I mostly agree but, I have met at least one counterexample, a true sociopath. Not just met, but actually lived with him.
He was really an excellent liar, and to that end, was very one dimensional in his underlying purpose... it was all about him and what he wanted. However, so much so that he was willing to lie and act to get what he wanted. He wasn't just two faced, he was three and four faced. He would act one way, then, in private, "drop the act" and seem genuine and sincere.... except... it was just another act.
Actually it was impressive, and the moment that the acts started crashing into each other, he skipped town. For weeks afterwards, people were swapping stories and having little "aha" moments about the web of lies he told.
I am talking about an extreme case. The kind of guy who could tell you he was attending classes at a school, even talk intelligently about what courses he was taking, all that checked out. Except, the school had never heard of him. He used to write bad checks to his old landlord, then steal the bounce notices from their mailbox. Always talked up my crew of friends about what a horrible battle axe his roomate of where he was leaving was, anything to control the flow of information, to misdirect, to get him sympathy, to make him money.
There was exactly one moment in knowing him that I knew he was sincere. We were watching the news stories after 9/11 about people selling any old chunk of concrete as a "souvenir from the towers", and he said "Damn, I wish I had thought of that".
Anyway, you are right, the VAST majority of the time, but.... such people ARE out there. I think we should be glad they are rare.
> But they're definitely an example of the "clueless"- because that's what the clueless do; risk their lives in > return for a "little bit of money off the GI Bill".
Actually, those are the more sane ones.
The truely clueless are the ones who believe that risking their lives at the whims of congress actually protects their fellow citizens and country. Its the ability to allow "whatever congress and the president says" to become "protecting my country" that makes for the truely clueless.
Those who are willing to do it just for money and personal advancement are not clueless. Amoral maybe, but not clueless.
I don't fully agree... however, I do think its sometimes true.
Often, one of the ways I know that my code is pretty good and well organized is that I find few places where comments would even be helpful. Often the comments just end up deliniating sections so I can skip to them easily "// check parameters...// setup the connection...// submit queries...// check return values"
Of course, are we counting the comments that document what a function does? As I have been mostly playing with Java lately, the javadoc comments for documenting methods seem to be another beast entirely.
I was always a fan of the Linux Kernel coding style statement that if your code is too complex to be understood by a less than gifted high school student, then you should consider rewritting it.
> In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but > that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke > part).
Actually, I tend to think Lawrence Lessig's essay "Insanely Destructive Devices" addressed the issue quite nicely. Technology that can be used for good can always be turned for evil. As technology expands what a person may easily do, or what a small group of people may do, it MUST ALSO expand the amount of harm a person can do.
Its hard to argue that explosives and guns have not increased the damage of an individual with access to them going psychotic and deciding to kill. I am afraid that this threat is unavoidable. So too the threat of determined individuals with a rational or semi-rational goal of destruction are even more amplified. Terrorism *IS* rational from a soldier at war's viewpoint.
So, in the end, the ONLY viable solution, besides attempting to raise the bar just enough to mitigate as much as possible the "crazy lone wolf" threats, is decreasing the rationality of terrorism. ONLY by stopping such groups from forming in the first place and growing will they be stopped.
This is why I actually believe that things like torture programs get more people killed. The hypocrisy of championing due process, the rule of law, and civil rights and then instituting secret programs of detention, rendition, and torture are not lost on the enemy. They join up BECAUSE they know we are hypocrites, it is why they joined.
Hearts and minds are the only battlefields that matter in the end. The rest is just those victories and defeats playing out.
Because you can't budget for internet hooligans. You need to put them on specific payroll if you are to create your own personal fiefdom. Never forget, there is no incentive to save when your organization has no real limits on its "funding". When all you have to do is declare that people will pay you more, and they either do, or you declare that your going to take a loan out on their behalf, there may be an overall percieved need to "keep costs down" but, never "in our department".... no... because from the point of view of its own chartered purpose, a department must expand because there is always more within its mandate to do.
So a general need to cut costs may be realized, but, never acted upon because, every actor believes he needs more money to do his job.
Bad? Its not bad, its the point. A control on how much the collective "we" trusts any single organization, aside from the government... which is a separate problem.
> Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once > said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into > smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.
As someone who loves to jump back and forth between realism and idealism, I have pointed out to a few friends that if a law were ever enacted that simply laid out a bright line for what "too big to fail" meant... and stated that the government would instantly assume control of ANY entity that fell under such criteria....
