And even then I won't be looking at Nissans anyway as they design their cars for Japanese drivers (and I'm a bit larger than the average Japanese driver).
Mind giving examples of these "Designed for Japanese" cars? The Altima, for example, is one of the largest mid-sized cars you can buy with massive head and leg room, and huge storage.
At worst your boycott idea will rob Nissan of what, half a dozen vehicle sales in all the North American market?
The Altima is selling in North America as fast as they can build them. Infinity is a highly successful brand. The Pathfinder is a very successful SUV. Do you work at Ford or something?
The judge decided that the Internet wasn't that big of a deal in 1994, so the 5 year span between the registration of nissan.com and 1999 when they sued was ok. WHAT? Explain to me how this is ok? Uzi had it first, tough shit if they didn't decide that the Internet wasn't all that important.
"Then, in 1991, Nissan started his computer business. But in 1995 -- a year after paying for the names nissan.com and digest.com (to start a computer magazine) -- he encountered the first sign of trouble. It was a letter from the senior counsel of Nissan Motors."
Nissan didn't miss it, but the rules regarding trademarks and squatting were incredibly vague in the early days: Indeed, until the past year the judgements always went in favour ofthe little guy-There was basically no protection in name registrations. Now, however, that is quite a bit different now, and Nissan knows that now they might actually have a case. Hence why they didn't bother pursuing it before.
ne guy who pass me on a DOUBLE-SOLID line (when there was a free lane on the right, no less).
Was this part a joke? Passing on the right is a huge no no, and it's one of those reasons why it is imperative that left lane hoggers yield to faster traffic when safely possible. You ought to examine your own driving, because if you were past on the left it was likely because the guy was frothing mad hanging behind you while you bogarted the left lane for several kilometers.
Having said that, I truly believe that a strictly enforced speed limit would curtail a lot of dangerous driving. The reason, quite simply, is that a lot of dangerous drivers reveal their rage by a desire to go faster than everyone else: If everyone else does 120, then they have to do 140, weaving in and out of traffic, flashing highbeams, etc. If everyone went the same speed limit, with no one even going slower, then it'd be a much calmer roadway: There's no reason to weave in and out because you can't go faster anyways.
No, it makes a value judgement you disagree with. To wit, the life of a small furry beast is not worth endangering others over.
My statement regarding the inconsistency relates to the fact that you're claiming that it would be my fault if braked for a squirrel and the person behind me plowed into me, but it'd be there fault if I braked for a small child who's about to ride his bike on the road and they plowed into me. In both cases the intent and responsibilities of the person behind are exactly the same, except this supposed law is claiming that it's okay to rear-end people, but only if they're braking for squirrels? If that is a law, it's an absolutely ludicrous law.
No, they're not. People have posted links elsewhere in this story pointing out that cameras in public places have little or no deterrence effect
Would you mind pointing out said links? What I've seen are quite a few straw man links that show nothing of the sorts that the promoters claim they show: A link to a fight on a bus - For all we know there are 100s of fights that would have happened that didn't happen because of on bus cameras, but because this one fight broke out instantly this is "proof" that cameras aren't deterrence? What a staggering leap of logic. It's similar sorts of nonsensical conclusions that are all that I've seen used against cameras.
Even for those monkeys for whom a camera isn't a deterrent (they do exist. The whole premise of a deterrence isn't that it'll stop every crook: there are those who are too dumb, suicidal, etc, and who'll proceed anyways), the camera is a great deterrence for future crime because it helps put the criminal in jail. You gloss over that by understating it as "They make it a bit easier to convict someone who's already perpetrated a crime, if the criminal didn't know the camera was there and didn't take precautions": A "bit" easier? In many cases the camera is the only real evidence.
Mostly, however, the purpose of the cameras in London and New York is to make idiots feel that their politicians are trying to protect them, so that the politicians will be reelected.
I call bullshit. Firstly, cameras are a highly controversial measure that hardly wins majority support whenever they are proposed: Claiming that it's a big political move rings a little (err...a lot) false. It's also the type of passionate issue where one accumulates enemies, but not friends (i.e. people will use it as a reason to vote against you regardless of how much they support every other position and action, but supporters will not see it as a reason to vote for you. This is the paradox of politics that leads to most politicians sitting on the fence: People often choose who to vote for based upon who they dislike the least, rather than like the most).
For all we know countless acts of violence have been prevented because people were worried that someone would see them (either someone in the flesh, or indirectly via recorded evidence): It's hard to give metrics for things that haven't occurred. One of the prime identifiers that someone is a thief in a retail establishment, for instance, is when they glance around to see if anyone is looking: Criminals are very concerned about being seen.
