Hiring someone to a position like that you would want to make sure that their FB would not become a cause of embarrassment later.
Then you would think "I find their handling of user privacy to fall well short of my expectations and I find using it an overall time consuming distraction from more important things in my life. Furthermore, as I am applying for a position of significant trust my choice not to maintain a facebook page eliminates the possibility of it ever being a cause of personal or professional embarrassment." would be a perfectly acceptable response.
"I don't have one.", was not an acceptable answer.
Sounds like an HR sub-drone had a field on a form they weren't supposed to leave blank. Their heads tend to explode when you don't have a middle initial either, or a home phone number that isn't your cell number.
This is the preferred way to scroll; it is much faster, more natural, and more accurate than moving around scroll bars.
Yes, that's great, and it works brilliantly. I use the scroll wheel on my mouse to scroll on my desktop too.
But two-finger swipe and mousewheels are utterly worthless for large documents. Hell, I'll open outlook and pick an email that's bounced back and forth a bit... and I'll click and drag the scroll bar to skim it.
Swiping 37 times to get from the top to the bottom is really really irritating compared to just clicking on the scroll bar and dragging.
Swiping is faster and more natural and more accurate for a couple pages.
It is none of those things for a longer documents. A 100 page PDF report? skimming log files? Even a long email thread or source code file. Swiping has its place. But it doesn't eliminate the need for scrollbars.
That said, the thinner scrollbars of OSX don't REALLY bug me; I don't need them that often after all. But invisible / disappearing scrollbars is pretty idiotic, and worse... poorly implemented to boot.
That's exactly one of the two uses that were expected to make VRML take off.
Wish i knew which one vrml was suppose to latch onto, because they're both pretty obvious applications for 3D.
I did see some vrml shopping back then, but it suffered from: a) low bandwidth of the a largely dialup era
b) it was adopted by the wrong people -- instead of automotive parts and such where it was actually needed it was only tried out in gimmicky clothing or gadget shops where it didn't matter. Nobody needs 3d models of a cashmere sweater or trendy combination bottle opener-alarm clock-picture frame.
c) getting 3d models of the stuff is non-trivial. Even today just getting half decent pictures of automotive parts and replacement dishwasher parts that aren't blurry and 150x150 px is hard. Getting them to create the 3d models... not likely. Not unless 3d scanners become really cheap and simple to use.
And what kind of content would you expect in 3D anyway?
for product catalogs it would be nice -- i don't need them when looking at t-shirts, or jeans. But my wife would like them things with complicated shapes like... shoes.
But where it would really come into its own would be for parts... replacement parts for large appliances, automotive parts, etc.
I need to replace one of the clips in my dishwasher. It is a ROYAL PITA to identify which part number to order. And even the pictures aren't terribly helpful.
Same with car parts... especially when you start dealing with older cars and cross-matching parts between different models and so forth. Scenarios like "I heard my 2002 Toyota X uses the same door handles as the 2003 Ford Y... and Ford Y parts are cheaper and easier to find. It would be extremely nice to be able to look at the parts in 3D to see if they really are the same.
Another application for 3D is physics / math / biology / science etc. Where the ability to view / explore a complex object or moving system from different angles is useful.
I have two questions about this: a) How do you remember which password goes with what? I create most web passwords from my desk. So the trick of associating a password with where I was when I created it. Did I create the password for foo at my desk looking at the window? Or the door? Or the keyboard? or my cup of coffee? The password for xyz I created while on vacation in the Carribean... that mental image will be with me forever... but the ones I created from my office will all blur together pretty quickly.
b) The capitalization/punctionation sequence. Is that a hypothetical static pattern you use for all your passwords? Otherwise, how does one remember the first letter of the first word is capital, their is a 1 between the first 2 words, the last letter of the 2nd word is capitalized, there is a 2 separating the next word, the 3rd word has no capitalization, and is followed by the symbol #. (I mean I noticed that its 1-2-#(3) which is easier to remember than 9-$-! but that may not have been on purpose... and again if you used a difference sequence in every password it would be a nightmare to remember. After a couple weeks or months without using the password are you going to be sitting there:
If you use a static pattern every time that's easily memorized.
Hash that and put it in your password guesser and tell me how many years it took to crack.
The point is that your password is just as secure as "North Window Open Pickle" adding another word makes it just as good. Assuming I don't know anything about your password a brute force checker will actually take longer on this password than yours. Assuming I do know how you generate your passwords* then its about equivalent, but 4 words is generally easier to remember than 3 words and a bunch of capitalization and punctuation rules.
* in a hypothetical targeted attack -- the attacker may be able to determine some of your passwords protecting relatively worthless things. Perhaps some worthless forum websites you use doesn't use https for login and he's been able to intercept a few passwords; or some other poorly implemented forum you use doesn't even hash the passwords... and from gathering those he can work out how their general formation rules, and can craft his brute force search for a valuable password based on that.
It was put there on purpose, to encourage business and spur employment.