Within a very short time frame, businesses would be built up around every institution making sure that they never come close to that and risk being taken over.
In short, it would prevent such institutions from existing.
I would like to point out, as someone who has seen an FOIA request processed, there is often a fee per page of response. So, for example, we requested ALL of the parking tickets in town for some info as we tried to fight the overnight parking ban in town.
The response came back that it would be a significant cost at several cents per page to print out, and asked if we wanted to refine our request... so we narrowed it down to a few key streets.
So, in terms of getting a copy of the whole set of laws, $200 might not even be that expensive. I usually look stuff like this up online, but if its not available, how would you get it? I would assume you can go down to town hall and make your own copies at cost to you? Or at least read them?
o/~ Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace o/~
Seriously though, any plan that starts with "Step 1: Change human nature" is doomed to failure from the start. People are not ultimately rational creatures. We may try, some of us may do it much of the time. However, it can easily be shown that people tend to use "shortcuts" in thinking to make decisions.
Salesmen, con-artists, politicians, and other assorted nasties creatures, often tune their strategies to take advantage of this fact. This is why you will seldom see anything sell for $200 when it can sell for $199.95 (yes, I know this has some history in counting back change and making it harder for cashiers to skim off the top also, but most places that care have other ways to deal with that now)
This is why you hear about "900 deaths related to texting while driving" yet no attempt whatsoever to put that into perspective (like the 40,000 alcohol and driving related deaths... or that you are several times more likely to die walking home drunk than driving home drunk)
It is also why you see little children in commercials that talk about tires and breaks. Its why the guy on the commercial for the stupid collectible gold coin with a few dollars worth of gold in it keeps talking about the price of the gold.... as if there is any chance it will ever go up enough o factor into the value of the coin.
I a ALL FOR helping people be more rational, ALL FOR helping people make good decisions. You know what I ADORE. The fact that grocery stores here (other places?) have to put the price per unit on every item. Items on the shelves can be downright decietful in the way they mix up sizes and quantities of things to make it hard to do a direct comparison for price without a calculator (and yes, I know there is one on my cell phone).
While that does mean taking some crutches away, I don't think it means immediate removal of ALL of regulations that attempt to prevent harmful and gratuitous practices.
Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.
So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.
I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.
> Of course, I guess the significance of the fact that he was a cop was completely lost on him
Amusing anecdote....
A FOAF became a cop and on her first day in her own cruiser was coming to a light. The light turned yellow, and she hit the gas to gun it through the light with the car in front of her. As she did this, her cruiser "gunned" right into the back of the car in front. The cars whose driver saw a cop in the rear view and decided "I better not gun this light"
Frankly, I have to wonder with the way traffic suddenly slows down around them and becomes all packed together. With the way people suddenly start slamming on breaks to stop for lights etc... if having cops driving around isn't actually more dangerous than its worth.
Generally speaking, during the MAYBE 3 hours out of 24 when school zones are packed with kids and unsafe to travel through at 40+ mph.... they are so jamed with the traffic of parents picking up their kids that you are LUCKY to do the posted 20 MPH.
I should know, the best route to work that I have brings me past about 6 schools. So if I leave at 8 its hell, if I leave at 8:30, I can fly through most of my route with no troubles, and barely a kid on the road. Add to that that the areas are usually setup to be pretty straight and with plenty of visibility... and frankly....
Well most of the talk of school zones is simply fear mongering. TRY and do 40 in a school zone when its packed with kids. Its just not going to happen unless your car can magically move right through other cars and throngs of people.
There is a difference between being a jerk and not confessing. Yes, you know you were speeding. However, its the police officers job to collect evidence against you. You are under no obligation to help him in any way. In fact, he is a an asshole in my book if he treats you otherwise.
I prefer to stick to simply not saying anything about it. Frankly, part of his job is taking statements, which means, basically, anything you say. So simply a nice and professional "I do not want to make any statements at this time, Officer" should suffice. Respectful, polite, to the point. If he has a problem with that, then I suggest quietly taking notes on what is said, just in case you do end up having to relate the story to a lawyer.
Just never forget, a hundred dollars of ticket, can easily be a thousand in insurance over the next several years. Every ticket is worth fighting, even if you know you were "in the wrong". The least they can do for making you pay so much is have to justify making you pay.
Understandable. While I do feel for these communities, its also kind of a problem of good enough being the worst possible scenario.
Since this is the towns only source of income, not only will they refuse to change it, it reduces incentive to fight for the money in other ways. Sure, they could fight an uphill battle to get a bigger share of the tax revenue, or some other way. However, they can choose to lower limits and enforce them without fighting for anything or asking anyones permission.