Even if it doesn't prevent the original act, it can indirectly prevent crimes in the future. For instance most car thefts are committed by a small number of individuals (indeed, that is the case with most crimes: A very small number of people prolifically steal hundreds of cars, break into many cars, rob many stores, etc): Rather than putting a camera in a lot with a big sign saying "you are being monitored", it is far more beneficial to society as a whole (though not to the individual lot owner) to have hidden cameras to capture the perpetrators and either rehabilitate, or put them behind bars forever. It's the same thing for child molestors, shoplifters, vandals, and snipers (I bring up the MD sniper incident because right now there is almost certainly a video somewhere that captures the culprit leaving the scene, and I'm sure it'll become paramount soon enough): If you just use deterrence, then as another poster mentioned they may just move elsewhere: Better to catch them (like the Buglar incident) and remove them from the equation than to miss it altogether.
Here in the USA, people with broadband use WiFi in very large numbers, because the equipment is cheap, and it is easier to setup a WiFi network, rather than stringing Cat5 cables throughout the house. Also, it is nice to have a mobile laptop to take with one around the house. Home users find WiFi and broadband complimentary technologies.
Personally I just strung cat5e throughout the house? Why?
a) security: Without physically hooking in, you cannot get at my internal network. b) speed. 100Mbps matters when you're copying 2GB VMware sessions between machines. c) robustness and stability. When someone uses a cordless phone my network isn't going to go down. d) cost. A 100Mbps card is about $20. A 802.11b card is about $200.
Or (in MD) they could claim you were braking to avoid a cat. Then it may well be your fault.
That's a thoroughly inconsistent law, and I suspect that it is seldom tested. If a kid ran into the street and I braked and the person behind me slammed into me, would it still be my fault? No, indeed it would be their fault: If a car braked under its own volition, there is no credible reason why someone should ever rear-end, and it's a classic sign that someone wasn't paying attention/was following too close/drove a car that was unfit to be on the road. The "don't brake for animals" law, if there is one, sounds like nonsensical BS that snuck in under the radar.
If it's a small woodland creature and i'm going fast, it's roadkill.
Are you saying this with sincerity? I live in Southern Ontario where there are deer hits relatively regularly in some areas, and the devastation, even at a low speed, is massive: There have been many drivers who lose their life in that situation. Of course your increased speed would increase the devastation: It won't magically protect you.
Secondly, any BS laws that one cannot brake for animals is, well, BS, and I personally would never simply plow over a helpless animal lest I break MD's roadkill laws : You're damn right I'll brake to the greatest extent safely possible. What's that? The person behind me smashed into me? By the rules of the road that is 100% their fault (though people in that situation usually proclaim their innocent despite obvious evidence: Namely that they rear-ended the other person): Followers should always be far enough back and with enough attention to the road that they can safely stop.
How would you feel if those "other human beings" all were police officers, "all ready to watch you intently the moment you do something outside of the norm"? I bet you wouldn't like it, even if you didn't plan or mean to break the law. That's the reason the term police state has got such a negative ring to it.
I can appreciate the point you're making, however I would say that you're taking something to extremes to dramatize. Indeed, it should be noted that effectively most of those people out in public are agents of the police (via 911) if you do something illegal. Personally I am very happy of that. I prefer that over the anarchy of the streets of well known slums where everyone considers the police the enemy and will never call upon or provide information, all the while killing each other and falling prey to crime constantly: A sort of foolish philosophy where they live a third-world existence because of their extreme police state paranoia.
I'm just simply not bothered by cameras in public areas, and I don't believe that they extend the intrusions into my privacy beyond what they already are: That there could be someone behind every bush gawking at me. The reality is that the people manning those cameras (although in North America the overwhelming majority aren't manned, but instead are archived electronically) really don't care about Mr. Laser (at least until the point at which he points a laser at the camera, at which point he has ironically earned himself a very high degree of scrutiny). Do I think there are downsides to cameras? Absolutely. For instance I believe that any manned camera station should be archived (i.e. where they pan to, what the viewers say, etc) to be determined whether the system is being used most effectively, or if it's being used in a racist/sexist way, etc. However I'm willing to believe that it doesn't have to be a culmination of all negatives, but rather is a balance that leans towards the positive side.
An example where these cameras are NOT having any measureable deterent value can be found here [go.com] where bullies on school buses still physically beat other students knowing full well they are being videotaped.