And it is working brilliantly too! He has 4 businesses -- so clearly the "encourage business" part is working. And he works for all of them, thus he has 4 jobs!! That just has to look good on employment figures!
In what way? Mythbusters use the scientific method to test claims. They measure, experiment, collect data on a variety of scenarios - controlling and testing different variables on each pass - and report on their findings.
The main issue is that failing to replicate something is not evidence that something did not happen.
When they confirm a myth there is usually no issue. But busting a myth by failing to confirm it is not really valid science.
They make assumptions about the environment the claim takes place in. Usually the assumptions are quite reasonable, but the real world is not a reasonable place. Improbable things happen, and it can be argued that anything one calls a "myth" is out of the ordinary enough that if it occurred that it probably took place under extenuating circumstances.
My freedom to choose to sell porn that I make is being limited.
shrug -- That isn't remotely on the same scale as not being allowed whether or not to have consensual sex, which is what the ban was being implied to mean.
The only thing that should stop me from doing anything I liked is when it adversely affects other people
And that isn't much of a threshold. Are you sure the production of porn isn't adversely affecting other people? That the contents of redtube and pornhub and so forth are healthy to consume, healthy to produce, and healthy for society as a whole?
I'm not convinced either way to be honest.
But I can see a lot of parallels with modelling where vague concepts of harm such as 'unrealistic', 'creates negative body image in the general public', and observations that the models do unhealthy things to achieve those beauty standards is starting to lead to things like weight guidelines that models cannot be under etc. And for the most part I am in favor of those reforms, despite the fact that I'm "restricting someone elses freedom of choice" in the process.
I'm not anti-porn per se, but I think the same sort of discussions can be had, for the same sorts of reasons.
So, that would be something like, in the US, banning the sale of any device or service.. [snip] used for free speech without falling afoul of the first amendment
And yet that is precisely the world we are racing headlong towards.
Twitter, Facebook, free email accounts, blog services etc are all private platforms where much of modern societies conversation takes place. No free speech protection on any of it.
You can build your own server, but ISPs aren't required to co-locate it if they don't want your business, or extend you service if they don't want to.
You have no free speech right on the internet. At all. The various routers are privately owned and they don't have to route your traffic if they don't want to.
Meanwhile 'public' spaces for assembly and protest are shrinking... even government offices are on "private land leased from landowners..." and if those landlords don't want a bunch of protesters on the land they can evict them. Bridges, even streets are being gradually privatized, we create 'free speech zones' out back where nobody can see you.
Freedom of speech and press rights are gradually but effectively being abridged. I don't attribute this to grand government conspiracy... but its happening all the same.
So in actuality, a ban on unpasteurized milk violates everyones freedom and not just the milk producers freedom.
If you want to drink milk straight from a cow, you can still buy a cow. If you want to raise and slaughter cats for food though, I think you might be screwed.
Here is an idea.. you should never ever ever have a say in shit that doesnt effect you.
We are all affected by what is allowed and disallowed by the society we live in. The fact that I don't smoke, and don't hang out with smokers and actively avoid smokey environments still doesn't isolate me from the impact smoking has on society. I still lose loved one's to cancer as a result. I still foot part of the medical bill for treatment.
I am not personally passing judgement on pornography; but I don't think its reasonable to categorically deny that is has an effect on society. What that effect is, and whether it is overall desirable or not is perfectly reasonable discourse for society to undertake.
The original sale isn't a sale,it's a license to use
That is factually incorrect. Its a sale. There is a contractual agreement involved, but it is still a sale.
Reselling the seeds is a violation of the contract, and the party in breach (the seed seller) would then liable for the damages caused to Monsanto with the breach.
But the seed buyer is not party to the contract and not liable for anything.
I replied just above in this thread with the last event I was in that divided the drivers into 2 groups with 20 minute on/off intervals. The regular cars had time to refuel between blocks, a Tesla would likely have to miss a couple blocks.
One fact I noted is that the Tesla would get approximately 1.5hrs driving to 1 hr charging. Which no matter how you look at is not a great ratio.
If the track day you are attending is formatted such that you can spend an hour on the track, and then an hour off that works out somewhat... although you still spend all your off track time offsite madly recharging instead of with the other drivers. Assuming you can't recharge at the track... which would be the case at both the local tracks at least. Neither have an onsite gas station... you use the one across the street. And I don't know that it has a place to charge an electric car either... I doubt it. So there is that to consider too.
Although if Tesla's gained enough marketshare/mindshare the gas stations accross from the tracks would probably start accomodating them to some extent. Right now, nobody takes their Leaf or Volt or whatever to the track, and the tracks are invariably a bit off the beaten path -- real estate, noise, insurance... etc.. they are near town sure... but not right in them generally.
So you couldn't take a break for an hour to re-charge?
Its -when- you are allocated track time relative to when you need to charge.
And I don't think you are quite grasping fuel consumption here. I get approximately 4-6 minutes of track time per gallon. The car has just under a 17 gallon tank. That means it goes from full to empty in around 1.5 hrs of track time.
