The claim is 900 deaths a year. How do they come at that number?
I remember reading that. It was from an online poll, starting with "Are you currently driving?" followed by 40 more questions. If you answered 'yes' to #1 and didnt complete #40, it assumed you were killed while texting. Hey I was convinced enough to give up by question 5!
I am a lifelong proponent of nuclear power, and I am called a denier. Im a proponent of more and better transmission lines to make wind/solar/tidal more practical, and Im called a denier. And that for the measures Im for; if I mention measures Im against I get called far worse. Green is the new racism, 'denier' is the new 'nigger' and it rolls of the tongue pretty easily to most people, with fervor and joy as if they've completed some kind of deft syllogism. Most certainly these people do not welcome discussion about mitigation; indeed I doubt mitigation is their main interest.
...and you prove my point. I did not advocate inaction, and you in turn are advocating all and any action at any cost, and vilifying me for suggesting we collectively think before we act and expend our very limited resources with our oh-so-damned dollars. And before you crucify me, Im all for thinking very very quickly. Hell Im fine with spending vast sums of money and being substantially taxed for it. But banning light bulbs (for instance) is silly, both for being utterly ineffectual and for diverting our attention away from solutions that might make a difference. How can you worship the science that supports AGW and then discard it so completely when considering action?
Sure! Point taken!! But grant me that Goldman-Sachs will make a killing trading carbon credits; that government subsidies to green business will make GE a king's ransom; that Home Depot profits will spike when the incandescent bans take effect. Wherever the money goes, wherever politicians make it go, it probably shouldnt have gone there. Absofreakinlutely the oil business is included.
Perhaps that's true. I wish it were true. But I have seen very few discussions of consequences or cost/benefits that don't quickly descend into accusations of denial. Even the more moderate proponents of action seem more comfortable with dismissing people as 'deniers' rather than be challenged by criticism, no matter how considered, grounded, or restrained. For some reason it seems to be a subject that doesn't bring out the best in people.
Exactly! The thing I take equal issue with is that *any* criticism of AGW activism is immediately dismissed as AGW denial, and it's not true. I agree the earth is warming, agree that we caused at least some and maybe even all, and buy into 95% of the science. But if I point out that maybe some of the proposed regulations in response to AGW are a bit silly and ineffectual and certainly costly, I'm a 'denier'. There is at least some good science that suggests we will not be dead in 10 years, and that science should not be dismissed out-of-hand as heresy. The pro-AGW fanatics are just as guilty as suppressing criticism and debate as the anti-AGW fanatics.
If nothing else, I would expect the/. crowd to be at least a little skeptical of *anything* that causes vast sums of money to change hands.
Ha! Exactly! I have a nearly-new top-of-the-line Agilent PSA and every time I need to print a screen shot I have to find a floppy disk, which sometimes takes hours. Fortunately USB-based floppy drives are cheap and I keep one in my laptop bag. (For some reason the floppy disks I keep in my laptop bag disappear, probably through the same wormhole that pens and single socks use to escape)
Half correct... Im not a fan of any administration. But mostly I dont care for True Believers (tm) of any administration, people whose view of current affairs is so binary that [Obama|Bush] can do no wrong and [Bush|Obama] can do no right, and every discussion ends up framed in that context.
While I appreciate your candor over the current administration's need to assume responsibility for affairs, your rush to cast me as a Bush-fanatic is misplaced and largely why politics has become so polarized and ineffectual. My comment was certainly a bit of a troll for Obama-philes, but my stating that both administration should be held accountable for Iraq at this point is not particularly radical or partisan.
I did the initial demo software integration under contract for an accelerometer manufacturer and a phone maker (whom shall remain nameless for now). But I sure as hell have prior art, it's an exact match, predates the application, was shown publicly at large trade show, and I (and 2 Fortune-100 companies) can prove it. I personally dont have a stake in this, but what do I do now?
It's very much like global warming. There's a very loud group that don't seem to care that it doesn't affect them yet, and (if true or not) will make everyone pay for it now.
Whats far more likely is a brain-dead local authority tries to dust them off and apply them and SCOTUS tosses them out. You and I may not always like the outcome of SCOTUS decisions but they do tend to serve the Framers' intent of keeping legislators and their more ridiculous laws in check.
That's being a little pedantic I think. I love my G3 and think its a superior platform, but all I see around me are iPhones. My wife has 100 games on her iPhone and the kids play it as much as the Wii and PC games combined. I have maybe 3 games, and only one would I call well done. What the Android does it does well but the game developers are on the iPhone and thats what the non-geeks want. My kids have great MP3 players, but all I hear is iTouch iTouch iTouch because thats what the other kids have. I'm willing to accept it on faith and a stylistically small sample that the iPhone is indeed popular with kids and so on. Although I would rule out sheeple either.
