That's part of the reason that overturning it doesn't get as much voter support as one would expect. But they are also sticking with it because the people who profit from it (car dealerships) are lobbying to keep their unfair advantage.
This is sort of like the shenanigans happening with alcohol laws in my home state. Alcohol can't be sold at stores on Sundays, but it can be sold at restaurants and bars. The main push against changing the law isn't from religious people. It's from the liquor store association who doesn't want to have to be open an extra day to compete with groceries and the restaurant association who wants to keep their monopoly on Sunday alcohol sales.
Unfortunately, it IS normal. (Not this guys particularly bad experience, but walking through scanners, getting felt on, etc.) I don't like that it's a part of air travel, and I don't think that it's acceptable. But it is what it is. I avoid flying if at all possible, and I've written my reps to let them know my opinion. But when I have to (or choose to) fly, my only real options are to jump through the TSA hoops or run the risk of having a really unpleasant time at the airport.
If this man's story is accurate, it's a shameful scenario indeed. But I've read a lot of these well-documented horrible TSA encounter accounts, and most don't involve Ramadan. However, most DO have one thing in common: the person opted-out of the scan and/or argued about the pat-down.
I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays. Consider them to be a travel risk. If you want to fight them in safety, quit flying and write your rep. And if you decide to fight them in person, prepare to be a martyr. And if you want to get from point A to point B with as small of risk of problems as possible, prepare to consent to being scanned, groped, or whatever else they want to do.
Not everything has to be "important" or has to teach people something. And that goes double for teaching them something specific. If we're going to have a female Doctor specifically for the purpose of "teaching," why not have a black or an Indian or a middle eastern Doctor? Or we could teach people about other social issues of the day... drugs, poverty, etc. Or maybe the Doctor could come out of the closet?
People watch Doctor Who primarily for entertainment. When you start forcing changes, it feels forced and takes away from that entertainment value. The story is never going to work out right when you say "we need to do ___ for political/social/whatever reasons, now let's write the story around it."
Identifying gun owners not only screws those gun owners, it screws the non-gun owners as well (if the list is comprehensive.)
By identifying gun owners, you give criminals who want illegal guns a definite target. Maybe they know that the risk would be great by breaking into the house when someone is home, but it gives them the information they need to have a better chance at a payoff if they wait around and watch the house until everyone is gone before breaking in. This by itself puts everyone at risk by making it easier for criminals to know where to steal guns.
The other problem is that if a comprehensive list is available, they would also know who doesn't have a gun. This could make non-armed households greater targets for criminals who don't want to waste their time staking out a house first and would rather just break in steal when they can carry, and assault whoever gets in their way.
People need to understand that phone use, even silent phone use, distracts some people, and it should be kept to a minimum. But on the other hand, people also need to understand that when they're in a room with 200 other people, there are going to be distractions. And there are some scenarios where, in my opinion, it's perfectly acceptable to turn on your screen for 10 seconds to see who is calling and then either turn it off or excuse yourself to the lobby. There has to be compromise and understanding on both sides.
I go to the theater about 5 times a year. I admit that I'm not an avid movie goer. But out of my limited experiences at the theater, I don't think I have ever been so annoyed by someone else's phone that I gave it a second thought after the movie. I see a lot of people talking and texting through the previews, but once the movie starts, people seem to stop. I have seen one person answer their phone and run out of the theater. And I see people checking their phones or texting here and there but not constantly and not with sound. Sometimes I wonder if I just live in a more polite region or if people are just anal.
"If society is benefiting from whatever the government is doing, society should pay for it, not the landowner," said CEO Robert Laing. "The cost can be horrendous. And it isn't fair."
The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.
This, right here, hits the nail on the head. I'm not sure about the mandatory jail time, but making it socially unacceptable is the key. Right now, playing with your phone while driving is kind of like speeding. Lots of people do it, and most people don't really care that you do it. Or even if they care, they don't really say anything to you. If we could get to the point where admitting to texting and driving was similar to admitting to reading a book while driving... where your friends would act like you're insane... then most people wouldn't do it anymore.
I understand the need to add fees or increase rates. But it would have been a lot smarter just to add the fee to all new contracts or at contract upgrades rather than sticking it to everyone at the same time.
There were more than 2 choices. The Republicans and Democrats have everyone convinced that if you vote for a 3rd party, you're throwing your vote away. They rally people around hot-button issues to distract everyone from the fact that they are 90% the same. If people want change they need to stop voting for Republicans and Democrats, especially at the national level. Even if you don't care, go out and vote for a 3rd party candidate. Barring a miracle, they're not going to win any major elections right away. But as their vote tallies steadily increase, it will drive the point home to the politicians in both of the major parties that we are sick of their shit. They're not going to change until their jobs are threatened.
Agreed. However, I think the biggest factor here is: one of these happened at a school and the other one did not. Possessing a BB gun or even a butter knife at school can get you arrested. And "works bombs" and the like are already in a pretty gray area outside of school. I think that the felony is overkill, but I would find it pretty surprising for any student to do something like this and not get charged with a crime these days.
