She complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Committee. Like complaining to the FCC, in the U.S., only with intelligent people handling the complaint.
"Fear the scientists! They can CONTROL your life! They know WHEN FLOODS will HAPPEN!"
Or maybe I'm reading too much into scientific illiteracy.
But I really _must_ protest the whole "Donald Turcotte recalls the hostile reaction he received when he suggested there might be a universal law linking patterns of mineral deposits, floods and landslides..." *sigh*
I hope someone comes up with a better article on this.
I understand the idea of, "Just because it's pretty doesn't make it good." But you sound a lot more like "If it's pretty, it cannot be good."
I mean, hell - "People actually set their desktop backgrounds based on their favourite design themes. Just plain sad! It's a computer, people, not a poster!" ("And just think of all the money you'll save on this soothing amber monitor.")
Re:Why it's sooo hard for this stuff to happen....
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
One of these days, I'm going to go to law school... Until then...
I know in some cases it is impossible to waive a right to sue for a class of possible events. 'Agreeing' to a EULA doesn't necessarily waive your right to sue under all circumstances. However, the admission/admonition that all computer software is designed to fail under unforeseen circumstances (actual use, when it comes to '95) is a pretty good protection. That is - if you were trying to use Windows to prevent damage, and it failed, MS is not liable for that damage because they told you that Windows doesn't work. If you were using Windows, and because of MS's negligence or malice, Windows leaps from the computer and strangles your girlfriend, I'd call a lawyer. Unless they've updated the EULA to specifically mention Windows' tendencies to murder people. Something like that.
Re:Why it's sooo hard for this stuff to happen....
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
If I recall correctly, a tort lawsuit must show that a party behaved negligently or maliciously, that damage occurred, and that the damage would not have occurred without the negligence or malice on the part of the party.
I don't know that publishing source code could ever be considered, of itself, negligent. Even distributing binaries, as long as people have to look for them - they are not attractive nuisances, I hope. So if the devteam doesn't behave maliciously, it seems to me they are free from blame.
Marketing, on the othey hand, is more vulnerable - I don't imagine Red Hat's lawyers would let them stamp "As used by St. George, Utah 911 dispatchers," all over the box. That implies that it is suitable for emergency use, shifting some of the blame for such use, in my eyes, to marketing.
The people who make the decision to use it, absent some sort of marketing coersion, seem to be the people responsible for it failing them.
One hole I can see in this - what if they go to a computer supplier, and the supplier decides to install Linux for them? (Funny how this argument seems more likely to apply to Windows, though.)
As I recall, no civil case has yet been successfully brought against an OS manufacturer because their OS wasn't stable enough?
Well, in this case, "New Journalism" could visit the City of St. George Police Department website and verify that Sherman Stebbins was, in fact, a Police Officer. And that the e-mail address he gave appears to be, in fact, an e-mail address given on the City of St. George Web page. They could even e-mail those addresses, or possibly call the City of St. George Police Department.
Should "New Journalism" do this? If it wants to be respected, probably.
This is what their privacy policy states: 'Also, Amazon.com may provide aggregate statistics about our customers, sales, traffic patterns, and related site information to reputable third-party vendors, but these statistics will include no personally identifying information.'
Doesn't make me feel safe. Especially considering they've already made mistakes in determining what qualifies as personally identifying information. And that it's not clear (at least to me) whether they would violate their privacy policy by GIVING away their entire database of customers and orders.
Well, from the point of view of the ever-expanding internet, it's not really news, I guess. But it's certainly a jump from accepting payment in person only to accepting payment over the internet. The few times I've been pulled over here in Texas, I've been terrified that I would get a ticket, not because of the cost of paying the ticket, but of the difficulty of driving back across the state to pay for it. You're right, though - at this point, it's almost more newsworthy that Fry's Electronics DOESN'T have a web page than that x now uses e-commerce.
From the facts presented in the article, it seems as though costs will rapidly approach those of current ic technology, only much smaller - and possibly even become much cheaper. I mean, yeah, a lot of the things the guy said were pure speculation, but he certainly was talking about a manufacturing process that's cheaper than what goes into a Pentium. And as for the 'they'll get swallowed' argument, we currently have the technology to make a wristwatch that's too small to read - you may have noticed that we don't.