1hr charging for every 1.5hrs on the track isn't a great ratio.
You are rich enough to rent the entire track for yourself, rather than share it and thus be unable to drive non-stop?
No I'm not suggesting that at all. The track I used most recently does not have a gas station onsite; you leave the speedway park and there's one across the street.
Now you are right of course that one is not 'on the track' all day. The last event for example divided about 30 drivers into two groups (based on driver experience -- all the cars were Porsche / Lotus / Lamborghini as it was a club event), and one group waited on a grid while the other group drove, and then they switched. 20 minutes on, 20 minutes off, 20 minutes on... you get the idea around mid-day the whole group broke for lunch, and then it started up again.
Now Top Gear determined the Tesla would make 55 laps on their track. Their track is 1.75mi vs the one I used at 1.2mi; so correcting for that the Tesla would get about 78 laps on the track I'm refering to. I get about 1:18 lap times... so a 20 minute block is about 16 laps. You see where this going?
From 8 am to noon... each group gets 6 20 minute blocks but the Tesla has enough juice to do 4. The Tesla will run out of juice midway through its 5th block. So after its 4th block it heads out to charge for an hour, missing its next 2 blocks, and is back in time for lunch. 1/3 of its morning track time lost. And the same will happen in the afternoon.
Meanwhile most of the regular cars need refueling too, a couple times a day, I get about 80 laps to a tank which is right on par with the Tesla (and lines up with my 1.5hr driving estimate earlier) but I can get to the gas station and back comfortably between turns. There's enough pumps to serve at least 8 if not 12 cars at once - I don't recall. But either way the entire waiting grid can go for gas at once and still not have any issues getting back in time.
The HDD was a spinning disk. The SSD aren't. Are they still the most likely to fail component?
The only moving parts and likely failure mode I see would be a problem with the fans and/or the vents getting clogged.
If they used high quality fans they shouldn't be an issue; as they are FAR less sensitive than hard drives.
Going to be interesting to see. Kind of funny though to see everyone fall over themselves about the 'perfection' of the ipad being a seamless glass/metal tablet... and then make a big deal out of the Surface Pro not being repairable when emulating the same design.
The ipad isn't exactly DIY repairable either.
And I think in most cases 'broken screen' is going to be number one failure, and that's not usually going to be covered by warranty and will usually merit replacing the device any way.
And for Top Gear to film a bunch of people pushing the Tesla they were test-driving -- implying that it had run out of go, when in fact it still had some juice left -- that's just rotten. Entertaining TV, but crummy journalism, and cheap.
The subtext to the Tesla incident on Top Gear was that the Tesla doesn't have enough juice to make it through a good track day, and that the recharge times compared to a typical fuel pitstop would put a big dent in the time you put in on the track.
If you were buying a Tesla as a track day car (which is what a lot of people do buy the elise for) this amounts to a pretty significant consideration.
I saw that episode, and that's all I took away from it. I never got the impression that the Tesla actually ran out of charge unexpectedly, and actually needed to be pushed anywhere. They were just making a point, and the pushing scene was obviously a dramatization.
The whole frenzy over it really strikes me as much ado about nothing.
To the "Tesla incident" the point they make is that the car would only do about 50+ laps on the track before needing a recharge, and that this coupled with the recharge time would cut a track day short. They dramatized this by pushing a Tesla back to the garage mid-episode.
This is a fair criticism. I've been to the track with my 911 (normally a 300+ mile range car), and yup, driving on the track the 18mpg I get normally drops to closer to 5mpg, and it will need a fill up or even two on a good track day. In a gasoline powered car, that's a 10 minute pitstop.
If I had a Tesla, my track day would be cut short; if I needed to stop for an hour + to recharge. And I'd probably need to recharge it again before driving it home too. For someone considering a Tesla as a track-day car -- which is one of the reasons people buy the Elise -- the chassis the Tesla is based on.
What if iceland had banned slaughtering dogs and cats for food? ivory sales? oh... those jobs are already illegal? What if they were legal, and were just now being banned?
Or how about... telemarketing? pay-day loans and rip-off check cashing services?
Few would blink. Fewer still would wail about the rights of cat slaughter house workers and telemarketers and ivory dealers to ply their trade.
And nobody would chatter on about all the self assured and intelligent telemarketers and pay-day loans cashiers they personally know that enjoyed the work and how it is a violation of their rights that that they can't do this job they love and chose to do the same way everyone comes out of the woodwork with some successful and confident stripper/prostitute they personally know. Even the sustainable elephant ivory farmer who wants to responsibly raise and slaughter elephants for ivory and meat. What about his rights to chose to engage in his chosen profession.
What is it about 'making porn' that makes it some life affirming civil right while all these other banned jobs aren't. After all, no one is dictating that these women can't have all the sex they want.
The hypothetical sustainable ivory farmer can't even do his thing as a hobby, never mind as a commercial enterprise.
Very well put. Agreed on all points! Mod parent up and all that.
