What we have here is a bunch of girls who took pictures of themselves and friends in the shower. All were wearing bikinis. In other words, I could get the same "thrill" by going to any public beach.
I suppose you have to say more. I'm a bit lost as to what is "bad" about this. It looks like all the people involved were willing participants.
The question is whether the person who owns the access point has the legal authority to deny permission.
I think they should be able to. Though IANAL, I believe I've seen various states pass laws saying that this is akin to trespassing. But like trespassing, it is up to the owner of the land to notify people that they are trespassing. If I don't put a fence around my land or prominently post signs saying, "No trespassing", and people wander onto my property, I can't convict them of trespassing if there was no reasonable way they would know they were trespassing.
If you run a CAT5 cable out into the street, light it up and leave it there, am I breaking the law by plugging into it?
Again, I think the key to this is knowledge. In the case that you describe, you are not breaking the law. However, let's say you can clearly see the cable coming out of my house. You see me walk out the house where the cable is connected. I tell you, "Get off my network." I have now told you that I own it and you are not allowed to use it. You are now trespassing. If you say, "I don't believe this is your network!" and keep using it, I can call the cops to remove you from my network. When the cops show up, I might have to prove to them that it is my network. But, since it is, you can be arrested for trespassing.
Of course, if you say, "Oops! Sorry!" and unplug your computer, you're in the clear. Now let's be more entertaining and say that you discover that the wire only goes past my house and into someone else's. Then you're right--I can't tell you to get off my network because it's not my network. After discovering this, if you come back and use it, you can't be arrested.
If I stick a CAT5 cable into public property but I stick a piece of tape on the end with the message, "Private Network. Do not use," and you use it, I can arrest you for trespassing.
So, in the case described, the gentleman was breaking the law because he was knowingly accessing the network that he had been asked not to use. Now, of course, he might be able to claim that he didn't know he was using the coffee shop network if the name had changed or something. For example, if the first time he got busted, the network name was "Linksys" but when he came back, it was "network", he'd have no reasonable way of knowing that the same people owned it.
Again, IAm Not ALawyer. From my limited knowledge, this is how it works, and I could be wrong. To me, though, if the coffee shop wants an open network for their customers' use, they should name the network "FOR CUSTOMERS OF JOE'S COFFEE SHOP ONLY" (does that fit?). There's your "No Trespassing" sign right there.
According to wikipedia, more Democrats opposed the line-item veto than Republicans.
...and your assumption is that this is a bad thing?
Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the concept. I would rather these people do the job that I'm sending them to Washington to do. Currently, there's the agreement in Washington--I'll support your pork if you'll support mine. What Congress is trying to do is make sombody else the bad guy. "Well, gosh, I tried to get everybody in America to pay for the Ball of Twine Museum in my district. Unfortunately, that mean ol' President vetoed it. Blame him, not me!"
This is their responsibility. If they abdicate it, then why the hell are they there?
Oh, and it was passed into law in 1996, not 1994.
Fair enough--I was going off of memory. I remember that the line-item veto was part of the Republicans' "Contract With America" back during the elections. When they passed it, I don't know.
Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents.
Actually, I'd change the way they are paid entirely.
Senators are there representing the State. Thus, they should be paid by the State Government, not the Federal Government. How their pay gets decided will be up to the state. Maybe the Governor decides. Maybe it gets voted on in the state government.
For example, Senators will complain that they have to keep two houses--one in Washington, one in their home district. Thus, they need more money for this. Solution: Have the State buy them a house in Washington. Problem solved. "We don't have to pay you so much now, because we're paying for your house. And, if you get voted out, we'll move someone else into the house."
It might be trickier to have Representatives work the same way, I'll admit. There are some pretty poor districts, so it might be best to let the states pay for the Representatives as well, I'll admit. But I'd take the pay away from them entirely and move that closer to the people who are sending them. Heck, if nothing else, somebody might use it in their campaign: "Better Representation at Half the Price!"
No more voter registration along party lines.
Well, I'm not sure how it works. I think the government stores this information if you supply it and will provide it to the party. I don't have a problem with voter registration drives sponsored by political parties. I convinced my roomate to register to vote via some drive by the local Republican party. However, she registered as an independent.