So they take the path of least resistance because it works. It happens here too, my own town of Arlington is a full on city in every way except the way the town is incorperated and run. They seem to LOVE parking tickets, and ban overnight parking throughout the town for just no good reason at all.
They come out with all manner of BS to defend it... but in the end, its all BS. They just want the money, and don't have the political will to either cut costs, or raise property taxes. Admittedly, I would be hit as bad, if not worst, by increasd property taxes as I would be by the tickets that we have now (its so easy to forget the car is out, or just fall asleep before taking it in etc) but... at least they would have to justify their BS.
Sure, and I am ok with that. I would RATHER them be responding to those calls than going after speeders.
However, if there are not enough of those calls to keep them busy.... then I don't think the number of speeders they catch should be used to justify keeping them in a job. Yet, knowing how metrics get used in public policy, I am pretty sure that those numbers will be used along with everything else.
I have worked my whole career in institutions modeled after public institutions. We use the same sort so fbudget allocation and cycles. The "use it or lose it" mindset with respect to budgets is a HUGE problem for cost control. Essentially, the theory thats used at most levels is...use as much of you rbudget as you can, or else it will be reduced in the future. Seldom does a department willfully realize it is too big, slim down, and reduce budget. Its very much "they allocated it because they want us to spend it".
Actually, I was curious about those and did some investigation. The site that originally sold them appears to be gone. Originally they were, indeed, only sold to police.
Now you can get a "corrupt blue line" sticker nearly anywhere. Caffe Press sells them.
Frankly, I think they are mostly on cars of people who just want to look special and are hoping that it gets them out of a ticket. Personally, I think the best way to avoid a ticket is to not confess, which most people do as soon as they are asked "Do you know how fast you were going". Oh, think your gonna be smart and lie and say it was only 3 or 4 MPH over? guess what, you just confessed moron. He might not have even had his gun ready and just saw how fast you were going and nabbed you. In fact, he doesn't even need to tell you, he can lie and say he got you just to trick you into confessing.
I have heard claims from police that about 80% of people they convict confess in one way or another. Your best bet is to smile, be polite, and refuse to talk about anything related to what you were doing or why. Remember, nothing you say to a police officer can help you in court (ever!). Also, the fact that you were willing to discuss A but not B CAN be used against you (while refusing to discuss anything cannot)
So if you have ever in your life done anything that you don't want to have to answer questions about, don't talk at all to start, about anything.
Thank you for your troll, while the effort is appreciated, I think you could use some more practice. Two little one liner comments without so much as an insult or claim of why the law is so great and people like myself who really couldn't care less what the law actually says well... lets just say thats not deserving of an A for effort.
Now maybe this is what passes for a good troll on/. these days but, don't you think its worth it to try and raise the bar? To be better than the average? Keep trying troll.
I mean, you didn't even attempt to cast aspersions on my upbringing, you didn't pull out some BS reason why I am wrong, you didn't even try and call me a communist. Much room for improvement here.
I had always been shocked by the tails of being pulled over for speeding that I hear elsewhere. Compared to what the law says, not only am I a habitual speeder, the general flow of traffic is habitually above the speed limit here. Often by 5-10 in the city and 15 on the highway.
Despite that, and that I often drive faster than "average", I have been pulled over all of 3 times for speeding in nearly 11 years of driving, and never for less than 20 mph over the limit. Still, never gotten an actual speeding ticket.
It always boggled me until I heard that my state (MA) does exactly this. The mandate of the police is to keep the traffic moving and safe. NOT to arbitrarily enforce the law for any reason at all times. Since they don't get the ticket money, there is no reason to exceede that mandate.
Of course, I wonder if its changed. I have noticed that ever since the economy started to nose dive, there have been more and more police, and more and more they are pulling people over, rather than napping by the side of the road. Also, I am not the only one to notice, several other drivers have made the same comment.
My guess is that they feel the need to suddenly justify their usefulness to fend off budget cuts. Which probably means, that they SHOULD be some of the first ones on the chopping block. If they need to suddenly start enforcing pointless laws to justify their budgets well... can we really call that an improvement? I am in favor of laying off useless state employees if the alternative is to just make them do more pointless work.
> You don't know why looking at child pornography is illegal? Wow. See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually > exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have > them strangled with their own guts.