The very nature of of version numbers being continuously increasing and that we can infer that if version x > version y then x is newer then y is indeed assigning semantic meaning to the version numbers.
That said I don't see any way of enforcing such a standard except 'peer pressure' and of course some projects will rebel against it just to show off how hipster they are, and others will ignore it because of various flavors of NIH syndrome.
After all, Mac OS 10.6 came after Mac OS 10.5, but maybe next they could release Mac OS 3.6, and then Mac OS 31.5, and then Mac OS -2, and then Mac OS Pi.
Ugh. Don't give them any ideas. They're fast running out of cool cats as it is.
ow much is Tesla implying that the customer is using the car wrong?
Not even a little bit.
If this were a gasoline car, this would be a case of:
Customer fills tank 1/4 full. Customer notes the onboard computer says he can go 100 miles. Customer plans 140 mile trip, and sets off. Car runs out of gas at 120 miles... 20 miles further than the onboard computer estimated.
Customer calls manufacturer to complain car doesn't work properly, and writes article for New York times complaining the range doesn't meet what was advertised.
Manufacturer checks logs and rightfully tells customer he's a fucking liar and an idiot.
Furthermore, the logging is optional, off by default, and only turned on because this was a 'media road test', and the logging was disclosed and agreed to.
Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers.
People do take it seriously.
And they race sports cars against people on bicycles and bobsleds. Play conkers with caravans. Build their own boat-cars. And launch rocket powered cars off of ski lifts...
They put cars through absurd challenges, the scoring is completely arbitrary and they usually cheat.
They negatively review the Porsche Cayman because "people who drive it know its because they can't afford a 911". They rated the Ford GT 'seriously uncool' simply because one of them owns one. They dislike french cars for being french, American cars for being built for Americans, and if a Ferrari breaks down on the show, all is forgiven because you don't buy a Ferrari for reliability anyway...
Its a great show, and I enjoy it tremendously.
But you have to watch it the way one watches The Daily Show or The Colbert Report; in that there is a great deal of truth and even insight on display if you know how to recognize it, but if you take it too seriously you are just going to make a complete ass of yourself.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"?
They haven't banned coal mining outright, but its a very different job then it was 100 years ago, where you rented your tools from the company, and made barely enough to cover the rental, and got paid in company scrip you could only spend at the company canteen.
Good times.
By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
We all have an obligation to make even dangerous and unpleasant jobs safe and dignified.
Banning porn outright doesn't seem likely to work, but regulating it to a safe and dignified state seems pretty reasonable. And banning porn that doesn't live up to those standards isn't unreasonable.
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right?
Which freedom is being limited exactly?
Freedom to disrobe and have consensual sex? Nope. You can still do that as much as you like.
No the freedom being being restricted here is purely at the commerce level. You aren't allowed to sell a particular product, big deal. You can't sell unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, or fail to disclose your beef lasagna has horsemeat in it in a lot of jurisdictions either and none of those are 'freedom of choice' issues either. No one's freedom of choice is being affected here. Fuck all you like.
A pretty good case could be made that this is a freedom of speech / censorship issue though.
Although I wonder if the government could approach it from a purely commercial angle... where you'd be ok to produce pornography as an expression of free speech, but not allowed to sell or seek to exploit it for profit. That'd be an interesting angle.
If you are buying leftover seed and harvested seed it's one thing. If you spray it with Roundup, you are using it as Roundup-ready seed and you are thus utilizing the value of Monsanto's invention. Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
If I Ford sells you a car, you run it into a pole, and I buy a few salvaged parts such as the brakes and use them to make a dune-buggy. The various elements of those parts are covered by patents, and I'm taking advantage of the functionality of those patents by using the parts - e.g. I'm using the brakes as brakes.
Should Ford now be able to sue me for patent infringement?
Remember, the parts I used were paid for in full, including any patent licensing to use them when YOU bought the car in the first place. I am not making copies of the parts, I am using the actual original parts that you were sold.
But what happens if you happen to somehow rob or injure that chap in India by the means of this call?
You mean like if I were to phone in a bomb threat to where he worked? Or threatened to kill him? (death threats) Or set up a fax machine to call him all night long? (harrassment) Or convinced him I was his bank and got him to give me his password and account information? (social engineering / identity theft) Or called his companies phone system and then used it to make long distance calls to Asia. (fraud)
That is the actual problem - we're getting to the point where those virtual connections can have very real consequences,
See above. We reached that point with telephones half a century ago. We are not 'just getting to the point' now.
and there are no rules that help resolve the problems that come out of that, especially when the involved parties sit in different jurisdictions.
International crimes have always been far more complicated for obvious reasons but the rules are there.
mostly because the geographical distance between the individuals is disproportionately large compared to the influence that one individual can have over another.
The problem isn't geographical distance, its jurisdictional distance. International crimes are a lot harder to prosecute.
Slashdot Mirror
Hiring someone to a position like that you would want to make sure that their FB would not become a cause of embarrassment later.
