarly.
And where are all the teabaggers who go around saying the government never does anything right? Seems to me this is government working exactly as it should be, in the best interests of the public. A win for Washington, no?
If Texas wants to eliminate liberal bias and insert some neoconservative/christian right bias then so be it.
That Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the U.S. and Isaac Newton authored three famous laws of motion are not "liberal bias". Texas claims they are and is thus eliminating them, but they are not. They are facts. And for you to parrot that they are liberal bias does a disservice to any children (yours or otherwise) who may be educated by you.
Isaac Newton vs. military technology: Well gosh--I can see the insidious hand of Sarah Palin here, too. Or...perhaps, it might be worthwhile to consider that the intentional pursuit of military technology as a means of achieving battlefield superiority has been a hallmark of U.S. strategy since the Civil War.
It's the either-or part that bothers me. For students to not be taught Newton at all but instead to be taught how great a war machine the U.S. has.... that demonstrates some seriously fucked up priorities in the classroom.
Fuck you and your WOT.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
Funny how those who use "period" in their statements are those who put the least thought into their postings. Your kid? You set the rules? So you can feed your kid candy 3 meals a day every day, for example? No, that is legally child abuse. Ahhh, not so "period" anymore is it? Plus you are completely ignoring the fact that kids full of sugar from lunch are essentially unteachable for the next 1-2 hours. The school, by enforcing nutrition, is also performing its duty of teaching the kids the whole day instead of just the part of the day before lunch. Ahhh, even less "period" now, eh?
Stop with the absolutes.
Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?
1) You do not have to buy an Apple; you can get other smartphones. But much of America has no choice but to get TV from their cable company. I cannot get FiOS where I live (been on waiting list for 4 years) and trees prevent me from having satellite. So I'm stuck with that set top box. You know, the box I shouldn't even have to have if Comcast were to use a STANDARD to encode their digital so that my Media Center could work without an IR blaster? That box right there.
2) Apple is a vendor. Comcast is a vendor. The MPAA is not a vendor. You cannot choose to or not to purchase from them. They insidiously work behind the scenes on crap like this, whereas you know up front when buying an Apple that it's locked down. It's a minor but notable distinction from the point above.
funny since gamefly's disks are wrapped in rigid cardboard and much more secure than netflix...
Which makes them larger and therefore more likely to be difficult to fit into some mailboxes. That makes them more likely to be bent by mailcarriers, leading to damage. This is something GameFly probably needed to put more R&D into and on that point, score one for the USPS.
Sounds like the definition of a government agency to me. ;)
If portrayed that way (as the summary was) and/or as viewed that way (as you seemed inclined to do). But other posters have points: GameFly's mailers are NOT the same as NetFlix's, and I've seen documentaries showing that a lot of R&D went into NetFlix' mailers. Anyone receving a complaint such as GameFly's would be quite prudent to question if they researched other mailer designs. While their questions did go too far, I feel you were a bit too eager to perpetuate the stereotype that all government agencies are bad all the time.
There are some tips about maximizing your available financial resources by delaying payment on some utility bills. While legally OK, I question the morality of providing such advice to readers.
Good lord, aren't we all just a bit past that sort of sanctimonious BS? The banks and credit card companies would dig up sell our dead grandmothers for hamburger seasoning if it helped their quarterly numbers a bit. Do you think we really owe them *any* moral consideration?
Perhaps the reviewer meant it is immoral to suggest anyone get themselves in arrears and thus in danger of losing their electricity/water. At least that's how I read it.
Except when responding to email within time period X is part of your job requirements.
What if one does not own a computer? It still happens, y'know. So tell the employer you don't own one. It's none of their business whether you do or not. "I don't own a PC. If you want me to answer e-mail when not on the clock, then you need to provide me a PC. Otherwise it's physically impossible for me to comply." Would they fire you for not spending your own money on a PC to do work? If so, everyone who's been saying you need a new job is right. But don't quit--make them fire you. It won't be with cause and you'll collect unemployment.
Don't know if you put any stock in what an aircraft manufacturer might say on the subject, but...
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_09/volcanic_story.html
Summary: If you find yourself flying into an ash cloud, turn around immediately.
So, yeah, maybe Branson wants a check, but flying into ash clouds is a very bad idea. And they don't show up on weather radar.
There are thick ash clouds and thin ones. No, you shouldn't have been flying planes in Iceland or northern UK, but halting flights as far south as Turkey certainly seems to have been unwarranted. There is particle-per-million level below which the Boeing bulletin fails to be applicable, and it appears most of Europe was below that level during most of the ban.
If you're not sure, and you don't have time to do the tests necessary to make sure, then it's usually best to err on the side of caution.
Except that there was time to do tests. Lufthansa flew two dozen repositioning flights as early as just two days after the flight ban went into effect and all planes landed safely. All the governments imposed bans WITHOUT REAL DATA. OK, fine, be kneejerk if you must, but at least start doing testing immediately and don't continue to err on the side of caution for a week using only guesswork!
We already have evidence of at least one plane nearly crashing due to volcanic ashes. Is this guy saying that we should take the chance? Would he say that to the families of those who could die because of it?
We have evidence of planes crashing for a wide variety of reasons, some of which were never explained at all. Are you saying we should continue to allow planes to take off when we have reason to believe one will eventually crash? Should any family allow any of its members to ever fly again given that flying is a slightly risky endeavor? /sarcasm
Life has risks. Get over it.
Better losing billions with no flights and than one crashing flight..
You are assuming that those are the only two choices. But in fact there were options in between those, such as canceling only those flights nearer the volcano and permitting others to go.
Further, by your logic, no flight should ever take off since there is always a greater than zero chance of the flight crashing via means other than volcanic ash. Everything in life is a risk, including driving in a car and getting in a bathtub. I side with those who say we should not allow our society to be paralyzed by fear of even tiny risks. We cease to be intelligent beings if we succumb to every little threat.
First, they didn't out their source: This guy isn't their source, he's the guy that lost the phone.
OK, so they outed the guy that lost the phone. It's still a dick move.
The dude did lose the phone and it is his fault
And that's for Apple to determine punishment on, not for Gizmodo to shout to the world.
I just hope that guy gets to keep his job. If not Gizmodo should hire him.
If I were him, I think Gizmodo might be the last place on earth I'd want to work.
I suppose if you consider the game creator as the artist and the player as the appreciator, then I can see your point. But suppose you see the player as artist, and the game as his canvas? A good run through a Far Cry level can surely be considered art, at least as much as an improvisational dancer can.
I think you're onto something here. Good games allow more than one way to win, and the best allow many/nearly-limitless ways to win. In such scenarios, it's fun to go back after winning once and try innovative and unconventional solutions; the goal changes from just winning (you know you can, so its importance wanes) to finding ways of winning that you didn't try at first, were unlikely to work, and may have been unimaginable to the game creator. As such the game designer was a toolmaker and you become the artist using the tools.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
It creates whole new classes of problem, where an employee is motivated to do poor work in order to get fired so that they don't have to pay for their training. And since they can be dismissed for a whole host of reasons, then there is ample opportunity for a court battle over who foots the bill.
I believe you're engaging in a straw man argument. Just because you envision a problem could happen, I challenge you to cite an example where it did happen or stats showing that it routinely happens. Don't shoot down good ideas with hypotheticals unless you have real data. 'kthanxby