Well Sir, I understand your concern. I too have family. A wife and sister that I care about. If they were raped, I would be quite upset, I would feel justified in tearing whatever piece of shit did it limb from limb and rejoicing in the gore.
However, the criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.
Excuse me while I repeat that. The criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.
What a person 'deserves' is besides the point. Has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about making the victims whole (if possible), and making sure that offenders know that they have the law to fear if they do it again. Anything further, any action designed solely to make the victim "feel better" is, at best, gratuitous.
In short, the criminal justice system is supposed to be a bigger man than I would be if it were my family. The bigger man who doesn't break willy nilly into houses looking for evidence without oversight and probable cause. The bigger man who can say "we can't win this without stooping to breaking the law ourselves, so we will let this one go".
In short, how you would feel is not relevant and should not be relevant. Lest we open the door to letting the law take into account how offended someone else is that your daughter is allowed to leave the house on her own and not covered head to toe. Or that you don't pray to the right gods. How such a person feels is not relevant to the law and shouldn't be, for the same reasons.
Punishing someone else because you feel wronged is retribution, something the criminal justice system exists for the very purpose of lifting us above.
That is exactly what I would assume to be the case. Though there may be the fear of getting caught but... I doubt it. I think the false positive rate on anything like this is going to be through the roof.
Frankly, I will laugh and hoot the first time someone is awarded a huge sum because of the trauma they experienced when their panic disorder brings on the start of an attack and trips off the sensor. Because, as we all know, being suddenly pulled aside by a person in uniform is exactly the sort of thing that a person having an uncontrollable panic attack needs to calm them down. The sort of ham handed treatment typical of people who feel that someone paying them and putting them in a silly uniform gives them the right to harass other people is exactly the sort of thing that will really move their treatment forward.
Terrorism is a largely imaginary threat. Panic disorder is a real and debilitating disorder.
I am seriously against damaging real people to catch imaginary ones.
Very true (and I like linode btw, never had a problem)
However, I seriously expected to get a reply suggesting that I read the article, since I went back and actually read it later and noticed how far off I was:)
oops. Still, same concept applies. I think much of the problem here is customers are so trusting, that these assumptions are commonplace. This argument wouldn't hold water if ISPs treated your data as yours and put in protections to stop even themselves from looking at it.
Also, while its true that the judge has a point. If I give you item X. You stick item X in your glovebox. Your glovebox is searched. I have no standing to contest that search, as its your glove box.
I DO however think, it should be considered that if I asked you to hold it, you not contesting that search should be considered a breach of implied contract. It should be expected that you would defend anything of mine in your possession in every reasonable way, and that would include requiring a warrant to search, and challenging the validity of said warrant, regardless of what item X turns out to be.
Essentially, I think the law should not necissarily allow for me to challenge such a warrant, but, I should be able to sue my ISP for not fighting it, or for giving up that information for anything less than a warrant. Also, they should be liable to suffer as much damage as I do, regardless of why I suffer that damage. So if their negligence in defending an item (or data) that they were entrusted with, ends up with me being fined a million dollars, they should be liable to me for a million dollars.
> You'd be surprise how little speed it requires to eject a passenger. I've seen a car that was not recognizable after > crashing at about 50 mph. The occupant not wearing the seatbelt was ejected.
I said that I travel at 40-45 max. Thats to say, there are a few areas of the commute where the conditions and congestion levels support that speed for a short time. A collision would likely be at less speed than this. The "hitting a stationary object" scenario is HARDLY the most likely scenario. In fact, nor is anything relating to vehicles failing and suddenly stopping.
The more likely scenarios are rear ending someone, or being rear ended, while stopping for something unexpected. By the time the cars collide, most likely, we are talking about a much smaller speed. Take one of my more amusing fender benders where someone suddenly stopped to turn in front of me. I slammed on my breaks, and came to a stop within an inch or so of their bumper. The car behind me tapped me, just enough to tap me into them. Collision speed at point of impact was probably in the 2 MPH range.
As dangerous as driving is, the accident rates don't need to be very high to know people and know people who know people who had catastrophic accidents. I really think we are FAR PAST the point of diminishing returns in trying to make it a safer activity.
Slashdot Mirror
You just described two of the things I like more about cats than dogs.
You know, now that you mention it, thats why I write stuff like that too. Often its with a: // XXX: Should take other conditions into account!
Actually....
I mostly agree but, I have met at least one counterexample, a true sociopath. Not just met, but actually lived with him.