Then you would think "I find their handling of user privacy to fall well short of my expectations and I find using it an overall time consuming distraction from more important things in my life. Furthermore, as I am applying for a position of significant trust my choice not to maintain a facebook page eliminates the possibility of it ever being a cause of personal or professional embarrassment." would be a perfectly acceptable response.
"I don't have one.", was not an acceptable answer.
Sounds like an HR sub-drone had a field on a form they weren't supposed to leave blank. Their heads tend to explode when you don't have a middle initial either, or a home phone number that isn't your cell number.
This is the preferred way to scroll; it is much faster, more natural, and more accurate than moving around scroll bars.
Yes, that's great, and it works brilliantly. I use the scroll wheel on my mouse to scroll on my desktop too.
But two-finger swipe and mousewheels are utterly worthless for large documents. Hell, I'll open outlook and pick an email that's bounced back and forth a bit... and I'll click and drag the scroll bar to skim it.
Swiping 37 times to get from the top to the bottom is really really irritating compared to just clicking on the scroll bar and dragging.
Swiping is faster and more natural and more accurate for a couple pages.
It is none of those things for a longer documents. A 100 page PDF report? skimming log files? Even a long email thread or source code file. Swiping has its place. But it doesn't eliminate the need for scrollbars.
That said, the thinner scrollbars of OSX don't REALLY bug me; I don't need them that often after all. But invisible / disappearing scrollbars is pretty idiotic, and worse... poorly implemented to boot.
That's exactly one of the two uses that were expected to make VRML take off.
Wish i knew which one vrml was suppose to latch onto, because they're both pretty obvious applications for 3D.
I did see some vrml shopping back then, but it suffered from:
a) low bandwidth of the a largely dialup era
b) it was adopted by the wrong people -- instead of automotive parts and such where it was actually needed it was only tried out in gimmicky clothing or gadget shops where it didn't matter. Nobody needs 3d models of a cashmere sweater or trendy combination bottle opener-alarm clock-picture frame.
c) getting 3d models of the stuff is non-trivial. Even today just getting half decent pictures of automotive parts and replacement dishwasher parts that aren't blurry and 150x150 px is hard. Getting them to create the 3d models... not likely. Not unless 3d scanners become really cheap and simple to use.
And what kind of content would you expect in 3D anyway?
for product catalogs it would be nice -- i don't need them when looking at t-shirts, or jeans. But my wife would like them things with complicated shapes like... shoes.
But where it would really come into its own would be for parts... replacement parts for large appliances, automotive parts, etc.
I need to replace one of the clips in my dishwasher. It is a ROYAL PITA to identify which part number to order. And even the pictures aren't terribly helpful.
Same with car parts... especially when you start dealing with older cars and cross-matching parts between different models and so forth. Scenarios like "I heard my 2002 Toyota X uses the same door handles as the 2003 Ford Y ... and Ford Y parts are cheaper and easier to find. It would be extremely nice to be able to look at the parts in 3D to see if they really are the same.
Another application for 3D is physics / math / biology / science etc. Where the ability to view / explore a complex object or moving system from different angles is useful.
North1windoW2open#
I have two questions about this:
a) How do you remember which password goes with what? I create most web passwords from my desk. So the trick of associating a password with where I was when I created it. Did I create the password for foo at my desk looking at the window? Or the door? Or the keyboard? or my cup of coffee? The password for xyz I created while on vacation in the Carribean... that mental image will be with me forever... but the ones I created from my office will all blur together pretty quickly.
b) The capitalization/punctionation sequence. Is that a hypothetical static pattern you use for all your passwords? Otherwise, how does one remember the first letter of the first word is capital, their is a 1 between the first 2 words, the last letter of the 2nd word is capitalized, there is a 2 separating the next word, the 3rd word has no capitalization, and is followed by the symbol #. (I mean I noticed that its 1-2-#(3) which is easier to remember than 9-$-! but that may not have been on purpose... and again if you used a difference sequence in every password it would be a nightmare to remember. After a couple weeks or months without using the password are you going to be sitting there:
nortH8window2Open$ ?
NortH1Window2opeN# ?
north3Window2opeN@ ?
[...]
If you use a static pattern every time that's easily memorized.
Hash that and put it in your password guesser and tell me how many years it took to crack.
The point is that your password is just as secure as "North Window Open Pickle" adding another word makes it just as good.
Assuming I don't know anything about your password a brute force checker will actually take longer on this password than yours.
Assuming I do know how you generate your passwords* then its about equivalent, but 4 words is generally easier to remember than 3 words and a bunch of capitalization and punctuation rules.
* in a hypothetical targeted attack -- the attacker may be able to determine some of your passwords protecting relatively worthless things. Perhaps some worthless forum websites you use doesn't use https for login and he's been able to intercept a few passwords; or some other poorly implemented forum you use doesn't even hash the passwords... and from gathering those he can work out how their general formation rules, and can craft his brute force search for a valuable password based on that.
It was put there on purpose, to encourage business and spur employment.