Why would you need phone coverage to use the GPS unit in your phone?
You dont, of course. But that aside there are several other differences between a handheld GPS and a typical phone GPS; the quality/accuracy of the receiver, stability and ability to track in suboptimal conditions, power consumption, ruggedness of construction, and the software on top of it all. I could probably write an Android app that did most of what a Garmin Trailmaster does, but the $20 worth of GPS hardware in a G3 is not as good as a dedicated unit. If you only need to find your way to Best Buy it may not matter, but under a dense leaf canopy in a valley the gain from a decent helical antenna and high quality LNA stage is more than a convenience. My Garmins have survived a 10 foot drop, extreme temperatures, days of salt spray, and immersion in tequila. I have overlays for snowmobile trails, hiking trails, airports and VOR waypoints, and the batteries last days and are easily recharged or replaced. My marine GPS had a dedicated man-overboard emergency button. You could make a phone that did all that, maybe, but it wouldnt really be a mass-market consumer device that benefits from million-piece quantities of scale. And I dont think it makes sense for a handset maker to spend money on improved hardware when 80 or 90 or 99% of their customers just need to drive to the mall. On the other hand if you're a pilot, climber, sailor, woodsman there's a purpose-built unit that works really well for that application and cost less than a smartphone. I agree TomTom's and low-end Magellan's can be replaced by an Android, but my opinion is that dedicated purpose-built GPS's will have a market for a while longer.
Valid point, but a map tells you where to go and a GPS tells you where you are. If you're good with maps and know roughly which map you're on and have a compass and a clear view to visual landmarks and have daylight, a map is fine, and I always carry a set of maps out of prudence and habit. But when lost near the Canadian border with 1/4 tank of gas, not sure which state or even country I'm in, at 2 AM with temperatures heading for -20F and white-out snow squalls, GPS is your friend. Your BEST friend is the person that told you not to get into such a stupid situation in the first place, and is probably riding on the sled next to you saying "I told you so", but your SECOND best friend is GPS.
In the same vein though, even entering Boston in a motor vehicle is just as reckless and irresponsible. And until GPS can tell you, for instance, "Take Off The Yankees Hat Before Someone Shoves A Sam Adams Up Your Squantum" it's not really that useful in Boston.
Ironically, the places you need GPS the most are the places there is no cell phone coverage. As much as I like my Android its my Garmin that goes into the backpack.
This is nonsense too. You saying you can open a bar in New York and stick a 'No Blacks' sign in the window?
A fair point. But I think it has less to do with restrictions on businesses and more about having established protected social and racial classes, the latter meaning that rules can be unevenly applied. For example you cant open a men-only gym but you can open a women-only gym (IANAL/IIRC the case law said men didnt need protection from women but women needed protection from men). More to the GP post you can throw out smart people all day because you're a private business and smart people aren't in a protected class; you cannot throw out stupid people because they fall into a 'disadvantaged/protected' class.
And what intolerant morons modded you 'troll' because you used the work 'black'? I agree with Shakrai and dont care for legislation creating protected classes, but you are absolutely correct that they exist and do establish restrictions on private businesses.
I dont disagree but I was expressing concern as to what constituted "deliberate ignorance". Obviously the prosecution and defense will differ wildly on what rises to the level of "deliberate" and "complicit". Claiming a service provider that implicitly enables a crime *might* be a steep slippery slope. Do we go after the software vendor that supplied the shopping cart service? How about Firefox for not blocking the site? How about Visa and Mastercard for processing the payments? Comcast for not blocking the site? I hope that in this case the court found that the ISP was particularly deliberate rather than just the easiest to prosecute.
I get the distinction, but businesses "get informed" all the time about all manner of stuff, much of it bogus. If all it takes to establish liability is for the plaintiff to send me an email claiming something that sets the bar pretty low. How much investigation would the court recognize as appropriate? What if I investigate and I determine that the accusation is without merit and they sue anyway? Do I have to investigate every complaint no matter how ridiculous and no matter the cost, to establish that I dont arbitrarily enforce? And so on. At least with DMCA there is established procedure and dispute resolution that can hold the plaintiff to some standard of proof. This is casting a pretty wide net and has pretty significant implications for extending liability *way* beyond the crime itself. If I were an ISP I'd be moving my servers offshore as we speak.
Slashdot Mirror
The claim is 900 deaths a year. How do they come at that number?
I remember reading that. It was from an online poll, starting with "Are you currently driving?" followed by 40 more questions. If you answered 'yes' to #1 and didnt complete #40, it assumed you were killed while texting. Hey I was convinced enough to give up by question 5!