The way I handled it while working an IT in college: disassemble the drives. After everything was taken apart, I would destroy the platters by shattering them or bending and breaking them into multiple pieces (depending on the material.) I would also break any circuit boards. Then I would throw all the scrap in the trash and save the magnets (because they're awesome.) It was a good way to kill time while waiting for a disk re-image to finish.
I don't think that lossy audio compression is inherently hurting recorded music. Lossy is fine as long as good encoders and sufficient bitrates are used. At a certain point, no one can tell which is which (lossy or lossless) in a blind test.
I mostly listen to MP3 encoded rock music. The loss of quality is very noticeable to me at 128kbps. The loss of quality is much harder to discern at 192, especially if a quality encoder is used. I use LAME -V 2 when I rip CDs and usually end up with average bitrates from ~190-215, and I can't tell the difference between those MP3s and the original CD.
If Glass becomes ubiquitous, the ramifications could be amazing. However, they could also be quite scary. But just because Glass could become scary doesn't mean that it will. I think that now would be a good time to reexamine our privacy laws and define what is ok and what is not.
You're right, it is definitely a state issue. But we need other states to go along with our plan or it messes things up. I live in Indiana where we didn't used to practice DST. We ended up adopting it because it was decided that the drawbacks of being out of sync with everyone else were worse than the drawbacks of practicing DST. I don't like DST, but going alone causes problems too. We need to do exactly what Rep Johnson is trying to do: convince states to join a pact and drop DST together.
While modern DSLR cameras might have large buffers, normal consumer-grade or even enthusiast-grade point-and-shoot cameras don't necessarily have them. IMO it makes sense for an average person to buy a higher speed card. They're probably only buying one card anyway, and the price difference between a slow card and a fast card is small enough to make it worth it.
On a side note, it seems like if a company really wanted to bounce some questions off of random geeky heads, it would be more productive to write up the questions and have the intern go ask them on tech forums. "Ask Slashdot"
Does it really seem likely that a company would take the time to go through resumes and hold interviews just for the purpose of extracting "free" information from interviewees about their specific problems? Or does it seem more likely that a company would ask interviewees about their specific problems so that they can hire the one who has the best solution to it?
When I get asked specific questions in interviews, I'm happy to give the best answers that I can give.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ok Google Now. Call 911."
That's part of the reason that overturning it doesn't get as much voter support as one would expect. But they are also sticking with it because the people who profit from it (car dealerships) are lobbying to keep their unfair advantage.
This is sort of like the shenanigans happening with alcohol laws in my home state. Alcohol can't be sold at stores on Sundays, but it can be sold at restaurants and bars. The main push against changing the law isn't from religious people. It's from the liquor store association who doesn't want to have to be open an extra day to compete with groceries and the restaurant association who wants to keep their monopoly on Sunday alcohol sales.
Unfortunately, it IS normal. (Not this guys particularly bad experience, but walking through scanners, getting felt on, etc.) I don't like that it's a part of air travel, and I don't think that it's acceptable. But it is what it is. I avoid flying if at all possible, and I've written my reps to let them know my opinion. But when I have to (or choose to) fly, my only real options are to jump through the TSA hoops or run the risk of having a really unpleasant time at the airport.
If this man's story is accurate, it's a shameful scenario indeed. But I've read a lot of these well-documented horrible TSA encounter accounts, and most don't involve Ramadan. However, most DO have one thing in common: the person opted-out of the scan and/or argued about the pat-down.
I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays. Consider them to be a travel risk. If you want to fight them in safety, quit flying and write your rep. And if you decide to fight them in person, prepare to be a martyr. And if you want to get from point A to point B with as small of risk of problems as possible, prepare to consent to being scanned, groped, or whatever else they want to do.
Not everything has to be "important" or has to teach people something. And that goes double for teaching them something specific. If we're going to have a female Doctor specifically for the purpose of "teaching," why not have a black or an Indian or a middle eastern Doctor? Or we could teach people about other social issues of the day... drugs, poverty, etc. Or maybe the Doctor could come out of the closet?
People watch Doctor Who primarily for entertainment. When you start forcing changes, it feels forced and takes away from that entertainment value. The story is never going to work out right when you say "we need to do ___ for political/social/whatever reasons, now let's write the story around it."
Identifying gun owners not only screws those gun owners, it screws the non-gun owners as well (if the list is comprehensive.)
By identifying gun owners, you give criminals who want illegal guns a definite target. Maybe they know that the risk would be great by breaking into the house when someone is home, but it gives them the information they need to have a better chance at a payoff if they wait around and watch the house until everyone is gone before breaking in. This by itself puts everyone at risk by making it easier for criminals to know where to steal guns.
The other problem is that if a comprehensive list is available, they would also know who doesn't have a gun. This could make non-armed households greater targets for criminals who don't want to waste their time staking out a house first and would rather just break in steal when they can carry, and assault whoever gets in their way.