And it is working brilliantly too! He has 4 businesses -- so clearly the "encourage business" part is working. And he works for all of them, thus he has 4 jobs!! That just has to look good on employment figures!
In what way? Mythbusters use the scientific method to test claims. They measure, experiment, collect data on a variety of scenarios - controlling and testing different variables on each pass - and report on their findings.
The main issue is that failing to replicate something is not evidence that something did not happen.
When they confirm a myth there is usually no issue. But busting a myth by failing to confirm it is not really valid science.
They make assumptions about the environment the claim takes place in. Usually the assumptions are quite reasonable, but the real world is not a reasonable place. Improbable things happen, and it can be argued that anything one calls a "myth" is out of the ordinary enough that if it occurred that it probably took place under extenuating circumstances.
My freedom to choose to sell porn that I make is being limited.
shrug -- That isn't remotely on the same scale as not being allowed whether or not to have consensual sex, which is what the ban was being implied to mean.
The only thing that should stop me from doing anything I liked is when it adversely affects other people
And that isn't much of a threshold. Are you sure the production of porn isn't adversely affecting other people? That the contents of redtube and pornhub and so forth are healthy to consume, healthy to produce, and healthy for society as a whole?
I'm not convinced either way to be honest.
But I can see a lot of parallels with modelling where vague concepts of harm such as 'unrealistic', 'creates negative body image in the general public', and observations that the models do unhealthy things to achieve those beauty standards is starting to lead to things like weight guidelines that models cannot be under etc. And for the most part I am in favor of those reforms, despite the fact that I'm "restricting someone elses freedom of choice" in the process.
I'm not anti-porn per se, but I think the same sort of discussions can be had, for the same sorts of reasons.
The case you cite is limited to California, and doesn't appy to the US as a whole. While it is a positive move it doesn't yet represent real change.
So, that would be something like, in the US, banning the sale of any device or service.. [snip] used for free speech without falling afoul of the first amendment
And yet that is precisely the world we are racing headlong towards.
Twitter, Facebook, free email accounts, blog services etc are all private platforms where much of modern societies conversation takes place. No free speech protection on any of it.
You can build your own server, but ISPs aren't required to co-locate it if they don't want your business, or extend you service if they don't want to.
You have no free speech right on the internet. At all. The various routers are privately owned and they don't have to route your traffic if they don't want to.
Meanwhile 'public' spaces for assembly and protest are shrinking... even government offices are on "private land leased from landowners..." and if those landlords don't want a bunch of protesters on the land they can evict them. Bridges, even streets are being gradually privatized, we create 'free speech zones' out back where nobody can see you.
Freedom of speech and press rights are gradually but effectively being abridged. I don't attribute this to grand government conspiracy... but its happening all the same.
So in actuality, a ban on unpasteurized milk violates everyones freedom and not just the milk producers freedom.
If you want to drink milk straight from a cow, you can still buy a cow. If you want to raise and slaughter cats for food though, I think you might be screwed.
Here is an idea.. you should never ever ever have a say in shit that doesnt effect you.
We are all affected by what is allowed and disallowed by the society we live in. The fact that I don't smoke, and don't hang out with smokers and actively avoid smokey environments still doesn't isolate me from the impact smoking has on society. I still lose loved one's to cancer as a result. I still foot part of the medical bill for treatment.
I am not personally passing judgement on pornography; but I don't think its reasonable to categorically deny that is has an effect on society. What that effect is, and whether it is overall desirable or not is perfectly reasonable discourse for society to undertake.
The original sale isn't a sale,it's a license to use
That is factually incorrect. Its a sale. There is a contractual agreement involved, but it is still a sale.
Reselling the seeds is a violation of the contract, and the party in breach (the seed seller) would then liable for the damages caused to Monsanto with the breach.
But the seed buyer is not party to the contract and not liable for anything.
I replied just above in this thread with the last event I was in that divided the drivers into 2 groups with 20 minute on/off intervals. The regular cars had time to refuel between blocks, a Tesla would likely have to miss a couple blocks.
One fact I noted is that the Tesla would get approximately 1.5hrs driving to 1 hr charging. Which no matter how you look at is not a great ratio.
If the track day you are attending is formatted such that you can spend an hour on the track, and then an hour off that works out somewhat... although you still spend all your off track time offsite madly recharging instead of with the other drivers. Assuming you can't recharge at the track... which would be the case at both the local tracks at least. Neither have an onsite gas station... you use the one across the street. And I don't know that it has a place to charge an electric car either... I doubt it. So there is that to consider too.
Although if Tesla's gained enough marketshare/mindshare the gas stations accross from the tracks would probably start accomodating them to some extent. Right now, nobody takes their Leaf or Volt or whatever to the track, and the tracks are invariably a bit off the beaten path -- real estate, noise, insurance... etc.. they are near town sure... but not right in them generally.
So you couldn't take a break for an hour to re-charge?
Its -when- you are allocated track time relative to when you need to charge.