Funny, that's not what I read into the article at all (there is no statements that they did it "knowing full well" that they were videotaped. Furthermore, for those primitive monkeys that do have no concern, at least they can be removed to jail like schools as soon as possible, where they can kill and maim each other). Indeed, the article is clear evidence that something needs to be done about bullying, and hence are doing their jobs.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
I have ethical problems w/these devices being put into place to watch me. They have absolutely NO place in public areas. I do NOT like the fact that people are there watching what I do.
How do you feel about other human beings being in the area, all ready to watch you intently the moment you do something outside of the norm? That is quite simply the reality of being in a public space. Do you scream for everyone to turn their gaze the other way lest they capture some of the light beams that have reflected off you?
Like it or not, cameras are extremely effective criminal deterrence, and when that fails they're extremely effective tools in finding the culprit: When the sniper in Washington is caught, it'll likely be the result of some random electronic camera that caught the culprit speeding away. Personally I find the cost of public cameras (that my image, which is readily visible to everyone there, is captured) well worth the cost to public safety. It's here where we cue that pathetic misquote about temporary safety, et. all.
Sorry about the poor wording of my original post: Submitted in the middle of editing by accident. Alas.
Now about wanting it at different points. There is a large common denominator. And if people know that there is access then they will change their habits. We already do it today for other things. For example if there is a coffee joint out of your way, but you like the coffee, you will go there.
Actually, I'd counter that: There is a Second Cup, my favourite coffee shop, a block down the street. Across the street is a Timothy's, not my favourite (personal preference). Do I walk a block away to get my coffee? Nope. I buy my coffee at Timothy's, and if it wasn't there I probably would just drink water. This has nothing to do with laziness, but efficiency and practicality (the old location location location). Hell, if I have to go to specific places to use he net, then I'd go to a specific place that's free: Home.
Now about the problems of 3G and cost, well that is a given and cannot be removed. Setting up Wifi is simple and not expensive. Setting up 3G costs lots of money because you are trying to solve many problems at once. Wifi only tries to give you wireless Internet. It does not try to give you phone conversations, or GPS positioning, or online live movies. That is what 3G is trying to give you.
3G solves problems like GPS because and voice because that is the money behind the solution: In essence the opposite of your argument, as voice and location (which are necessary) subsidize the data operations. Beyond that it's all just data. Setting up wifi for a test hypothetical case is not expensive, but try setting up city wide (hell, throughout entire metropolitan areas) seamless access, with shared billing and user peering, etc, and suddenly the price skyrockets.
Microsoft's prior cluster of products and technologies was "DNA", and then you couldn't really figure out what a "DNA" solution was: COM, SQL Server 7, IIS, etc.
Now it's ".NET":.NET Components, SQL Server 2000, IIS 5.1, etc.
The guy is a former employee of Qualcomm, and I'm surprized that he isn't posting a negative opinion piece.
Personally I find this all hilarious: On here on Slashdot, any story regarding the US yields hundreds of posts by frothing Europeans (NOTE: For the slow, the frothing are Europeans, but not all Europeans are frothing) gloating about how superb their "technically superior" GSM is. Well it isn't technically superior. The only advantage GSM has is that it was mandated as the only acceptable standard in Europe. To any true geeks, such "superiority" would be as suspect as claiming that Windows is the superior operating system because they sell software for it at Circuit City. CDMA is, technically, superior to GSM, and as this article mentions the future direction of GSM is the abolishment of GSM: Moving to a hybrid CDMA solutions. That doesn't really say much for GSM now does it? Foolish claims of superiority because of phone implementations are just ridiculous: North Americans aren't nearly as phone centric. Yup, we have coverage pretty much continent wide, and you can pick up great little handhelds for free from most providers, yet still most people don't bother. When someone proclaims that Europe has a superiority because numerically more of the population has cell phones, again that just points out that inferiority complex bulging to get out. It's like claiming that the US is superior because more people have guns.
This means when they sit down for a coffee they will want access to the Internet. When they sit down in the library they will want wireless. But when people are walking around they only want voice wireless. In other words Internet wireless is a hotspot type technology. You will want it at home, at the airport, on the train, in the office at StarBucks.
Firstly, apart from little market tests, these locations will not offer wireless for free: It's a liability (when you're facing a subpoena a day because some moron sends threat mail to whitehouse.gov), it costs many to build and maintain, and it makes no marketsense. Are you going to sign up with several dozen WiFi providers so you can get access in each of these hotspots? Even then, you encounter the reality of the situation, which is that the locations while 100 people might each only want wireless access in 3 different locations, there is very little overlap: You want it at the Library, but I want it in the little park beside the office tower, while Bob wants it on the 2013 Subway line. Pretty soon you've covered an entire city with a WiFi network....you've got yourself a cell system there mister!