Well, yeah, but suffering the consequences isnt on the table as an offered option. So, AC maybe unintentionally asks a good question.
then get that kid a job at the nearest monopolistic telecomm
I'm guessing thats *exactly* what the kid had in mind when he wrote it.
I am a lifelong proponent of nuclear power, and I am called a denier. Im a proponent of more and better transmission lines to make wind/solar/tidal more practical, and Im called a denier. And that for the measures Im for; if I mention measures Im against I get called far worse. Green is the new racism, 'denier' is the new 'nigger' and it rolls of the tongue pretty easily to most people, with fervor and joy as if they've completed some kind of deft syllogism. Most certainly these people do not welcome discussion about mitigation; indeed I doubt mitigation is their main interest.
...and you prove my point. I did not advocate inaction, and you in turn are advocating all and any action at any cost, and vilifying me for suggesting we collectively think before we act and expend our very limited resources with our oh-so-damned dollars. And before you crucify me, Im all for thinking very very quickly. Hell Im fine with spending vast sums of money and being substantially taxed for it. But banning light bulbs (for instance) is silly, both for being utterly ineffectual and for diverting our attention away from solutions that might make a difference. How can you worship the science that supports AGW and then discard it so completely when considering action?
Sure! Point taken!! But grant me that Goldman-Sachs will make a killing trading carbon credits; that government subsidies to green business will make GE a king's ransom; that Home Depot profits will spike when the incandescent bans take effect. Wherever the money goes, wherever politicians make it go, it probably shouldnt have gone there. Absofreakinlutely the oil business is included.
Perhaps that's true. I wish it were true. But I have seen very few discussions of consequences or cost/benefits that don't quickly descend into accusations of denial. Even the more moderate proponents of action seem more comfortable with dismissing people as 'deniers' rather than be challenged by criticism, no matter how considered, grounded, or restrained. For some reason it seems to be a subject that doesn't bring out the best in people.
Exactly! The thing I take equal issue with is that *any* criticism of AGW activism is immediately dismissed as AGW denial, and it's not true. I agree the earth is warming, agree that we caused at least some and maybe even all, and buy into 95% of the science. But if I point out that maybe some of the proposed regulations in response to AGW are a bit silly and ineffectual and certainly costly, I'm a 'denier'. There is at least some good science that suggests we will not be dead in 10 years, and that science should not be dismissed out-of-hand as heresy. The pro-AGW fanatics are just as guilty as suppressing criticism and debate as the anti-AGW fanatics.
/. crowd to be at least a little skeptical of *anything* that causes vast sums of money to change hands.
If nothing else, I would expect the
Ha! Exactly! I have a nearly-new top-of-the-line Agilent PSA and every time I need to print a screen shot I have to find a floppy disk, which sometimes takes hours. Fortunately USB-based floppy drives are cheap and I keep one in my laptop bag. (For some reason the floppy disks I keep in my laptop bag disappear, probably through the same wormhole that pens and single socks use to escape)
Half correct... Im not a fan of any administration. But mostly I dont care for True Believers (tm) of any administration, people whose view of current affairs is so binary that [Obama|Bush] can do no wrong and [Bush|Obama] can do no right, and every discussion ends up framed in that context.
While I appreciate your candor over the current administration's need to assume responsibility for affairs, your rush to cast me as a Bush-fanatic is misplaced and largely why politics has become so polarized and ineffectual. My comment was certainly a bit of a troll for Obama-philes, but my stating that both administration should be held accountable for Iraq at this point is not particularly radical or partisan.
And charge the Obama administration for continuing it, right?
I did the initial demo software integration under contract for an accelerometer manufacturer and a phone maker (whom shall remain nameless for now). But I sure as hell have prior art, it's an exact match, predates the application, was shown publicly at large trade show, and I (and 2 Fortune-100 companies) can prove it. I personally dont have a stake in this, but what do I do now?
It's very much like global warming. There's a very loud group that don't seem to care that it doesn't affect them yet, and (if true or not) will make everyone pay for it now.
There, fixed that for you.
Whats far more likely is a brain-dead local authority tries to dust them off and apply them and SCOTUS tosses them out. You and I may not always like the outcome of SCOTUS decisions but they do tend to serve the Framers' intent of keeping legislators and their more ridiculous laws in check.
Another "machines took my job" story.
There, fixed that for you
The *secret* judges, the ones in the *secret* supreme court. I've probably said too much already...
That's being a little pedantic I think. I love my G3 and think its a superior platform, but all I see around me are iPhones. My wife has 100 games on her iPhone and the kids play it as much as the Wii and PC games combined. I have maybe 3 games, and only one would I call well done. What the Android does it does well but the game developers are on the iPhone and thats what the non-geeks want. My kids have great MP3 players, but all I hear is iTouch iTouch iTouch because thats what the other kids have. I'm willing to accept it on faith and a stylistically small sample that the iPhone is indeed popular with kids and so on. Although I would rule out sheeple either.
