I guess it doesn't have to be; but I do think the ability to work together in teams is worth fostering. My own sport was wrestling, which is very much individual, its just you and your oponenent in the circle. All your "Team" can do is yell out encouragement and advice.
> I look forward to getting a scholarship in Kerbal Space Program.
Kerbal would make for some interesting competitions. I actually was thinking it would be fun to do rally races ala the Iron Butt. You know.... Launch on Day X, you have a window of Y days in Z months to do a jool flyby (points subtracted for each day late), Another similar defined window for eve, and then one for return to kerbin...... then.... release a bunch of extra points..... get a photo of your team landed on Duna's Poles for 10,000 points.... some can even be really ridiculous.... 1 million points for showing a circular orbit of the sun with a apoapse under 10 km
and of course along with being no way to verify it....if its true, then in this scenario if the entire exercise is setup to convince you that its real, you may as well assume that it is, since not being real has no actual consequence. If there is a God/Creator/Simulator then he has certainly gone through some rather extreme lengths to hide his existance from us.
if this is a simulation....Kudos to the Creator; It seems real as fuck to me. GJ.
You could ask the same thing about ball games. Perhaps because from the plethora of options, they have to choose. More interesting would be to not limit the game at all but have a list of team games, all of which a team would need to be able to compete in.... like a video decathlon.
Not only need to be good at the games but good at switching between them from round to round, which itself could be difficult.
This. I mean, it was an admirable, if failed, attempt.
In the end our greatest protection was that the constitution was written by men who knew that what they were creating could be used against them, and so they attempted to put limits on it. Those limits were great but, as time went on, many were circumvented over some "crisis" or another; with each excuse piling upon the one before it.
And lets not even talk about the laughable scalability of the system. 300 million people have their interests represented at the highest levels by under 1000? Why to keep representation levels close to what they were in the begining, you would need nearly 90,000 representatives.
Never mind the idea that two big tent parties can, in any meaningful way, represent the spectrum of even reasonable views.... but the system is designed to settle into a stable two party system; and is most easily gamed by two parties that divide up the issues between them.
I didn't check the actual article but, from the summary, this sounds like same old same old.
Drone use has been limited to non-commercial recreational use. This is not new, this has been the state of things for a while, we have seen several articles on it. I don't see how this adds anything new except to point out that Amazon's plan, wouldn't be legal under current regulations.
This seems kind of navel gazing as it was a) obvious and b) everybody has been expecting those regulations to change in the near future.
Was there really anyone who expected amazon would start such deliveries before the obvious and well known regulations that forbid it changed? I certainly expected all their plans were aimed at being ready for the opening of the floodgates and not an attempt to jump ahead of them.
Not only that but, think of it from a gamer perspective, what makes more sense.... to ask for as much as you can reasonably justify and let the court tell you they need to knock a few items off or bring them down because they don't think you are entitled to THAT much..... or ask for exactly what you think they might give you, and see that whittled down? IANAL but it seems unlikely that a court would award you more than you claimed your damages were, even if it appeared justified.
So it makes perfect sense to ask for as much as you feel comortable justifying up front.
And in the end the net result will be that you will raise the bar for cell phone use so people stop using them. However that will do jack shit for accidents since its been found that "cell phone driving" problems are not caused by random people with cell phones......rather.... the people who have accidents while using the phone, have just as many accidents without it.
The average driver has generally been shown to drive more cautiously while using the phone and to choose situations where they do and don't pay attention to conversations. These bad drivers, have been shown to use the cell phone even in situations that are less safe and to pay attention to the phone over driving in those situations.
So while you may enjoy your little fantasy, it wouldn't actually do jack shit for accidents. Its just finding a way to collectively punish drivers for a few bad actors.
I think part of the problem is RFID works and can be so small. If you completely ignore the details of the readers an RFID being energized and read and a device "talking bluetooth" don't seem, on their face to an uneducated observer, to be all that different.