Actually, speaking of political parties and congress, here's one of those little money-saving things I'd like to see enacted. The Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders and Whips get more tax-dollars to run their offices than the typical congressman. Now, last I knew, there was no such position in the government as "Senate Majority Leader." The parties decide this. That's fine--political parties can do what they want to. But not with my tax dollars. If the Senate Majority Leader needs more staff to run his office, let the Republican or Democratic Party pay for it.
Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"
It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.
This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
Ballmer: in our reorg, I'm moving you to department X. Martin: hey isn't that a demotion? Ballmer: yes Martin: !@#$&^% Ballmer: deal with it
Martin: Maybe I'll call that guy back at google Ballmer: What!??! I'm gonna fucking kill google! (starts eyeing chairs in the room) Martin: Uh...Yeah. I'll just get my things and be out of your way... (Martin slowly backs away from Ballmer, turns and runs for his life)
Actually, knowing Microsoft's penchant for bloatware, I was thinking of the scene in Robocop 2 where they download his directives and it just keeps scrolling by. Some of the directives are here.
Let's say, just for chuckles, that China beats the US to the Moon, lands right next to that alleged hunk of ice on the South Pole, and starts setting up a permanent base. The US would immediately use that treaty as an excuse to say, "They can't do that! The resources of the moon are for all mankind!"
Worse yet, let's say they start doing some of these fancy things, like building mining operations and sending precious ores back to Earth or beaming back solar energy, thus affecting American businesses in a negative manner. You don't think we'd come up with some excuse to "affect regime change"? You don't think the US would be pushing the UN for some kind of "resolution" to justify this?
"There's evidence for these things, but of course, if the threshold of skepticism is sufficiently high it can never be surmounted."
Well, the GP seemed pretty sure it was due to secondhand smoke. Of course, we know nothing of the situation, so we have to take it on faith.
For example, my former landlady had empysema and she was pretty sure that it was caused by second-hand smoke. She had spent 60 years married to a heavy smoker and had worked for the phone company as an operator (back in the days when people smoked in the office). Her emphysema wasn't debilitating or anything, but at 86 years old she had some problems in smokey environments (and, thus, didn't allow smoking in the apartments).
There are lots of factors which contribute to health problems, though. Secondhand smoke in small doses is probably not going to cause lung cancer. Living in it is another matter. Especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle, as many older people have.
I was in Vietnam, up in Nha Trang. There was a harbor where various sizes of boats docked. There was a large tanker-like ship anchored nearby. It was tied to this large floating buoy. Kids were climbing up on this large buoy and jumping in the water. It looked like a lot of fun and I really wanted to do it.
The problem was that the water looked particularly nasty. With all the local boats, the water was probably full of gasoline, sewage, and lord knows what else. I knew if I went swimming in it, I'd probably be sick as a dog for the rest of my vacation, so I opted out. But these kids were having a grand ol' time and I'm sure they had developed immunities to most of the nasty stuff in the water over the years.
"Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. [...] I'd be mighty angry if I was at the movies, and the babysitter couldn't call me and let me know that my children had hurt themselves and was in ICU at the hospital. Sure, I set the phone to vibrate, but beyond that, if somebody calls me, I want to know about it."
Normally, I'd agree--Solve People Problems With People, Solve Technology Problems With Technology.
That said, I have no problem with a theater-owner building a theater which will block phones. Heck, it might be a good sales-pitch: "Come to our theater and enjoy a film without being distrurbed by cell phones." I think the theater-owner should let customers know beforehand, and should offer refunds if this is unacceptable. If I owned a multiplex, I'd take two or three of my theaters and do this. Ideally, I'd love a system that I could turn on and off and--better yet--move around. If there's a demand for interruption-free movie viewing, there should be a way to supply it.
The last sentence, though, is the one that surprised me. Why is this important that you need to know--right now--that your child is at ICU? Start with the worst case scenario: You go in to watch 'Titanic'. At the same time, your son falls off the roof of the house. You will be unreachable for the next 3 hours and 15 minutes (or 2 hours and 85 minutes if you're a nervous movie marketing person). Would you rather your babysitter call you or call the hospital? Personally, I'd rather the babysitter call the hospital and get the ambulance over there ASAP. In a life-or-death situation, Doctors will operate on your kid without your permission. Let the babysitter know if the kid has any allergies to medication, etc. If you're that concerned about your kid, step out of the theater and check your cellphone for messages.