And I don't think you are quite grasping fuel consumption here. I get approximately 4-6 minutes of track time per gallon. The car has just under a 17 gallon tank. That means it goes from full to empty in around 1.5 hrs of track time.
1hr charging for every 1.5hrs on the track isn't a great ratio.
You are rich enough to rent the entire track for yourself, rather than share it and thus be unable to drive non-stop?
No I'm not suggesting that at all. The track I used most recently does not have a gas station onsite; you leave the speedway park and there's one across the street.
Now you are right of course that one is not 'on the track' all day. The last event for example divided about 30 drivers into two groups (based on driver experience -- all the cars were Porsche / Lotus / Lamborghini as it was a club event), and one group waited on a grid while the other group drove, and then they switched. 20 minutes on, 20 minutes off, 20 minutes on... you get the idea around mid-day the whole group broke for lunch, and then it started up again.
Now Top Gear determined the Tesla would make 55 laps on their track. Their track is 1.75mi vs the one I used at 1.2mi; so correcting for that the Tesla would get about 78 laps on the track I'm refering to. I get about 1:18 lap times... so a 20 minute block is about 16 laps. You see where this going?
From 8 am to noon... each group gets 6 20 minute blocks but the Tesla has enough juice to do 4. The Tesla will run out of juice midway through its 5th block. So after its 4th block it heads out to charge for an hour, missing its next 2 blocks, and is back in time for lunch. 1/3 of its morning track time lost. And the same will happen in the afternoon.
Meanwhile most of the regular cars need refueling too, a couple times a day, I get about 80 laps to a tank which is right on par with the Tesla (and lines up with my 1.5hr driving estimate earlier) but I can get to the gas station and back comfortably between turns. There's enough pumps to serve at least 8 if not 12 cars at once - I don't recall. But either way the entire waiting grid can go for gas at once and still not have any issues getting back in time.
That is a pretty realistic scenario.
The HDD was a spinning disk. The SSD aren't. Are they still the most likely to fail component?
The only moving parts and likely failure mode I see would be a problem with the fans and/or the vents getting clogged.
If they used high quality fans they shouldn't be an issue; as they are FAR less sensitive than hard drives.
Going to be interesting to see. Kind of funny though to see everyone fall over themselves about the 'perfection' of the ipad being a seamless glass/metal tablet... and then make a big deal out of the Surface Pro not being repairable when emulating the same design.
The ipad isn't exactly DIY repairable either.
And I think in most cases 'broken screen' is going to be number one failure, and that's not usually going to be covered by warranty and will usually merit replacing the device any way.
And for Top Gear to film a bunch of people pushing the Tesla they were test-driving -- implying that it had run out of go, when in fact it still had some juice left -- that's just rotten. Entertaining TV, but crummy journalism, and cheap.
The subtext to the Tesla incident on Top Gear was that the Tesla doesn't have enough juice to make it through a good track day, and that the recharge times compared to a typical fuel pitstop would put a big dent in the time you put in on the track.
If you were buying a Tesla as a track day car (which is what a lot of people do buy the elise for) this amounts to a pretty significant consideration.
I saw that episode, and that's all I took away from it. I never got the impression that the Tesla actually ran out of charge unexpectedly, and actually needed to be pushed anywhere. They were just making a point, and the pushing scene was obviously a dramatization.
The whole frenzy over it really strikes me as much ado about nothing.
To the "Tesla incident" the point they make is that the car would only do about 50+ laps on the track before needing a recharge, and that this coupled with the recharge time would cut a track day short. They dramatized this by pushing a Tesla back to the garage mid-episode.
This is a fair criticism. I've been to the track with my 911 (normally a 300+ mile range car), and yup, driving on the track the 18mpg I get normally drops to closer to 5mpg, and it will need a fill up or even two on a good track day. In a gasoline powered car, that's a 10 minute pitstop.
If I had a Tesla, my track day would be cut short; if I needed to stop for an hour + to recharge. And I'd probably need to recharge it again before driving it home too. For someone considering a Tesla as a track-day car -- which is one of the reasons people buy the Elise -- the chassis the Tesla is based on.
What if iceland had banned slaughtering dogs and cats for food? ivory sales? oh... those jobs are already illegal? What if they were legal, and were just now being banned?
Or how about ... telemarketing? pay-day loans and rip-off check cashing services?
Few would blink. Fewer still would wail about the rights of cat slaughter house workers and telemarketers and ivory dealers to ply their trade.
And nobody would chatter on about all the self assured and intelligent telemarketers and pay-day loans cashiers they personally know that enjoyed the work and how it is a violation of their rights that that they can't do this job they love and chose to do the same way everyone comes out of the woodwork with some successful and confident stripper/prostitute they personally know. Even the sustainable elephant ivory farmer who wants to responsibly raise and slaughter elephants for ivory and meat. What about his rights to chose to engage in his chosen profession.
What is it about 'making porn' that makes it some life affirming civil right while all these other banned jobs aren't. After all, no one is dictating that these women can't have all the sex they want.
The hypothetical sustainable ivory farmer can't even do his thing as a hobby, never mind as a commercial enterprise.