He was really an excellent liar, and to that end, was very one dimensional in his underlying purpose... it was all about him and what he wanted. However, so much so that he was willing to lie and act to get what he wanted. He wasn't just two faced, he was three and four faced. He would act one way, then, in private, "drop the act" and seem genuine and sincere.... except... it was just another act.
Actually it was impressive, and the moment that the acts started crashing into each other, he skipped town. For weeks afterwards, people were swapping stories and having little "aha" moments about the web of lies he told.
I am talking about an extreme case. The kind of guy who could tell you he was attending classes at a school, even talk intelligently about what courses he was taking, all that checked out. Except, the school had never heard of him. He used to write bad checks to his old landlord, then steal the bounce notices from their mailbox. Always talked up my crew of friends about what a horrible battle axe his roomate of where he was leaving was, anything to control the flow of information, to misdirect, to get him sympathy, to make him money.
There was exactly one moment in knowing him that I knew he was sincere. We were watching the news stories after 9/11 about people selling any old chunk of concrete as a "souvenir from the towers", and he said "Damn, I wish I had thought of that".
Anyway, you are right, the VAST majority of the time, but.... such people ARE out there. I think we should be glad they are rare.
-Steve
> But they're definitely an example of the "clueless"- because that's what the clueless do; risk their lives in
> return for a "little bit of money off the GI Bill".
Actually, those are the more sane ones.
The truely clueless are the ones who believe that risking their lives at the whims of congress actually protects their fellow citizens and country. Its the ability to allow "whatever congress and the president says" to become "protecting my country" that makes for the truely clueless.
Those who are willing to do it just for money and personal advancement are not clueless. Amoral maybe, but not clueless.
-Steve
I don't fully agree... however, I do think its sometimes true.
Often, one of the ways I know that my code is pretty good and well organized is that I find few places ... // setup the connection... // submit queries ... // check return values"
where comments would even be helpful. Often the comments just end up deliniating sections so I can skip to them easily "// check parameters
Of course, are we counting the comments that document what a function does? As I have been mostly playing with Java lately, the javadoc comments for documenting methods seem to be another beast entirely.
I was always a fan of the Linux Kernel coding style statement that if your code is too complex to be understood by a less than gifted high school student, then you should consider rewritting it.
-Steve
> In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but
> that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke
> part).
Actually, I tend to think Lawrence Lessig's essay "Insanely Destructive Devices" addressed the issue quite nicely. Technology that can be used for good can always be turned for evil. As technology expands what a person may easily do, or what a small group of people may do, it MUST ALSO expand the amount of harm a person can do.
Its hard to argue that explosives and guns have not increased the damage of an individual with access to them going psychotic and deciding to kill. I am afraid that this threat is unavoidable. So too the threat of determined individuals with a rational or semi-rational goal of destruction are even more amplified. Terrorism *IS* rational from a soldier at war's viewpoint.
So, in the end, the ONLY viable solution, besides attempting to raise the bar just enough to mitigate as much as possible the "crazy lone wolf" threats, is decreasing the rationality of terrorism. ONLY by stopping such groups from forming in the first place and growing will they be stopped.
This is why I actually believe that things like torture programs get more people killed. The hypocrisy of championing due process, the rule of law, and civil rights and then instituting secret programs of detention, rendition, and torture are not lost on the enemy. They join up BECAUSE they know we are hypocrites, it is why they joined.
Hearts and minds are the only battlefields that matter in the end. The rest is just those victories and defeats playing out.
-Steve
Because you can't budget for internet hooligans. You need to put them on specific payroll if you are to create your own personal fiefdom. Never forget, there is no incentive to save when your organization has no real limits on its "funding". When all you have to do is declare that people will pay you more, and they either do, or you declare that your going to take a loan out on their behalf, there may be an overall percieved need to "keep costs down" but, never "in our department".... no... because from the point of view of its own chartered purpose, a department must expand because there is always more within its mandate to do.
So a general need to cut costs may be realized, but, never acted upon because, every actor believes he needs more money to do his job.
And yet... they keep creating them.
-Steve
Bad? Its not bad, its the point. A control on how much the collective "we" trusts any single organization, aside from the government... which is a separate problem.
-Steve
> Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once
> said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into
> smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.
As someone who loves to jump back and forth between realism and idealism, I have pointed out to a few friends that if a law were ever enacted that simply laid out a bright line for what "too big to fail" meant... and stated that the government would instantly assume control of ANY entity that fell under such criteria....
Within a very short time frame, businesses would be built up around every institution making sure that they never come close to that and risk being taken over.
In short, it would prevent such institutions from existing.