Also, consider how you deal with your cellphone. You're sitting in the theater. Your phone vibrates. It's the babysitter. Tell me you are going to race out of the theater to answer the phone before it gets transfered to voice-mail. Heck, no. You're going to answer it. And, while you might be a wonderful person who would answer the phone and say, "Hang on" while walking out of the theater, most people are at least going to start the conversation. "Hi, Becky. Why are you calling? Little Jimmy fell off the roof!?!?" Now, tell me that with little Jimmy falling off the roof, you're going to say, "Hang on while I walk out of the theater so I don't disturb the other people."
Besides, different people have different concepts of what constitutes an emergency. It's the old scheduling joke: "Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." While the fact that little Jimmy got a bloody nose fighting with his sister may be an emergency to you--and therefore worthy of interrupting my ability to enjoy a movie--I would disagree.
I'll grant you that the ISS is currently doing little but floating around the Earth sucking money.
I'm not a member of NASA. I don't work in the space industry. So I'm not privy to any plans about ISS. That said, where I see ISS is as a "platform" for space research. Yes, the kind of research where someone says, "Can a cat ever cope with zero-G?"
Suppose someone wants to send a cat into space to study the effect of zero-G on a cat's nervous system. Actually, let's make it more entertaining--send a pregnant cat up and see what effect zero-G has on the kittens born in space. Leave them up there for about a year, so the kittens will grow up, then bring them back and see how they cope with gravity. What would they have to do? Okay, they'd have to design some sort of capsule for the cat and kittens to live in, with appropriate amounts of food and water and automated systems to feed the cats, regulate air, etc. They'd need some kind of communication system to monitor the cats. They'd have to come up with some way for the cats to come home to study them further, so they'll need a heat shield and automated re-entry systems. Or, they could send the cat up in a Progress drone--subsidized by the government--with cans of off-the-shelf catfood. The "support systems"--food, water, air, communication are all subsidized by the government and other experiments. Which do you think would be cheaper?
Of course, you can say, "Who cares about whether cats or kittens can ever cope with zero-G? That's esoteric research!" I'll agree. I know that whether cats and kittens can cope with zero-G has no effect on my life. But I'd point out that landing a probe on Titan has no effect on my life, either. There's lots of esoteric trivia that was learned about Titan when we did it.
Landing a probe on Titan is a lot cooler than sending a cat to the ISS. It was pretty cool to see the camera view from Huygens as it fell through the atmosphere. Heck, I just watched it again last night. Neat stuff. But is the research somehow more valuable? Did any exciting new technologies have to be developed to land a probe on Titan--technologies that will change the way we live or work or even send new probes to other places? Nope.
That's one place where I take exception with what you said. You seem to feel that the experiments performed on the ISS are of interest to only a few. You're right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fund them. Consider the Apollo program. We made it to the moon! Huzzah for mankind and the good ol' U.S. of A! But after we did it? Then they started doing boring old experiments and research and things like that and most of us lost interest. We learned alot more about the moon from Apollos 12-17 than we did from Apollo 11. But it was pretty esoteric stuff--nobody but geologists really cared. So by your reasoning, we shouldn't have bothered spending the money on 12-17. We should have just funded it until we got to the moon and then said, "Okay! On to Mars!"
There was an old line I remember hearing about the US space program--"No bucks if there's no Buck Rogers" (As an aside, I've read "Buck Rogers" and it has nothing to do with space). You're right--it's tough to make flame research interesting to all but a few people. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it.
Well, there is a minor issue with using Soyuz--it only holds three people. So, at best, you're going to have six people on board and hope that any disaster doesn't block the docking area.
That said, I sort of agree. I remember NASA spending big bucks on a "space lifeboat." Frankly, for the amount they spent on it, they could have bought a bunch of Soyuz capsules instead andbuilt a couple of docking areas for redundancy.
Well, I won't go that far, but I'll also point out that it's easier and safer for your career to say 'no' than to say 'yes.'
Suppose you say 'yes,' the Shuttle goes up and disaster happens. You're to blame. Suppose you say 'yes,' the Shuttle goes up and everything is fine. No one cares. Suppose you say 'no,' the Shuttle goes up and everything is fine. No repercussions. Suppose you say 'no,' the Shuttle goes up and disaster happens. You were right all along.