3G isn't dead at all. Its greatest enemy right now is ridiculous pricing, and that's a classic chicken/egg syndrome: They have ridiculous/MB pricing because there's so few people paying for the system, but there's so few people using the system because of the ridiculous/MB pricing.
If approached in a pragmatic manner, it's actually less of a hassle: The hassle only comes into play when one ventures outside of standardized HTML or accessory scripting (i.e. scripting that is nice, but unnecessary. For instance client side data validation is nice as it saves a post, but it should be entirely optional as the post handler should do the same validation regardless, returning the form if the post fails. This is the opposite of mandatory scripting, such as when one only allows posting via an onclick event), into using useless fluff features that shroud basic information (i.e. flight listings, flight bookings, specials, etc) in obscurity. In this case it seems to me that it would be trivial for SW Air to offer a simple version of their website that would not only cater to the blind, but also those using Lynx, older browsers, PDAs or cellphones (the ones that understand languages other than WML), etc. Websites are inaccessible to not only the blind when they start using unnecessary multimedia features (Flash is the scourge of the web) or proprietary extensions: They are often inaccessible to anyone without IE 6.0+Flash+ExtensionC+SomeOtherThing.
There are quite a few posts in this article that are just sad: People who are basically saying that the disabled should be ignored, despite the fact that offering them web services and allowing them to be more independent is so incredibly trivially easy to implement (more trivial than allowing the web team to add yet another useless Flash menu or background music)
Note that I'm not saying that there is no place for these extensions: I'm a big fan of SVGs, however if I were to use that on a page I would use it in concert with the same data in an accessible, textual manner, as there is no reason that it can only be portrayed in a pie manner, in that case.
Australia, along with other socialist paradises like Canada and Europe, are way ahead of us
It'd almost be funny if it weren't for the fact that the nuttiest of nutty legal debates take place in the US of A : You needn't look to crazy "socialist paradises" for examples of people suing because they got hurt break and entering, or because their coffee was too hot. Secondly, until you eliminate public police, fire departments, roadways, public health, public hospitals, military, infrastructure, etc, then save the socialist BS: It's yet doublespeak from people who have no clue what they're yabbling about.
On the same lines, many HDTV TVs nowadays offer DVI inputs, allowing one an extremely high quality display on their TV. HDTI 1080i is, I believe 1920x1080 (interlaced of course, though there is a 1080p on some ultra high end sets I think), which is nothing to scoff at.
One wonders if the story is a spoof since being at sea does nothing to improve the legal situation and the mechanics of producing CDs on board a ship do not sound promissing, I doubt that CD pressing plants are designed to be used on ship.
Agreed, personally I saw this as an April-fools type story when I saw it: It sounds more like the fabrication of someone who was trying to think of a real pseudo-ironic (not literally ironic, but in the manner that most people use the term ironic): "Isn't that ironic? They're producing CDs, making themselves pirates, on ships! HAHA!". Legally, as you said, this has zero merit. The excuse that they're doing it to avoid detection has no validity either: One can hide a dupe machine anywhere with zero chance of getting caught-> Getting caught comes when you start to sell the product and the authorities work themselves up the chain until they're busting in your door.
I'd love to here from someone in Malaysian confirming this story, because personally it sounds like BS.
And I would agree that those "most 35mm" are for throw-away type, play pictures. However, one can pickup an extremely capable Minolta HTSI+ with a 28-80 lens, strap, etc (a full kit) for about $230US. Each picture that it takes on half decent film stores about 10MP worth of information (which is a general estimation on the resolution of half decent film). In the same price range in the consumer digital cameras you'll find a "play" camera with perhaps 3MP.
Again, there is no doubt that soon we will all be using digital cameras, and I've been looking to make the change for two years now, however proclaiming that film is already dead is silly.
The lobsters represent, in general, the human condition: People see life as a zero sum gain, and any gain of anyone else is a loss of theirs. That sort of mentality is far too common.
Mind you I think this ask slashdot is insane: That would be an absolutely massive project.
Slashdot Mirror
And even then I won't be looking at Nissans anyway as they design their cars for Japanese drivers (and I'm a bit larger than the average Japanese driver).
Mind giving examples of these "Designed for Japanese" cars? The Altima, for example, is one of the largest mid-sized cars you can buy with massive head and leg room, and huge storage.