Even as I read their page my own filter just replaced "energy harvesting" with "rfid-like", it wasn't until I noticed that they were talking about connecting with the phone via bluetooth that it started to seem highly implausible.
There was a great writeup a while back which I haven't found in years, but described various neurotransmitters and what low/normal/high levels of each correspond to in terms of subjective experience. I could kind of see how this would work.... if you naturally are in a state of mind where you interpret everyones actions as relating to you "they are all looking at me"...then having a story to connect that to "of course they are, this shirt is amazing"; then it changes the character of the experience.
Wow the things people come up with, that really is clever mind hacking. Its almost like finding a trail of ants into your house and using strategic food placement to disrupt them and direct them elsewhere.
Two gyros under the seat keep this vehicle standing up at a stop, which is easier on the driver's legs than putting a foot down the way you do while riding most motorcycles
Seems like overkill to me. I have ridden some good sized bikes and, I mean, this was an issue for a little while, until I realized that I didn't really need to hold up that much weight. You know the bike, it has this big wheels....they can take the bike's weight, leave it on them. You don't need to take that much weight on your leg to keep stable.
Once in motion, the bike has two big rubber flywheels that do a great job of "self balancing". Overall I think the MSF course is probably a better buy than a bike with an extra flywheel. I actually learned on my own in a parking lot before I took the course and had to break myself of a bunch of bad habits, including how I sat at a stop.
I tried to get my wife to use keepass too, she did do it.....changed all her passwords then.... forgot to save the file and her computer rebooted with windows updates. She called me at work rather upset and spent the rest of the day resetting her passwords.
5 years later I am just now getting her warmed up to trying again.
Less than half for.01, 58% for.50, and 68% for 1.0? Seems like the single penny was the best value, possibly followed by the 50 cents. However, even if we assume "less than half" is as low as 40%, $1 is 10000% more payment for less than a 50% increase!
Am I? No and I don't see why you would even ask that.
Did I once talk about blame or fault? No; and I would appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth thanks.
The world is what it is and that is not and never will be one of perfect safety. Blame is 100% on the attacker but, blame doesn't fix anything. Blame doesn't prevent attacks. However mindfulness of ones situation can prevent a lot of situations...even ones that would have been someone elses fault.
Should I, as a motorcycle rider, avoid staying too far to the right where a car door could open in front of me? Or is it enough to know I can blame the car driver for not looking before opening his door. Law says he is wrong....so that should totally fix any injuries I might sustain. Right Thats how it works in your myopic little world eh?
Having worked in PC service, I can relate to what the doctors must feel seeing this. Its so hard diagnosing a problem that isn't happening now. You don't know if the user has any idea what they are talking about, or if they are missing some piece of information or including red herrings.... when someone has the presence of mind to actually properly document the problem they are having so that you can actually see what is happening.... its great; those were always the best.
Even in nice places bad things happen, and college towns, sometimes attract certain kinds of scumbags, despite being, otherwise, pretty good and safe places to live, if you don't mind the occasional loud music or puke on the sidewalk.
> There is a continuum of possible impact reasonable self-protection can provide, from cases where shit happens > and it wasn't preventable, to cases where an action of the victim directly causes the problem.
Yes. And if you listen to anyone who has familiarity with non-domestic assaults, muggings, rapes, etc, its commonly pointed out that criminals have profiles that THEY use to identify victims. Just the act of paying attention to your surroundings, where you are, who is around you, whats going on, just that is often enough to get them to decide you are not a good target.
Its like dealing with a predator animal, if you act like easy prey, they are more likely to treat you like easy prey.
> What will you do when she gets assaulted in a place or situation she didn't expect to, from a person she never expected it of?
I will be mad. I really don't know how to answer that better. What would I do if she expected it and was overpowered? What would I do if she expected it, but they had a gun? What if what if? The end result is the same either way. Thing is, nobody gets to choose whether or not they will be assaulted, only whether they watch out or what they do when it happens.
> Blaming the victim in that instance is like adding insult to injury--and that's what generally happens.