Obviously, looking at a cost/benefit analysis, if you say 'yes,' either no one will care or you'll be in trouble. If you say 'no,', either (a) no one will care or you'll be a hero.
"Or call the FBI & SWAT team because he thinks its a potential suicide bomber, innocent guy is surrounded, a couple helicoptors circle round plastering his face all over the news. Maybe in his nervousness the guy reaches for his wallet to show his ID and is shot. You can come up with all sorts of results from any scenario."
Sure you can. But most cops I know would investigate the guy before calling for back-up. Conversely, the guy behind the video screen can do nothing but call for back-up.
Again, the issue here is whether the planes are on the prowl for "suspicious activity."
Okay, how about doing something completely legal like parading around buck-tooth naked. As long as you cannot be viewed from the street, you're okay. Suddenly, there's police drones flying around taking video of you sunbathing in the buff.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But tell me that video isn't going to get on the Internet.
Why should a drone be peeking in my backyard? To make sure that I'm not doing anything illegal? But, at least the last time I checked, I was innocent until proven guilty. It's the same idea. Would it be okay for the police to enter and search your house if they didn't bash down your door and tear things up? Suppose they were nice and polite and put everything back the way they found it. Would it still be okay? After all, you're not inconvenienced...
Let me give you a fun example: I used to drive a Jeep. I hate having a top on my car, so I often leave the top down. I've come back to my Jeep and found all sorts of entertaining things stuck in there (eg porno magazines). Once, I found a bunch of marijuana joints. I assume that some kids had them and were afraid of getting caught with them, so they stuck them in my Jeep figuring they'd come back later and pick them up.
I've been pulled over by the police. They've asked to search my vehicle and I refuse. Why? Because I don't know what some people might have hidden in the vehicle and I don't want to be responsible for anything that the cops might find. One time I had a cop who tried to tell me that my attitude was "suspicious," that was "probable cause" for him to search my vehicle, and I should just make life easier on myself and cooperate because if I made him go through the hassle, he'd have me thrown in jail for sure. After all, why should I decline a search? I have nothing to hide, do I?
I told him he had to get his captain down here. The captain came down, listened to my story, and agreed with me. The vehicle is open, anything could be in there, and declining a search does not constitute probable cause.
While I agree with the sentiment--"Any tool is bad in the wrong hands"--I take issue with your example: "Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto?"
I'll admit, this falls back on your warrant and/or probably cause. But consider the following scenario: A man of middle-eastern descent walks home from work and takes a shortcut through the railyard. Now, this is illegal. We all know that. He's doing it because it saves him a 20 minute walk--no excuse, admittedly. A policeman spots him doing this. What would probably happen? The cop would watch what he does and at some point during his walk home, would pull over and ask him a few questions and say something to the effect of "Stop doing that." Maybe even give him a ticket for trespassing or something.
Same scenario, but this time he's spotted by our "eye in the sky" drone. The operator can't talk to the guy, obviously, but the guy is of middle-eastern descent so he could be a terrorist and, after all, a terrorist could do a lot of damage in a railyard. Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators. Now, of course, we can't just go up to this guy, so we'd better find out more about him, talk to his employer, neighbors, etc. All on the QT, of course, we can't let him know we're watching him.
So, of course, the man's boss is told that they're investigating this guy because he might be a terrorist. Think the boss is going to give that guy the raise he was planning on giving him? Think the neighbors are gonna let their kids play with his kids?
The difference here is that the cop-on-the-beat has some incentive to immediately find out what's going on. The guy behind the camera has nothing to do but make up wild stories.
"Yes, pharmaceutical companies want to make a buck, but scientists are human beings and many of them are doing their best to create the best drugs they can to help people. To think that they're intentionally withholding drugs or not trying to cure diseases to keep making money is simply ridiculous and paranoid."
Well...
I'll certainly give the scientists their due. The question becomes how much control does the company have over the directions the scientists' research takes them?
Here's sort of how I see it: I have no doubts that the drug companies are hard at work attempting to develop an AIDS vaccine. Are they attempting to work on a cure? Because, let's face it, there are far more people who are concerned about getting AIDS and would like a vaccine than there are people who have AIDS. I'm sure the research that goes into an AIDS vaccine will immeasurably help to develop a cure. But which pill would you expect to see on the market first--the cure or the vaccine?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a reference the kids won't get. I remember it well, though.