At worst your boycott idea will rob Nissan of what, half a dozen vehicle sales in all the North American market?
The Altima is selling in North America as fast as they can build them. Infinity is a highly successful brand. The Pathfinder is a very successful SUV. Do you work at Ford or something?
The judge decided that the Internet wasn't that big of a deal in 1994, so the 5 year span between the registration of nissan.com and 1999 when they sued was ok. WHAT? Explain to me how this is ok? Uzi had it first, tough shit if they didn't decide that the Internet wasn't all that important.
To quote from another article:
"Then, in 1991, Nissan started his computer business. But in 1995 -- a year after paying for the names nissan.com and digest.com (to start a computer magazine) -- he encountered the first sign of trouble. It was a letter from the senior counsel of Nissan Motors."
Nissan didn't miss it, but the rules regarding trademarks and squatting were incredibly vague in the early days: Indeed, until the past year the judgements always went in favour ofthe little guy-There was basically no protection in name registrations. Now, however, that is quite a bit different now, and Nissan knows that now they might actually have a case. Hence why they didn't bother pursuing it before.
ne guy who pass me on a DOUBLE-SOLID line (when there was a free lane on the right, no less).
Was this part a joke? Passing on the right is a huge no no, and it's one of those reasons why it is imperative that left lane hoggers yield to faster traffic when safely possible. You ought to examine your own driving, because if you were past on the left it was likely because the guy was frothing mad hanging behind you while you bogarted the left lane for several kilometers.
Having said that, I truly believe that a strictly enforced speed limit would curtail a lot of dangerous driving. The reason, quite simply, is that a lot of dangerous drivers reveal their rage by a desire to go faster than everyone else: If everyone else does 120, then they have to do 140, weaving in and out of traffic, flashing highbeams, etc. If everyone went the same speed limit, with no one even going slower, then it'd be a much calmer roadway: There's no reason to weave in and out because you can't go faster anyways.
No, it makes a value judgement you disagree with. To wit, the life of a small furry beast is not worth endangering others over.
My statement regarding the inconsistency relates to the fact that you're claiming that it would be my fault if braked for a squirrel and the person behind me plowed into me, but it'd be there fault if I braked for a small child who's about to ride his bike on the road and they plowed into me. In both cases the intent and responsibilities of the person behind are exactly the same, except this supposed law is claiming that it's okay to rear-end people, but only if they're braking for squirrels? If that is a law, it's an absolutely ludicrous law.
No, they're not. People have posted links elsewhere in this story pointing out that cameras in public places have little or no deterrence effect
Would you mind pointing out said links? What I've seen are quite a few straw man links that show nothing of the sorts that the promoters claim they show: A link to a fight on a bus - For all we know there are 100s of fights that would have happened that didn't happen because of on bus cameras, but because this one fight broke out instantly this is "proof" that cameras aren't deterrence? What a staggering leap of logic. It's similar sorts of nonsensical conclusions that are all that I've seen used against cameras.
Even for those monkeys for whom a camera isn't a deterrent (they do exist. The whole premise of a deterrence isn't that it'll stop every crook: there are those who are too dumb, suicidal, etc, and who'll proceed anyways), the camera is a great deterrence for future crime because it helps put the criminal in jail. You gloss over that by understating it as "They make it a bit easier to convict someone who's already perpetrated a crime, if the criminal didn't know the camera was there and didn't take precautions": A "bit" easier? In many cases the camera is the only real evidence.
Mostly, however, the purpose of the cameras in London and New York is to make idiots feel that their politicians are trying to protect them, so that the politicians will be reelected.
I call bullshit. Firstly, cameras are a highly controversial measure that hardly wins majority support whenever they are proposed: Claiming that it's a big political move rings a little (err...a lot) false. It's also the type of passionate issue where one accumulates enemies, but not friends (i.e. people will use it as a reason to vote against you regardless of how much they support every other position and action, but supporters will not see it as a reason to vote for you. This is the paradox of politics that leads to most politicians sitting on the fence: People often choose who to vote for based upon who they dislike the least, rather than like the most).
For all we know countless acts of violence have been prevented because people were worried that someone would see them (either someone in the flesh, or indirectly via recorded evidence): It's hard to give metrics for things that haven't occurred. One of the prime identifiers that someone is a thief in a retail establishment, for instance, is when they glance around to see if anyone is looking: Criminals are very concerned about being seen.