Who said blame? I never said blame. Can a person not recognize that they could have done better without blame coming into it? Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of recognizing that some things carry more risk than others.
I mean fuck, I used to (and plan to again once I get a few minor technical/financial issues sorted) ride motorcycles. 80% of riding a motocycle is looking out for risks. Should I have to worry about car doors flying open or assholes swerving into my lane without looking? No I really shouldn't, but you know what....thats not much consolation when you are laid up in a hospital bed or casket.
So you know what, when on a motorcycle, I pay extra attention to things car drivers gleefully ignore with abandon because being right is less important than being alive.
> Hey, but if you find them, look up undercover investigation precedents. It might turn out that this has already been covered by the Courts, and that you're wrong.
Or the courts are wrong, which is pretty typical as far as I can tell.
> If you want the rules to be the same for everybody,
You mean like, the rules against breaking into other people's systems to damage them and release their data? Doesn't sound like they had a warrant, does sound like they were conspirators.
If the courts rule this is ok, then the rules not being the same for everybody is exactly what they are ruling; which, to my mind, would make the courts themselves illegitimate.
> This goes far beyond that. It's one thing for the FBI to use an agent provocateur to see if a wannabe-terrist is > radical enough to press the fake detonator on a fake bomb in order to get a conviction.
Except they don't even do that, its more like they look for people who can be conned into putting themselves into bad situations.
There was one guy, wasn't even a terrorist, was just a guy that if you asked him if he could get X for you, he would say yes, no matter what it was. They asked him for some shoulder fired missles, of course he said yes. Then....then they watched him try...ineptly, for MONTHS to try. Until they helped him behind the scenes, he barely was able to produce more than a brochure downloaded off the internet.
It wasn't his idea, it wasn't something he was after, they 100% initiated, they assisted him, they basically handed him a missle to sell back to them because he couldn't even do it on his own.
Then since their case was clearly so flimsy, they have him do the "delivery" in a hotel by the airport and get him to pose wioth the missle to make him look like a real bad guy.
This isn't justice or protection....its justification for their jobs.
I see this come up a lot and honestly..... I mean.... is it really wrong to suggest that a person should think about self-protection?
Do you lock the door to your house? Your car? I do. I generally wont even leave my phone in the locked car unless I expect I will not be out of view of the car for more than a minute, I even look around first when making such a decision. Why? Because people I know, including myself, have had shit stolen from their cars!
And you know what.... I, the victim, was stupid for thinking it was going to be ok to leave my GPS on the cradle in the car overnight. The person who stole it is still an asshole, still deserves to be punished, but you know what....that doesn't make me smart for exposing myself to his actions.
Should a woman be able to wear what she wants? Should she be able to walk down the street at night alone? Yes. Absolutely. However, when my wife clips a knife on her belt before going for walks at night, when she tells me what streets she avoids at night because she knows its where alot of the rapes are reported.... it makes me think I married a smart girl.
But hey maybe I am odd, I don't say "don''t wear that" I say "don't forget your knife"
Because its true, she shouldn't ever have to use it, and I hope she never does.... but if it ever happens, I hope she spills entrails on the sidewalk.
Sure makes sense but, that wasn't really what I was talking about. I wasn't considering what is or isn't a good filter for technical jobs, but rather how individuals filter what jobs they will or wont toss their name in the hat for. Its certainly a related question, but, not at all the same.
So if agents were involved in the plannning, then this hack was a de-facto FBI operation. All of the hackers involved should be paid, not prosecuted; or the FBI agents should ALSO be prosecuted.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why even limit it to team sports?
I guess it doesn't have to be; but I do think the ability to work together in teams is worth fostering. My own sport was wrestling, which is very much individual, its just you and your oponenent in the circle. All your "Team" can do is yell out encouragement and advice.
> I look forward to getting a scholarship in Kerbal Space Program.