People need to understand that phone use, even silent phone use, distracts some people, and it should be kept to a minimum. But on the other hand, people also need to understand that when they're in a room with 200 other people, there are going to be distractions. And there are some scenarios where, in my opinion, it's perfectly acceptable to turn on your screen for 10 seconds to see who is calling and then either turn it off or excuse yourself to the lobby. There has to be compromise and understanding on both sides.
I go to the theater about 5 times a year. I admit that I'm not an avid movie goer. But out of my limited experiences at the theater, I don't think I have ever been so annoyed by someone else's phone that I gave it a second thought after the movie. I see a lot of people talking and texting through the previews, but once the movie starts, people seem to stop. I have seen one person answer their phone and run out of the theater. And I see people checking their phones or texting here and there but not constantly and not with sound. Sometimes I wonder if I just live in a more polite region or if people are just anal.
No no no. People still need the ability to call 911.
From the article you linked:
"If society is benefiting from whatever the government is doing, society should pay for it, not the landowner," said CEO Robert Laing. "The cost can be horrendous. And it isn't fair."
This this this.
It's all over the internet. Here for one:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/
The solution is to fix the culture to make it socially unacceptable.
This, right here, hits the nail on the head. I'm not sure about the mandatory jail time, but making it socially unacceptable is the key. Right now, playing with your phone while driving is kind of like speeding. Lots of people do it, and most people don't really care that you do it. Or even if they care, they don't really say anything to you. If we could get to the point where admitting to texting and driving was similar to admitting to reading a book while driving... where your friends would act like you're insane... then most people wouldn't do it anymore.
You mean deliciously close to raw.
I understand the need to add fees or increase rates. But it would have been a lot smarter just to add the fee to all new contracts or at contract upgrades rather than sticking it to everyone at the same time.
There were more than 2 choices. The Republicans and Democrats have everyone convinced that if you vote for a 3rd party, you're throwing your vote away. They rally people around hot-button issues to distract everyone from the fact that they are 90% the same. If people want change they need to stop voting for Republicans and Democrats, especially at the national level. Even if you don't care, go out and vote for a 3rd party candidate. Barring a miracle, they're not going to win any major elections right away. But as their vote tallies steadily increase, it will drive the point home to the politicians in both of the major parties that we are sick of their shit. They're not going to change until their jobs are threatened.
Ok, this might be useful at the airport or something. But I actually like to talk to the bartenders at my favorite bars.
Agreed. However, I think the biggest factor here is: one of these happened at a school and the other one did not. Possessing a BB gun or even a butter knife at school can get you arrested. And "works bombs" and the like are already in a pretty gray area outside of school. I think that the felony is overkill, but I would find it pretty surprising for any student to do something like this and not get charged with a crime these days.
The way I handled it while working an IT in college: disassemble the drives. After everything was taken apart, I would destroy the platters by shattering them or bending and breaking them into multiple pieces (depending on the material.) I would also break any circuit boards. Then I would throw all the scrap in the trash and save the magnets (because they're awesome.) It was a good way to kill time while waiting for a disk re-image to finish.
I don't think that lossy audio compression is inherently hurting recorded music. Lossy is fine as long as good encoders and sufficient bitrates are used. At a certain point, no one can tell which is which (lossy or lossless) in a blind test.
I mostly listen to MP3 encoded rock music. The loss of quality is very noticeable to me at 128kbps. The loss of quality is much harder to discern at 192, especially if a quality encoder is used. I use LAME -V 2 when I rip CDs and usually end up with average bitrates from ~190-215, and I can't tell the difference between those MP3s and the original CD.
IMO there are bigger problems facing recorded music anyway. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
I'm not afraid of Google Glass.
If Glass becomes ubiquitous, the ramifications could be amazing. However, they could also be quite scary. But just because Glass could become scary doesn't mean that it will. I think that now would be a good time to reexamine our privacy laws and define what is ok and what is not.
SimCity had a closed but free beta. I participated in it. There were no requirements that you preorder the game or purchase anything else.
You're right, it is definitely a state issue. But we need other states to go along with our plan or it messes things up. I live in Indiana where we didn't used to practice DST. We ended up adopting it because it was decided that the drawbacks of being out of sync with everyone else were worse than the drawbacks of practicing DST. I don't like DST, but going alone causes problems too. We need to do exactly what Rep Johnson is trying to do: convince states to join a pact and drop DST together.
While modern DSLR cameras might have large buffers, normal consumer-grade or even enthusiast-grade point-and-shoot cameras don't necessarily have them. IMO it makes sense for an average person to buy a higher speed card. They're probably only buying one card anyway, and the price difference between a slow card and a fast card is small enough to make it worth it.
On a side note, it seems like if a company really wanted to bounce some questions off of random geeky heads, it would be more productive to write up the questions and have the intern go ask them on tech forums. "Ask Slashdot"
Does it really seem likely that a company would take the time to go through resumes and hold interviews just for the purpose of extracting "free" information from interviewees about their specific problems? Or does it seem more likely that a company would ask interviewees about their specific problems so that they can hire the one who has the best solution to it?
When I get asked specific questions in interviews, I'm happy to give the best answers that I can give.