-Steve
I would like to point out, as someone who has seen an FOIA request processed, there is often a fee per page of response. So, for example, we requested ALL of the parking tickets in town for some info as we tried to fight the overnight parking ban in town.
The response came back that it would be a significant cost at several cents per page to print out, and asked if we wanted to refine our request... so we narrowed it down to a few key streets.
So, in terms of getting a copy of the whole set of laws, $200 might not even be that expensive. I usually look stuff like this up online, but if its not available, how would you get it? I would assume you can go down to town hall and make your own copies at cost to you? Or at least read them?
-Steve
o/~ Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace o/~
Seriously though, any plan that starts with "Step 1: Change human nature" is doomed to failure from the start. People are not ultimately rational creatures. We may try, some of us may do it much of the time. However, it can easily be shown that people tend to use "shortcuts" in thinking to make decisions.
Salesmen, con-artists, politicians, and other assorted nasties creatures, often tune their strategies to take advantage of this fact. This is why you will seldom see anything sell for $200 when it can sell for $199.95 (yes, I know this has some history in counting back change and making it harder for cashiers to skim off the top also, but most places that care have other ways to deal with that now)
This is why you hear about "900 deaths related to texting while driving" yet no attempt whatsoever to put that into perspective (like the 40,000 alcohol and driving related deaths... or that you are several times more likely to die walking home drunk than driving home drunk)
It is also why you see little children in commercials that talk about tires and breaks. Its why the guy on the commercial for the stupid collectible gold coin with a few dollars worth of gold in it keeps talking about the price of the gold.... as if there is any chance it will ever go up enough o factor into the value of the coin.
I a ALL FOR helping people be more rational, ALL FOR helping people make good decisions. You know what I ADORE. The fact that grocery stores here (other places?) have to put the price per unit on every item. Items on the shelves can be downright decietful in the way they mix up sizes and quantities of things to make it hard to do a direct comparison for price without a calculator (and yes, I know there is one on my cell phone).
While that does mean taking some crutches away, I don't think it means immediate removal of ALL of regulations that attempt to prevent harmful and gratuitous practices.
Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.
So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.
I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.
-Steve
> Of course, I guess the significance of the fact that he was a cop was completely lost on him
Amusing anecdote....
A FOAF became a cop and on her first day in her own cruiser was coming to a light. The light turned yellow, and she hit the gas to gun it through the light with the car in front of her. As she did this, her cruiser "gunned" right into the back of the car in front. The cars whose driver saw a cop in the rear view and decided "I better not gun this light"
Frankly, I have to wonder with the way traffic suddenly slows down around them and becomes all packed together. With the way people suddenly start slamming on breaks to stop for lights etc... if having cops driving around isn't actually more dangerous than its worth.
-Steve
Its fine with me.
Generally speaking, during the MAYBE 3 hours out of 24 when school zones are packed with kids and unsafe to travel through at 40+ mph.... they are so jamed with the traffic of parents picking up their kids that you are LUCKY to do the posted 20 MPH.
I should know, the best route to work that I have brings me past about 6 schools. So if I leave at 8 its hell, if I leave at 8:30, I can fly through most of my route with no troubles, and barely a kid on the road. Add to that that the areas are usually setup to be pretty straight and with plenty of visibility... and frankly....
Well most of the talk of school zones is simply fear mongering. TRY and do 40 in a school zone when its packed with kids. Its just not going to happen unless your car can magically move right through other cars and throngs of people.
-Steve
There is a difference between being a jerk and not confessing. Yes, you know you were speeding. However, its the police officers job to collect evidence against you. You are under no obligation to help him in any way. In fact, he is a an asshole in my book if he treats you otherwise.
I prefer to stick to simply not saying anything about it. Frankly, part of his job is taking statements, which means, basically, anything you say. So simply a nice and professional "I do not want to make any statements at this time, Officer" should suffice. Respectful, polite, to the point. If he has a problem with that, then I suggest quietly taking notes on what is said, just in case you do end up having to relate the story to a lawyer.
Just never forget, a hundred dollars of ticket, can easily be a thousand in insurance over the next several years. Every ticket is worth fighting, even if you know you were "in the wrong". The least they can do for making you pay so much is have to justify making you pay.
-Steve
Understandable. While I do feel for these communities, its also kind of a problem of good enough being the worst possible scenario.
Since this is the towns only source of income, not only will they refuse to change it, it reduces incentive to fight for the money in other ways. Sure, they could fight an uphill battle to get a bigger share of the tax revenue, or some other way. However, they can choose to lower limits and enforce them without fighting for anything or asking anyones permission.