"That's Big Dave Diode's bunk. How'd you like to wake up tomorrow morning and find your credit rating slashed?"
Okay. I did.
What we have here is a bunch of girls who took pictures of themselves and friends in the shower. All were wearing bikinis. In other words, I could get the same "thrill" by going to any public beach.
I suppose you have to say more. I'm a bit lost as to what is "bad" about this. It looks like all the people involved were willing participants.
I read the article. It said this was going to be done "tomorrow." Since tomorrow is a Saturday, I checked the date.
June 21st. Two days ago.
So "tomorrow" would appear to have been yesteday--no Star Trek reference intended.
Again, I think the key to this is knowledge. In the case that you describe, you are not breaking the law. However, let's say you can clearly see the cable coming out of my house. You see me walk out the house where the cable is connected. I tell you, "Get off my network." I have now told you that I own it and you are not allowed to use it. You are now trespassing. If you say, "I don't believe this is your network!" and keep using it, I can call the cops to remove you from my network. When the cops show up, I might have to prove to them that it is my network. But, since it is, you can be arrested for trespassing.
Of course, if you say, "Oops! Sorry!" and unplug your computer, you're in the clear. Now let's be more entertaining and say that you discover that the wire only goes past my house and into someone else's. Then you're right--I can't tell you to get off my network because it's not my network. After discovering this, if you come back and use it, you can't be arrested.
If I stick a CAT5 cable into public property but I stick a piece of tape on the end with the message, "Private Network. Do not use," and you use it, I can arrest you for trespassing.
So, in the case described, the gentleman was breaking the law because he was knowingly accessing the network that he had been asked not to use. Now, of course, he might be able to claim that he didn't know he was using the coffee shop network if the name had changed or something. For example, if the first time he got busted, the network name was "Linksys" but when he came back, it was "network", he'd have no reasonable way of knowing that the same people owned it.
Again, I Am Not A Lawyer. From my limited knowledge, this is how it works, and I could be wrong. To me, though, if the coffee shop wants an open network for their customers' use, they should name the network "FOR CUSTOMERS OF JOE'S COFFEE SHOP ONLY" (does that fit?). There's your "No Trespassing" sign right there.
Simple: They will be renamed "Satellites." Any celestial body can have satellites.
Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the concept. I would rather these people do the job that I'm sending them to Washington to do. Currently, there's the agreement in Washington--I'll support your pork if you'll support mine. What Congress is trying to do is make sombody else the bad guy. "Well, gosh, I tried to get everybody in America to pay for the Ball of Twine Museum in my district. Unfortunately, that mean ol' President vetoed it. Blame him, not me!"
This is their responsibility. If they abdicate it, then why the hell are they there?
Fair enough--I was going off of memory. I remember that the line-item veto was part of the Republicans' "Contract With America" back during the elections. When they passed it, I don't know.
Actually, I'd change the way they are paid entirely.
Senators are there representing the State. Thus, they should be paid by the State Government, not the Federal Government. How their pay gets decided will be up to the state. Maybe the Governor decides. Maybe it gets voted on in the state government.
For example, Senators will complain that they have to keep two houses--one in Washington, one in their home district. Thus, they need more money for this. Solution: Have the State buy them a house in Washington. Problem solved. "We don't have to pay you so much now, because we're paying for your house. And, if you get voted out, we'll move someone else into the house."
It might be trickier to have Representatives work the same way, I'll admit. There are some pretty poor districts, so it might be best to let the states pay for the Representatives as well, I'll admit. But I'd take the pay away from them entirely and move that closer to the people who are sending them. Heck, if nothing else, somebody might use it in their campaign: "Better Representation at Half the Price!"
Well, I'm not sure how it works. I think the government stores this information if you supply it and will provide it to the party. I don't have a problem with voter registration drives sponsored by political parties. I convinced my roomate to register to vote via some drive by the local Republican party. However, she registered as an independent.
Actually, speaking of political parties and congress, here's one of those little money-saving things I'd like to see enacted. The Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders and Whips get more tax-dollars to run their offices than the typical congressman. Now, last I knew, there was no such position in the government as "Senate Majority Leader." The parties decide this. That's fine--political parties can do what they want to. But not with my tax dollars. If the Senate Majority Leader needs more staff to run his office, let the Republican or Democratic Party pay for it.
Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"
It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.
This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
Ballmer: What!??! I'm gonna fucking kill google! (starts eyeing chairs in the room)
Martin: Uh...Yeah. I'll just get my things and be out of your way...
(Martin slowly backs away from Ballmer, turns and runs for his life)
The driver lies on his back, as though he was lying on a chesterfield.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
Actually, knowing Microsoft's penchant for bloatware, I was thinking of the scene in Robocop 2 where they download his directives and it just keeps scrolling by. Some of the directives are here.
Or react militarily?
Let's say, just for chuckles, that China beats the US to the Moon, lands right next to that alleged hunk of ice on the South Pole, and starts setting up a permanent base. The US would immediately use that treaty as an excuse to say, "They can't do that! The resources of the moon are for all mankind!"
Worse yet, let's say they start doing some of these fancy things, like building mining operations and sending precious ores back to Earth or beaming back solar energy, thus affecting American businesses in a negative manner. You don't think we'd come up with some excuse to "affect regime change"? You don't think the US would be pushing the UN for some kind of "resolution" to justify this?
"There's evidence for these things, but of course, if the threshold of skepticism is sufficiently high it can never be surmounted."
Well, the GP seemed pretty sure it was due to secondhand smoke. Of course, we know nothing of the situation, so we have to take it on faith.
For example, my former landlady had empysema and she was pretty sure that it was caused by second-hand smoke. She had spent 60 years married to a heavy smoker and had worked for the phone company as an operator (back in the days when people smoked in the office). Her emphysema wasn't debilitating or anything, but at 86 years old she had some problems in smokey environments (and, thus, didn't allow smoking in the apartments).
There are lots of factors which contribute to health problems, though. Secondhand smoke in small doses is probably not going to cause lung cancer. Living in it is another matter. Especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle, as many older people have.
This reminds me of a story from a few years back.
I was in Vietnam, up in Nha Trang. There was a harbor where various sizes of boats docked. There was a large tanker-like ship anchored nearby. It was tied to this large floating buoy. Kids were climbing up on this large buoy and jumping in the water. It looked like a lot of fun and I really wanted to do it.
The problem was that the water looked particularly nasty. With all the local boats, the water was probably full of gasoline, sewage, and lord knows what else. I knew if I went swimming in it, I'd probably be sick as a dog for the rest of my vacation, so I opted out. But these kids were having a grand ol' time and I'm sure they had developed immunities to most of the nasty stuff in the water over the years.
"Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. [...] I'd be mighty angry if I was at the movies, and the babysitter couldn't call me and let me know that my children had hurt themselves and was in ICU at the hospital. Sure, I set the phone to vibrate, but beyond that, if somebody calls me, I want to know about it."
Normally, I'd agree--Solve People Problems With People, Solve Technology Problems With Technology.
That said, I have no problem with a theater-owner building a theater which will block phones. Heck, it might be a good sales-pitch: "Come to our theater and enjoy a film without being distrurbed by cell phones." I think the theater-owner should let customers know beforehand, and should offer refunds if this is unacceptable. If I owned a multiplex, I'd take two or three of my theaters and do this. Ideally, I'd love a system that I could turn on and off and--better yet--move around. If there's a demand for interruption-free movie viewing, there should be a way to supply it.
The last sentence, though, is the one that surprised me. Why is this important that you need to know--right now--that your child is at ICU? Start with the worst case scenario: You go in to watch 'Titanic'. At the same time, your son falls off the roof of the house. You will be unreachable for the next 3 hours and 15 minutes (or 2 hours and 85 minutes if you're a nervous movie marketing person). Would you rather your babysitter call you or call the hospital? Personally, I'd rather the babysitter call the hospital and get the ambulance over there ASAP. In a life-or-death situation, Doctors will operate on your kid without your permission. Let the babysitter know if the kid has any allergies to medication, etc. If you're that concerned about your kid, step out of the theater and check your cellphone for messages.
Also, consider how you deal with your cellphone. You're sitting in the theater. Your phone vibrates. It's the babysitter. Tell me you are going to race out of the theater to answer the phone before it gets transfered to voice-mail. Heck, no. You're going to answer it. And, while you might be a wonderful person who would answer the phone and say, "Hang on" while walking out of the theater, most people are at least going to start the conversation. "Hi, Becky. Why are you calling? Little Jimmy fell off the roof!?!?" Now, tell me that with little Jimmy falling off the roof, you're going to say, "Hang on while I walk out of the theater so I don't disturb the other people."