Sounded good until I read: "Responsibility for defending Andorra rests with Spain and France."
If Bing has less info on Cenzic, it *proves* they are secretly allied with Microsoft!
Why would you need phone coverage to use the GPS unit in your phone?
You dont, of course. But that aside there are several other differences between a handheld GPS and a typical phone GPS; the quality/accuracy of the receiver, stability and ability to track in suboptimal conditions, power consumption, ruggedness of construction, and the software on top of it all. I could probably write an Android app that did most of what a Garmin Trailmaster does, but the $20 worth of GPS hardware in a G3 is not as good as a dedicated unit. If you only need to find your way to Best Buy it may not matter, but under a dense leaf canopy in a valley the gain from a decent helical antenna and high quality LNA stage is more than a convenience. My Garmins have survived a 10 foot drop, extreme temperatures, days of salt spray, and immersion in tequila. I have overlays for snowmobile trails, hiking trails, airports and VOR waypoints, and the batteries last days and are easily recharged or replaced. My marine GPS had a dedicated man-overboard emergency button. You could make a phone that did all that, maybe, but it wouldnt really be a mass-market consumer device that benefits from million-piece quantities of scale. And I dont think it makes sense for a handset maker to spend money on improved hardware when 80 or 90 or 99% of their customers just need to drive to the mall. On the other hand if you're a pilot, climber, sailor, woodsman there's a purpose-built unit that works really well for that application and cost less than a smartphone. I agree TomTom's and low-end Magellan's can be replaced by an Android, but my opinion is that dedicated purpose-built GPS's will have a market for a while longer.
Valid point, but a map tells you where to go and a GPS tells you where you are. If you're good with maps and know roughly which map you're on and have a compass and a clear view to visual landmarks and have daylight, a map is fine, and I always carry a set of maps out of prudence and habit. But when lost near the Canadian border with 1/4 tank of gas, not sure which state or even country I'm in, at 2 AM with temperatures heading for -20F and white-out snow squalls, GPS is your friend. Your BEST friend is the person that told you not to get into such a stupid situation in the first place, and is probably riding on the sled next to you saying "I told you so", but your SECOND best friend is GPS.
In the same vein though, even entering Boston in a motor vehicle is just as reckless and irresponsible. And until GPS can tell you, for instance, "Take Off The Yankees Hat Before Someone Shoves A Sam Adams Up Your Squantum" it's not really that useful in Boston.
Ironically, the places you need GPS the most are the places there is no cell phone coverage. As much as I like my Android its my Garmin that goes into the backpack.
This is nonsense too. You saying you can open a bar in New York and stick a 'No Blacks' sign in the window?
A fair point. But I think it has less to do with restrictions on businesses and more about having established protected social and racial classes, the latter meaning that rules can be unevenly applied. For example you cant open a men-only gym but you can open a women-only gym (IANAL/IIRC the case law said men didnt need protection from women but women needed protection from men). More to the GP post you can throw out smart people all day because you're a private business and smart people aren't in a protected class; you cannot throw out stupid people because they fall into a 'disadvantaged/protected' class.
And what intolerant morons modded you 'troll' because you used the work 'black'? I agree with Shakrai and dont care for legislation creating protected classes, but you are absolutely correct that they exist and do establish restrictions on private businesses.
I dont disagree but I was expressing concern as to what constituted "deliberate ignorance". Obviously the prosecution and defense will differ wildly on what rises to the level of "deliberate" and "complicit". Claiming a service provider that implicitly enables a crime *might* be a steep slippery slope. Do we go after the software vendor that supplied the shopping cart service? How about Firefox for not blocking the site? How about Visa and Mastercard for processing the payments? Comcast for not blocking the site? I hope that in this case the court found that the ISP was particularly deliberate rather than just the easiest to prosecute.
I get the distinction, but businesses "get informed" all the time about all manner of stuff, much of it bogus. If all it takes to establish liability is for the plaintiff to send me an email claiming something that sets the bar pretty low. How much investigation would the court recognize as appropriate? What if I investigate and I determine that the accusation is without merit and they sue anyway? Do I have to investigate every complaint no matter how ridiculous and no matter the cost, to establish that I dont arbitrarily enforce? And so on. At least with DMCA there is established procedure and dispute resolution that can hold the plaintiff to some standard of proof. This is casting a pretty wide net and has pretty significant implications for extending liability *way* beyond the crime itself. If I were an ISP I'd be moving my servers offshore as we speak.