Even if it doesn't prevent the original act, it can indirectly prevent crimes in the future. For instance most car thefts are committed by a small number of individuals (indeed, that is the case with most crimes: A very small number of people prolifically steal hundreds of cars, break into many cars, rob many stores, etc): Rather than putting a camera in a lot with a big sign saying "you are being monitored", it is far more beneficial to society as a whole (though not to the individual lot owner) to have hidden cameras to capture the perpetrators and either rehabilitate, or put them behind bars forever. It's the same thing for child molestors, shoplifters, vandals, and snipers (I bring up the MD sniper incident because right now there is almost certainly a video somewhere that captures the culprit leaving the scene, and I'm sure it'll become paramount soon enough): If you just use deterrence, then as another poster mentioned they may just move elsewhere: Better to catch them (like the Buglar incident) and remove them from the equation than to miss it altogether.
Here in the USA, people with broadband use WiFi in very large numbers, because the equipment is cheap, and it is easier to setup a WiFi network, rather than stringing Cat5 cables throughout the house. Also, it is nice to have a mobile laptop to take with one around the house. Home users find WiFi and broadband complimentary technologies.
Personally I just strung cat5e throughout the house? Why?
a) security: Without physically hooking in, you cannot get at my internal network.
b) speed. 100Mbps matters when you're copying 2GB VMware sessions between machines.
c) robustness and stability. When someone uses a cordless phone my network isn't going to go down.
d) cost. A 100Mbps card is about $20. A 802.11b card is about $200.
Or (in MD) they could claim you were braking to avoid a cat. Then it may well be your fault.
That's a thoroughly inconsistent law, and I suspect that it is seldom tested. If a kid ran into the street and I braked and the person behind me slammed into me, would it still be my fault? No, indeed it would be their fault: If a car braked under its own volition, there is no credible reason why someone should ever rear-end, and it's a classic sign that someone wasn't paying attention/was following too close/drove a car that was unfit to be on the road. The "don't brake for animals" law, if there is one, sounds like nonsensical BS that snuck in under the radar.
If it's a small woodland creature and i'm going fast, it's roadkill.
Are you saying this with sincerity? I live in Southern Ontario where there are deer hits relatively regularly in some areas, and the devastation, even at a low speed, is massive: There have been many drivers who lose their life in that situation. Of course your increased speed would increase the devastation: It won't magically protect you.
Secondly, any BS laws that one cannot brake for animals is, well, BS, and I personally would never simply plow over a helpless animal lest I break MD's roadkill laws : You're damn right I'll brake to the greatest extent safely possible. What's that? The person behind me smashed into me? By the rules of the road that is 100% their fault (though people in that situation usually proclaim their innocent despite obvious evidence: Namely that they rear-ended the other person): Followers should always be far enough back and with enough attention to the road that they can safely stop.
How would you feel if those "other human beings" all were police officers, "all ready to watch you intently the moment you do something outside of the norm"? I bet you wouldn't like it, even if you didn't plan or mean to break the law. That's the reason the term police state has got such a negative ring to it.
I can appreciate the point you're making, however I would say that you're taking something to extremes to dramatize. Indeed, it should be noted that effectively most of those people out in public are agents of the police (via 911) if you do something illegal. Personally I am very happy of that. I prefer that over the anarchy of the streets of well known slums where everyone considers the police the enemy and will never call upon or provide information, all the while killing each other and falling prey to crime constantly: A sort of foolish philosophy where they live a third-world existence because of their extreme police state paranoia.
I'm just simply not bothered by cameras in public areas, and I don't believe that they extend the intrusions into my privacy beyond what they already are: That there could be someone behind every bush gawking at me. The reality is that the people manning those cameras (although in North America the overwhelming majority aren't manned, but instead are archived electronically) really don't care about Mr. Laser (at least until the point at which he points a laser at the camera, at which point he has ironically earned himself a very high degree of scrutiny). Do I think there are downsides to cameras? Absolutely. For instance I believe that any manned camera station should be archived (i.e. where they pan to, what the viewers say, etc) to be determined whether the system is being used most effectively, or if it's being used in a racist/sexist way, etc. However I'm willing to believe that it doesn't have to be a culmination of all negatives, but rather is a balance that leans towards the positive side.
An example where these cameras are NOT having any measureable deterent value can be found here [go.com] where bullies on school buses still physically beat other students knowing full well they are being videotaped.
Funny, that's not what I read into the article at all (there is no statements that they did it "knowing full well" that they were videotaped. Furthermore, for those primitive monkeys that do have no concern, at least they can be removed to jail like schools as soon as possible, where they can kill and maim each other). Indeed, the article is clear evidence that something needs to be done about bullying, and hence are doing their jobs.