Besides, different people have different concepts of what constitutes an emergency. It's the old scheduling joke: "Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." While the fact that little Jimmy got a bloody nose fighting with his sister may be an emergency to you--and therefore worthy of interrupting my ability to enjoy a movie--I would disagree.
I'll grant you that the ISS is currently doing little but floating around the Earth sucking money.
I'm not a member of NASA. I don't work in the space industry. So I'm not privy to any plans about ISS. That said, where I see ISS is as a "platform" for space research. Yes, the kind of research where someone says, "Can a cat ever cope with zero-G?"
Suppose someone wants to send a cat into space to study the effect of zero-G on a cat's nervous system. Actually, let's make it more entertaining--send a pregnant cat up and see what effect zero-G has on the kittens born in space. Leave them up there for about a year, so the kittens will grow up, then bring them back and see how they cope with gravity. What would they have to do? Okay, they'd have to design some sort of capsule for the cat and kittens to live in, with appropriate amounts of food and water and automated systems to feed the cats, regulate air, etc. They'd need some kind of communication system to monitor the cats. They'd have to come up with some way for the cats to come home to study them further, so they'll need a heat shield and automated re-entry systems. Or, they could send the cat up in a Progress drone--subsidized by the government--with cans of off-the-shelf catfood. The "support systems"--food, water, air, communication are all subsidized by the government and other experiments. Which do you think would be cheaper?
Of course, you can say, "Who cares about whether cats or kittens can ever cope with zero-G? That's esoteric research!" I'll agree. I know that whether cats and kittens can cope with zero-G has no effect on my life. But I'd point out that landing a probe on Titan has no effect on my life, either. There's lots of esoteric trivia that was learned about Titan when we did it.
Landing a probe on Titan is a lot cooler than sending a cat to the ISS. It was pretty cool to see the camera view from Huygens as it fell through the atmosphere. Heck, I just watched it again last night. Neat stuff. But is the research somehow more valuable? Did any exciting new technologies have to be developed to land a probe on Titan--technologies that will change the way we live or work or even send new probes to other places? Nope.
That's one place where I take exception with what you said. You seem to feel that the experiments performed on the ISS are of interest to only a few. You're right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fund them. Consider the Apollo program. We made it to the moon! Huzzah for mankind and the good ol' U.S. of A! But after we did it? Then they started doing boring old experiments and research and things like that and most of us lost interest. We learned alot more about the moon from Apollos 12-17 than we did from Apollo 11. But it was pretty esoteric stuff--nobody but geologists really cared. So by your reasoning, we shouldn't have bothered spending the money on 12-17. We should have just funded it until we got to the moon and then said, "Okay! On to Mars!"
There was an old line I remember hearing about the US space program--"No bucks if there's no Buck Rogers" (As an aside, I've read "Buck Rogers" and it has nothing to do with space). You're right--it's tough to make flame research interesting to all but a few people. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it.
Well, there is a minor issue with using Soyuz--it only holds three people. So, at best, you're going to have six people on board and hope that any disaster doesn't block the docking area.
That said, I sort of agree. I remember NASA spending big bucks on a "space lifeboat." Frankly, for the amount they spent on it, they could have bought a bunch of Soyuz capsules instead andbuilt a couple of docking areas for redundancy.
Well, I won't go that far, but I'll also point out that it's easier and safer for your career to say 'no' than to say 'yes.'
Suppose you say 'yes,' the Shuttle goes up and disaster happens. You're to blame.
Suppose you say 'yes,' the Shuttle goes up and everything is fine. No one cares.
Suppose you say 'no,' the Shuttle goes up and everything is fine. No repercussions.
Suppose you say 'no,' the Shuttle goes up and disaster happens. You were right all along.
Obviously, looking at a cost/benefit analysis, if you say 'yes,' either no one will care or you'll be in trouble. If you say 'no,', either (a) no one will care or you'll be a hero.
Gee, I think I'd say 'no', too.