Very well put. Agreed on all points! Mod parent up and all that.
The very nature of of version numbers being continuously increasing and that we can infer that if version x > version y then x is newer then y is indeed assigning semantic meaning to the version numbers.
That said I don't see any way of enforcing such a standard except 'peer pressure' and of course some projects will rebel against it just to show off how hipster they are, and others will ignore it because of various flavors of NIH syndrome.
After all, Mac OS 10.6 came after Mac OS 10.5, but maybe next they could release Mac OS 3.6, and then Mac OS 31.5, and then Mac OS -2, and then Mac OS Pi.
Ugh. Don't give them any ideas. They're fast running out of cool cats as it is.
ow much is Tesla implying that the customer is using the car wrong?
Not even a little bit.
If this were a gasoline car, this would be a case of:
Customer fills tank 1/4 full. Customer notes the onboard computer says he can go 100 miles. Customer plans 140 mile trip, and sets off. Car runs out of gas at 120 miles... 20 miles further than the onboard computer estimated.
Customer calls manufacturer to complain car doesn't work properly, and writes article for New York times complaining the range doesn't meet what was advertised.
Manufacturer checks logs and rightfully tells customer he's a fucking liar and an idiot.
Furthermore, the logging is optional, off by default, and only turned on because this was a 'media road test', and the logging was disclosed and agreed to.
Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers.
People do take it seriously.
And they race sports cars against people on bicycles and bobsleds. Play conkers with caravans. Build their own boat-cars. And launch rocket powered cars off of ski lifts...
They put cars through absurd challenges, the scoring is completely arbitrary and they usually cheat.
They negatively review the Porsche Cayman because "people who drive it know its because they can't afford a 911". They rated the Ford GT 'seriously uncool' simply because one of them owns one. They dislike french cars for being french, American cars for being built for Americans, and if a Ferrari breaks down on the show, all is forgiven because you don't buy a Ferrari for reliability anyway...
Its a great show, and I enjoy it tremendously.
But you have to watch it the way one watches The Daily Show or The Colbert Report; in that there is a great deal of truth and even insight on display if you know how to recognize it, but if you take it too seriously you are just going to make a complete ass of yourself.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"?
They haven't banned coal mining outright, but its a very different job then it was 100 years ago, where you rented your tools from the company, and made barely enough to cover the rental, and got paid in company scrip you could only spend at the company canteen.
Good times.
By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
We all have an obligation to make even dangerous and unpleasant jobs safe and dignified.
Banning porn outright doesn't seem likely to work, but regulating it to a safe and dignified state seems pretty reasonable. And banning porn that doesn't live up to those standards isn't unreasonable.
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right?
Which freedom is being limited exactly?
Freedom to disrobe and have consensual sex? Nope. You can still do that as much as you like.
No the freedom being being restricted here is purely at the commerce level. You aren't allowed to sell a particular product, big deal. You can't sell unpasteurized milk, leaded gasoline, or fail to disclose your beef lasagna has horsemeat in it in a lot of jurisdictions either and none of those are 'freedom of choice' issues either. No one's freedom of choice is being affected here. Fuck all you like.
A pretty good case could be made that this is a freedom of speech / censorship issue though.
Although I wonder if the government could approach it from a purely commercial angle... where you'd be ok to produce pornography as an expression of free speech, but not allowed to sell or seek to exploit it for profit. That'd be an interesting angle.
If you are buying leftover seed and harvested seed it's one thing. If you spray it with Roundup, you are using it as Roundup-ready seed and you are thus utilizing the value of Monsanto's invention. Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
If I Ford sells you a car, you run it into a pole, and I buy a few salvaged parts such as the brakes and use them to make a dune-buggy. The various elements of those parts are covered by patents, and I'm taking advantage of the functionality of those patents by using the parts - e.g. I'm using the brakes as brakes.
Should Ford now be able to sue me for patent infringement?
Remember, the parts I used were paid for in full, including any patent licensing to use them when YOU bought the car in the first place. I am not making copies of the parts, I am using the actual original parts that you were sold.
But what happens if you happen to somehow rob or injure that chap in India by the means of this call?
You mean like if I were to phone in a bomb threat to where he worked? Or threatened to kill him? (death threats) Or set up a fax machine to call him all night long? (harrassment) Or convinced him I was his bank and got him to give me his password and account information? (social engineering / identity theft) Or called his companies phone system and then used it to make long distance calls to Asia. (fraud)
That is the actual problem - we're getting to the point where those virtual connections can have very real consequences,
See above. We reached that point with telephones half a century ago. We are not 'just getting to the point' now.
and there are no rules that help resolve the problems that come out of that, especially when the involved parties sit in different jurisdictions.
International crimes have always been far more complicated for obvious reasons but the rules are there.
mostly because the geographical distance between the individuals is disproportionately large compared to the influence that one individual can have over another.
The problem isn't geographical distance, its jurisdictional distance. International crimes are a lot harder to prosecute.