This has been proven. Video cameras covered the alleged kidnapping of a girl in our town last year, and they were no use whatever with the police investigation. We have video-footage of several thefts, and car-vandalism, again, these have not been used to solve any crimes.
Well, gosh, you've proven it there. Because in those incidents the cameras didn't "solve" the crime, clearly cameras are useless. But I'm curious: What information would they have without the cameras?
I have ethical problems w/these devices being put into place to watch me. They have absolutely NO place in public areas. I do NOT like the fact that people are there watching what I do.
How do you feel about other human beings being in the area, all ready to watch you intently the moment you do something outside of the norm? That is quite simply the reality of being in a public space. Do you scream for everyone to turn their gaze the other way lest they capture some of the light beams that have reflected off you?
Like it or not, cameras are extremely effective criminal deterrence, and when that fails they're extremely effective tools in finding the culprit: When the sniper in Washington is caught, it'll likely be the result of some random electronic camera that caught the culprit speeding away. Personally I find the cost of public cameras (that my image, which is readily visible to everyone there, is captured) well worth the cost to public safety. It's here where we cue that pathetic misquote about temporary safety, et. all.
Sorry about the poor wording of my original post: Submitted in the middle of editing by accident. Alas.
Now about wanting it at different points. There is a large common denominator. And if people know that there is access then they will change their habits. We already do it today for other things. For example if there is a coffee joint out of your way, but you like the coffee, you will go there.
Actually, I'd counter that: There is a Second Cup, my favourite coffee shop, a block down the street. Across the street is a Timothy's, not my favourite (personal preference). Do I walk a block away to get my coffee? Nope. I buy my coffee at Timothy's, and if it wasn't there I probably would just drink water. This has nothing to do with laziness, but efficiency and practicality (the old location location location). Hell, if I have to go to specific places to use he net, then I'd go to a specific place that's free: Home.
Now about the problems of 3G and cost, well that is a given and cannot be removed. Setting up Wifi is simple and not expensive. Setting up 3G costs lots of money because you are trying to solve many problems at once. Wifi only tries to give you wireless Internet. It does not try to give you phone conversations, or GPS positioning, or online live movies. That is what 3G is trying to give you.
3G solves problems like GPS because and voice because that is the money behind the solution: In essence the opposite of your argument, as voice and location (which are necessary) subsidize the data operations. Beyond that it's all just data. Setting up wifi for a test hypothetical case is not expensive, but try setting up city wide (hell, throughout entire metropolitan areas) seamless access, with shared billing and user peering, etc, and suddenly the price skyrockets.
Microsoft's prior cluster of products and technologies was "DNA", and then you couldn't really figure out what a "DNA" solution was: COM, SQL Server 7, IIS, etc.
.NET Components, SQL Server 2000, IIS 5.1, etc.
Now it's ".NET":
The guy is a former employee of Qualcomm, and I'm surprized that he isn't posting a negative opinion piece.
Personally I find this all hilarious: On here on Slashdot, any story regarding the US yields hundreds of posts by frothing Europeans (NOTE: For the slow, the frothing are Europeans, but not all Europeans are frothing) gloating about how superb their "technically superior" GSM is. Well it isn't technically superior. The only advantage GSM has is that it was mandated as the only acceptable standard in Europe. To any true geeks, such "superiority" would be as suspect as claiming that Windows is the superior operating system because they sell software for it at Circuit City. CDMA is, technically, superior to GSM, and as this article mentions the future direction of GSM is the abolishment of GSM: Moving to a hybrid CDMA solutions. That doesn't really say much for GSM now does it? Foolish claims of superiority because of phone implementations are just ridiculous: North Americans aren't nearly as phone centric. Yup, we have coverage pretty much continent wide, and you can pick up great little handhelds for free from most providers, yet still most people don't bother. When someone proclaims that Europe has a superiority because numerically more of the population has cell phones, again that just points out that inferiority complex bulging to get out. It's like claiming that the US is superior because more people have guns.
This means when they sit down for a coffee they will want access to the Internet. When they sit down in the library they will want wireless. But when people are walking around they only want voice wireless. In other words Internet wireless is a hotspot type technology. You will want it at home, at the airport, on the train, in the office at StarBucks.
/MB pricing because there's so few people paying for the system, but there's so few people using the system because of the ridiculous /MB pricing.