"Or call the FBI & SWAT team because he thinks its a potential suicide bomber, innocent guy is surrounded, a couple helicoptors circle round plastering his face all over the news. Maybe in his nervousness the guy reaches for his wallet to show his ID and is shot. You can come up with all sorts of results from any scenario."
Sure you can. But most cops I know would investigate the guy before calling for back-up. Conversely, the guy behind the video screen can do nothing but call for back-up.
Again, the issue here is whether the planes are on the prowl for "suspicious activity."
Okay, how about doing something completely legal like parading around buck-tooth naked. As long as you cannot be viewed from the street, you're okay. Suddenly, there's police drones flying around taking video of you sunbathing in the buff.
Sure, you're not doing anything illegal. But tell me that video isn't going to get on the Internet.
Why should a drone be peeking in my backyard? To make sure that I'm not doing anything illegal? But, at least the last time I checked, I was innocent until proven guilty. It's the same idea. Would it be okay for the police to enter and search your house if they didn't bash down your door and tear things up? Suppose they were nice and polite and put everything back the way they found it. Would it still be okay? After all, you're not inconvenienced...
Let me give you a fun example: I used to drive a Jeep. I hate having a top on my car, so I often leave the top down. I've come back to my Jeep and found all sorts of entertaining things stuck in there (eg porno magazines). Once, I found a bunch of marijuana joints. I assume that some kids had them and were afraid of getting caught with them, so they stuck them in my Jeep figuring they'd come back later and pick them up.
I've been pulled over by the police. They've asked to search my vehicle and I refuse. Why? Because I don't know what some people might have hidden in the vehicle and I don't want to be responsible for anything that the cops might find. One time I had a cop who tried to tell me that my attitude was "suspicious," that was "probable cause" for him to search my vehicle, and I should just make life easier on myself and cooperate because if I made him go through the hassle, he'd have me thrown in jail for sure. After all, why should I decline a search? I have nothing to hide, do I?
I told him he had to get his captain down here. The captain came down, listened to my story, and agreed with me. The vehicle is open, anything could be in there, and declining a search does not constitute probable cause.
These rules exist to protect all of us.
While I agree with the sentiment--"Any tool is bad in the wrong hands"--I take issue with your example: "Are they good, upstanding citizens or the blow-up-my-own-country variety just picked up in Toronto?"
I'll admit, this falls back on your warrant and/or probably cause. But consider the following scenario: A man of middle-eastern descent walks home from work and takes a shortcut through the railyard. Now, this is illegal. We all know that. He's doing it because it saves him a 20 minute walk--no excuse, admittedly. A policeman spots him doing this. What would probably happen? The cop would watch what he does and at some point during his walk home, would pull over and ask him a few questions and say something to the effect of "Stop doing that." Maybe even give him a ticket for trespassing or something.
Same scenario, but this time he's spotted by our "eye in the sky" drone. The operator can't talk to the guy, obviously, but the guy is of middle-eastern descent so he could be a terrorist and, after all, a terrorist could do a lot of damage in a railyard. Maybe I'd best call in the FBI or LA's investigators. Now, of course, we can't just go up to this guy, so we'd better find out more about him, talk to his employer, neighbors, etc. All on the QT, of course, we can't let him know we're watching him.
So, of course, the man's boss is told that they're investigating this guy because he might be a terrorist. Think the boss is going to give that guy the raise he was planning on giving him? Think the neighbors are gonna let their kids play with his kids?
The difference here is that the cop-on-the-beat has some incentive to immediately find out what's going on. The guy behind the camera has nothing to do but make up wild stories.
"Yes, pharmaceutical companies want to make a buck, but scientists are human beings and many of them are doing their best to create the best drugs they can to help people. To think that they're intentionally withholding drugs or not trying to cure diseases to keep making money is simply ridiculous and paranoid."
Well...
I'll certainly give the scientists their due. The question becomes how much control does the company have over the directions the scientists' research takes them?
Here's sort of how I see it: I have no doubts that the drug companies are hard at work attempting to develop an AIDS vaccine. Are they attempting to work on a cure? Because, let's face it, there are far more people who are concerned about getting AIDS and would like a vaccine than there are people who have AIDS. I'm sure the research that goes into an AIDS vaccine will immeasurably help to develop a cure. But which pill would you expect to see on the market first--the cure or the vaccine?
Agreed. "Bring 'em on!"
Oops. That might be a mistake.