Slashdot Mirror
She complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Committee. Like complaining to the FCC, in the U.S., only with intelligent people handling the complaint.
but it's still just Rotaxane, and it still only switches once.
"Fear the scientists! They can CONTROL your life! They know WHEN FLOODS will HAPPEN!"
Or maybe I'm reading too much into scientific illiteracy.
But I really _must_ protest the whole "Donald Turcotte recalls the hostile reaction he received when he suggested there might be a universal law linking patterns of mineral deposits, floods and landslides..." *sigh*
I hope someone comes up with a better article on this.
I understand the idea of, "Just because it's pretty doesn't make it good." But you sound a lot more like "If it's pretty, it cannot be good."
I mean, hell - "People actually set their desktop backgrounds based on their favourite design themes. Just plain sad! It's a computer, people, not a poster!" ("And just think of all the money you'll save on this soothing amber monitor.")
One of these days, I'm going to go to law school... Until then...
I know in some cases it is impossible to waive a right to sue for a class of possible events. 'Agreeing' to a EULA doesn't necessarily waive your right to sue under all circumstances. However, the admission/admonition that all computer software is designed to fail under unforeseen circumstances (actual use, when it comes to '95) is a pretty good protection. That is - if you were trying to use Windows to prevent damage, and it failed, MS is not liable for that damage because they told you that Windows doesn't work. If you were using Windows, and because of MS's negligence or malice, Windows leaps from the computer and strangles your girlfriend, I'd call a lawyer. Unless they've updated the EULA to specifically mention Windows' tendencies to murder people. Something like that.
Three cheers for open-source journalism!
If I recall correctly, a tort lawsuit must show that a party behaved negligently or maliciously, that damage occurred, and that the damage would not have occurred without the negligence or malice on the part of the party.
I don't know that publishing source code could ever be considered, of itself, negligent. Even distributing binaries, as long as people have to look for them - they are not attractive nuisances, I hope. So if the devteam doesn't behave maliciously, it seems to me they are free from blame.
Marketing, on the othey hand, is more vulnerable - I don't imagine Red Hat's lawyers would let them stamp "As used by St. George, Utah 911 dispatchers," all over the box. That implies that it is suitable for emergency use, shifting some of the blame for such use, in my eyes, to marketing.
The people who make the decision to use it, absent some sort of marketing coersion, seem to be the people responsible for it failing them.
One hole I can see in this - what if they go to a computer supplier, and the supplier decides to install Linux for them? (Funny how this argument seems more likely to apply to Windows, though.)
As I recall, no civil case has yet been successfully brought against an OS manufacturer because their OS wasn't stable enough?
Well, in this case, "New Journalism" could visit the City of St. George Police Department website and verify that Sherman Stebbins was, in fact, a Police Officer. And that the e-mail address he gave appears to be, in fact, an e-mail address given on the City of St. George Web page. They could even e-mail those addresses, or possibly call the City of St. George Police Department.
Should "New Journalism" do this? If it wants to be respected, probably.
And don't forget:
'Copyright (C) [ The Internet Society (date).'
Let's just say it's something about justice.
This is what their privacy policy states: 'Also, Amazon.com may provide aggregate statistics
about our customers, sales, traffic patterns, and related site information to reputable third-party vendors, but these statistics will include no personally identifying information.'
Doesn't make me feel safe. Especially considering they've already made mistakes in determining what qualifies as personally identifying information. And that it's not clear (at least to me) whether they would violate their privacy policy by GIVING away their entire database of customers and orders.
Well, from the point of view of the ever-expanding internet, it's not really news, I guess. But it's certainly a jump from accepting payment in person only to accepting payment over the internet. The few times I've been pulled over here in Texas, I've been terrified that I would get a ticket, not because of the cost of paying the ticket, but of the difficulty of driving back across the state to pay for it.
You're right, though - at this point, it's almost more newsworthy that Fry's Electronics DOESN'T have a web page than that x now uses e-commerce.
From the facts presented in the article, it seems as though costs will rapidly approach those of current ic technology, only much smaller - and possibly even become much cheaper. I mean, yeah, a lot of the things the guy said were pure speculation, but he certainly was talking about a manufacturing process that's cheaper than what goes into a Pentium. And as for the 'they'll get swallowed' argument, we currently have the technology to make a wristwatch that's too small to read - you may have noticed that we don't.