So they take the path of least resistance because it works. It happens here too, my own town of Arlington is a full on city in every way except the way the town is incorperated and run. They seem to LOVE parking tickets, and ban overnight parking throughout the town for just no good reason at all.
They come out with all manner of BS to defend it... but in the end, its all BS. They just want the money, and don't have the political will to either cut costs, or raise property taxes. Admittedly, I would be hit as bad, if not worst, by increasd property taxes as I would be by the tickets that we have now (its so easy to forget the car is out, or just fall asleep before taking it in etc) but... at least they would have to justify their BS.
-Steve
Sure, and I am ok with that. I would RATHER them be responding to those calls than going after speeders.
However, if there are not enough of those calls to keep them busy.... then I don't think the number of speeders they catch should be used to justify keeping them in a job. Yet, knowing how metrics get used in public policy, I am pretty sure that those numbers will be used along with everything else.
I have worked my whole career in institutions modeled after public institutions. We use the same sort so fbudget allocation and cycles. The "use it or lose it" mindset with respect to budgets is a HUGE problem for cost control. Essentially, the theory thats used at most levels is...use as much of you rbudget as you can, or else it will be reduced in the future. Seldom does a department willfully realize it is too big, slim down, and reduce budget. Its very much "they allocated it because they want us to spend it".
-Steve
Actually, I was curious about those and did some investigation. The site that originally sold them appears to be gone. Originally they were, indeed, only sold to police.
Now you can get a "corrupt blue line" sticker nearly anywhere. Caffe Press sells them.
Frankly, I think they are mostly on cars of people who just want to look special and are hoping that it gets them out of a ticket. Personally, I think the best way to avoid a ticket is to not confess, which most people do as soon as they are asked "Do you know how fast you were going". Oh, think your gonna be smart and lie and say it was only 3 or 4 MPH over? guess what, you just confessed moron. He might not have even had his gun ready and just saw how fast you were going and nabbed you. In fact, he doesn't even need to tell you, he can lie and say he got you just to trick you into confessing.
I have heard claims from police that about 80% of people they convict confess in one way or another. Your best bet is to smile, be polite, and refuse to talk about anything related to what you were doing or why. Remember, nothing you say to a police officer can help you in court (ever!). Also, the fact that you were willing to discuss A but not B CAN be used against you (while refusing to discuss anything cannot)
So if you have ever in your life done anything that you don't want to have to answer questions about, don't talk at all to start, about anything.
-Steve
Thank you for your troll, while the effort is appreciated, I think you could use some more practice. Two little one liner comments without so much as an insult or claim of why the law is so great and people like myself who really couldn't care less what the law actually says well... lets just say thats not deserving of an A for effort.
Now maybe this is what passes for a good troll on /. these days but, don't you think its worth it to try and raise the bar? To be better than the average? Keep trying troll.
I mean, you didn't even attempt to cast aspersions on my upbringing, you didn't pull out some BS reason why I am wrong, you didn't even try and call me a communist. Much room for improvement here.
-Steve
I had always been shocked by the tails of being pulled over for speeding that I hear elsewhere. Compared to what the law says, not only am I a habitual speeder, the general flow of traffic is habitually above the speed limit here. Often by 5-10 in the city and 15 on the highway.
Despite that, and that I often drive faster than "average", I have been pulled over all of 3 times for speeding in nearly 11 years of driving, and never for less than 20 mph over the limit. Still, never gotten an actual speeding ticket.
It always boggled me until I heard that my state (MA) does exactly this. The mandate of the police is to keep the traffic moving and safe. NOT to arbitrarily enforce the law for any reason at all times. Since they don't get the ticket money, there is no reason to exceede that mandate.
Of course, I wonder if its changed. I have noticed that ever since the economy started to nose dive, there have been more and more police, and more and more they are pulling people over, rather than napping by the side of the road. Also, I am not the only one to notice, several other drivers have made the same comment.
My guess is that they feel the need to suddenly justify their usefulness to fend off budget cuts. Which probably means, that they SHOULD be some of the first ones on the chopping block. If they need to suddenly start enforcing pointless laws to justify their budgets well... can we really call that an improvement? I am in favor of laying off useless state employees if the alternative is to just make them do more pointless work.
-Steve
> You don't know why looking at child pornography is illegal? Wow. See, if my niece got raped or otherwise sexually
> exploited, and I knew that it had been photographed and men were downloading that picture to wank to, I'd have
> them strangled with their own guts.