Firstly, apart from little market tests, these locations will not offer wireless for free: It's a liability (when you're facing a subpoena a day because some moron sends threat mail to whitehouse.gov), it costs many to build and maintain, and it makes no marketsense. Are you going to sign up with several dozen WiFi providers so you can get access in each of these hotspots? Even then, you encounter the reality of the situation, which is that the locations while 100 people might each only want wireless access in 3 different locations, there is very little overlap: You want it at the Library, but I want it in the little park beside the office tower, while Bob wants it on the 2013 Subway line. Pretty soon you've covered an entire city with a WiFi network....you've got yourself a cell system there mister!
3G isn't dead at all. Its greatest enemy right now is ridiculous pricing, and that's a classic chicken/egg syndrome: They have ridiculous
Well there is Perl.net...
If approached in a pragmatic manner, it's actually less of a hassle: The hassle only comes into play when one ventures outside of standardized HTML or accessory scripting (i.e. scripting that is nice, but unnecessary. For instance client side data validation is nice as it saves a post, but it should be entirely optional as the post handler should do the same validation regardless, returning the form if the post fails. This is the opposite of mandatory scripting, such as when one only allows posting via an onclick event), into using useless fluff features that shroud basic information (i.e. flight listings, flight bookings, specials, etc) in obscurity. In this case it seems to me that it would be trivial for SW Air to offer a simple version of their website that would not only cater to the blind, but also those using Lynx, older browsers, PDAs or cellphones (the ones that understand languages other than WML), etc. Websites are inaccessible to not only the blind when they start using unnecessary multimedia features (Flash is the scourge of the web) or proprietary extensions: They are often inaccessible to anyone without IE 6.0+Flash+ExtensionC+SomeOtherThing.
There are quite a few posts in this article that are just sad: People who are basically saying that the disabled should be ignored, despite the fact that offering them web services and allowing them to be more independent is so incredibly trivially easy to implement (more trivial than allowing the web team to add yet another useless Flash menu or background music)
Note that I'm not saying that there is no place for these extensions: I'm a big fan of SVGs, however if I were to use that on a page I would use it in concert with the same data in an accessible, textual manner, as there is no reason that it can only be portrayed in a pie manner, in that case.
Australia, along with other socialist paradises like Canada and Europe, are way ahead of us
It'd almost be funny if it weren't for the fact that the nuttiest of nutty legal debates take place in the US of A : You needn't look to crazy "socialist paradises" for examples of people suing because they got hurt break and entering, or because their coffee was too hot. Secondly, until you eliminate public police, fire departments, roadways, public health, public hospitals, military, infrastructure, etc, then save the socialist BS: It's yet doublespeak from people who have no clue what they're yabbling about.
On the same lines, many HDTV TVs nowadays offer DVI inputs, allowing one an extremely high quality display on their TV. HDTI 1080i is, I believe 1920x1080 (interlaced of course, though there is a 1080p on some ultra high end sets I think), which is nothing to scoff at.
and you still think this is slashdot.com
Hehe. I get what you're saying, but they do own slashdot.com as well.
One wonders if the story is a spoof since being at sea does nothing to improve the legal situation and the mechanics of producing CDs on board a ship do not sound promissing, I doubt that CD pressing plants are designed to be used on ship.
Agreed, personally I saw this as an April-fools type story when I saw it: It sounds more like the fabrication of someone who was trying to think of a real pseudo-ironic (not literally ironic, but in the manner that most people use the term ironic): "Isn't that ironic? They're producing CDs, making themselves pirates, on ships! HAHA!". Legally, as you said, this has zero merit. The excuse that they're doing it to avoid detection has no validity either: One can hide a dupe machine anywhere with zero chance of getting caught-> Getting caught comes when you start to sell the product and the authorities work themselves up the chain until they're busting in your door.
I'd love to here from someone in Malaysian confirming this story, because personally it sounds like BS.
And I would agree that those "most 35mm" are for throw-away type, play pictures. However, one can pickup an extremely capable Minolta HTSI+ with a 28-80 lens, strap, etc (a full kit) for about $230US. Each picture that it takes on half decent film stores about 10MP worth of information (which is a general estimation on the resolution of half decent film). In the same price range in the consumer digital cameras you'll find a "play" camera with perhaps 3MP.
Again, there is no doubt that soon we will all be using digital cameras, and I've been looking to make the change for two years now, however proclaiming that film is already dead is silly.
The lobsters represent, in general, the human condition: People see life as a zero sum gain, and any gain of anyone else is a loss of theirs. That sort of mentality is far too common.
Mind you I think this ask slashdot is insane: That would be an absolutely massive project.