Well Sir, I understand your concern. I too have family. A wife and sister that I care about. If they were raped, I would be quite upset, I would feel justified in tearing whatever piece of shit did it limb from limb and rejoicing in the gore.
However, the criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.
Excuse me while I repeat that. The criminal justice system is NOT about retribution.
What a person 'deserves' is besides the point. Has nothing to do with justice. Justice is about making the victims whole (if possible), and making sure that offenders know that they have the law to fear if they do it again. Anything further, any action designed solely to make the victim "feel better" is, at best, gratuitous.
In short, the criminal justice system is supposed to be a bigger man than I would be if it were my family. The bigger man who doesn't break willy nilly into houses looking for evidence without oversight and probable cause. The bigger man who can say "we can't win this without stooping to breaking the law ourselves, so we will let this one go".
In short, how you would feel is not relevant and should not be relevant. Lest we open the door to letting the law take into account how offended someone else is that your daughter is allowed to leave the house on her own and not covered head to toe. Or that you don't pray to the right gods. How such a person feels is not relevant to the law and shouldn't be, for the same reasons.
Punishing someone else because you feel wronged is retribution, something the criminal justice system exists for the very purpose of lifting us above.
-Steve
> Don't know how to use google?
Don't know how to properly insult people for not knowing how to use google?
http://tinyurl.com/d5x3uy
-Steve
That is exactly what I would assume to be the case. Though there may be the fear of getting caught but... I doubt it. I think the false positive rate on anything like this is going to be through the roof.
Frankly, I will laugh and hoot the first time someone is awarded a huge sum because of the trauma they experienced when their panic disorder brings on the start of an attack and trips off the sensor. Because, as we all know, being suddenly pulled aside by a person in uniform is exactly the sort of thing that a person having an uncontrollable panic attack needs to calm them down. The sort of ham handed treatment typical of people who feel that someone paying them and putting them in a silly uniform gives them the right to harass other people is exactly the sort of thing that will really move their treatment forward.
Terrorism is a largely imaginary threat. Panic disorder is a real and debilitating disorder.
I am seriously against damaging real people to catch imaginary ones.
-Steve
Very true (and I like linode btw, never had a problem)
However, I seriously expected to get a reply suggesting that I read the article, since I went back and actually read it later and noticed how far off I was :)
oops. Still, same concept applies. I think much of the problem here is customers are so trusting, that these assumptions are commonplace. This argument wouldn't hold water if ISPs treated your data as yours and put in protections to stop even themselves from looking at it.
Also, while its true that the judge has a point. If I give you item X. You stick item X in your glovebox. Your glovebox is searched. I have no standing to contest that search, as its your glove box.
I DO however think, it should be considered that if I asked you to hold it, you not contesting that search should be considered a breach of implied contract. It should be expected that you would defend anything of mine in your possession in every reasonable way, and that would include requiring a warrant to search, and challenging the validity of said warrant, regardless of what item X turns out to be.
Essentially, I think the law should not necissarily allow for me to challenge such a warrant, but, I should be able to sue my ISP for not fighting it, or for giving up that information for anything less than a warrant. Also, they should be liable to suffer as much damage as I do, regardless of why I suffer that damage. So if their negligence in defending an item (or data) that they were entrusted with, ends up with me being fined a million dollars, they should be liable to me for a million dollars.
-Steve
> You'd be surprise how little speed it requires to eject a passenger. I've seen a car that was not recognizable after
> crashing at about 50 mph. The occupant not wearing the seatbelt was ejected.
I said that I travel at 40-45 max. Thats to say, there are a few areas of the commute where the conditions and congestion levels support that speed for a short time. A collision would likely be at less speed than this. The "hitting a stationary object" scenario is HARDLY the most likely scenario. In fact, nor is anything relating to vehicles failing and suddenly stopping.
The more likely scenarios are rear ending someone, or being rear ended, while stopping for something unexpected. By the time the cars collide, most likely, we are talking about a much smaller speed. Take one of my more amusing fender benders where someone suddenly stopped to turn in front of me. I slammed on my breaks, and came to a stop within an inch or so of their bumper. The car behind me tapped me, just enough to tap me into them. Collision speed at point of impact was probably in the 2 MPH range.
As dangerous as driving is, the accident rates don't need to be very high to know people and know people who know people who had catastrophic accidents. I really think we are FAR PAST the point of diminishing returns in trying to make it a safer activity.
-Steve