Kerbal would make for some interesting competitions. I actually was thinking it would be fun to do rally races ala the Iron Butt. You know.... Launch on Day X, you have a window of Y days in Z months to do a jool flyby (points subtracted for each day late), Another similar defined window for eve, and then one for return to kerbin...... then.... release a bunch of extra points..... get a photo of your team landed on Duna's Poles for 10,000 points.... some can even be really ridiculous.... 1 million points for showing a circular orbit of the sun with a apoapse under 10 km
and of course along with being no way to verify it....if its true, then in this scenario if the entire exercise is setup to convince you that its real, you may as well assume that it is, since not being real has no actual consequence. If there is a God/Creator/Simulator then he has certainly gone through some rather extreme lengths to hide his existance from us.
if this is a simulation....Kudos to the Creator; It seems real as fuck to me. GJ.
You could ask the same thing about ball games.
Perhaps because from the plethora of options, they have to choose. More interesting would be to not limit the game at all but have a list of team games, all of which a team would need to be able to compete in.... like a video decathlon.
Not only need to be good at the games but good at switching between them from round to round, which itself could be difficult.
This. I mean, it was an admirable, if failed, attempt.
In the end our greatest protection was that the constitution was written by men who knew that what they were creating could be used against them, and so they attempted to put limits on it. Those limits were great but, as time went on, many were circumvented over some "crisis" or another; with each excuse piling upon the one before it.
And lets not even talk about the laughable scalability of the system. 300 million people have their interests represented at the highest levels by under 1000? Why to keep representation levels close to what they were in the begining, you would need nearly 90,000 representatives.
Never mind the idea that two big tent parties can, in any meaningful way, represent the spectrum of even reasonable views.... but the system is designed to settle into a stable two party system; and is most easily gamed by two parties that divide up the issues between them.
I didn't check the actual article but, from the summary, this sounds like same old same old.
Drone use has been limited to non-commercial recreational use. This is not new, this has been the state of things for a while, we have seen several articles on it. I don't see how this adds anything new except to point out that Amazon's plan, wouldn't be legal under current regulations.
This seems kind of navel gazing as it was a) obvious and b) everybody has been expecting those regulations to change in the near future.
Was there really anyone who expected amazon would start such deliveries before the obvious and well known regulations that forbid it changed? I certainly expected all their plans were aimed at being ready for the opening of the floodgates and not an attempt to jump ahead of them.
> You're a danger to yourself and others.
Based on what.... pointing out flaws in the assumption that correlation = causation? I made no statements about how I personally drive.
> Please, drive responsibly and stop pretending to be a victim.
Please get your head out of your ass and stop using baseless assumptions to mount ad hominem attacks.
Not only that but, think of it from a gamer perspective, what makes more sense.... to ask for as much as you can reasonably justify and let the court tell you they need to knock a few items off or bring them down because they don't think you are entitled to THAT much..... or ask for exactly what you think they might give you, and see that whittled down? IANAL but it seems unlikely that a court would award you more than you claimed your damages were, even if it appeared justified.
So it makes perfect sense to ask for as much as you feel comortable justifying up front.
And in the end the net result will be that you will raise the bar for cell phone use so people stop using them. However that will do jack shit for accidents since its been found that "cell phone driving" problems are not caused by random people with cell phones......rather.... the people who have accidents while using the phone, have just as many accidents without it.
The average driver has generally been shown to drive more cautiously while using the phone and to choose situations where they do and don't pay attention to conversations. These bad drivers, have been shown to use the cell phone even in situations that are less safe and to pay attention to the phone over driving in those situations.
So while you may enjoy your little fantasy, it wouldn't actually do jack shit for accidents. Its just finding a way to collectively punish drivers for a few bad actors.
I think part of the problem is RFID works and can be so small. If you completely ignore the details of the readers an RFID being energized and read and a device "talking bluetooth" don't seem, on their face to an uneducated observer, to be all that different.
Even as I read their page my own filter just replaced "energy harvesting" with "rfid-like", it wasn't until I noticed that they were talking about connecting with the phone via bluetooth that it started to seem highly implausible.
There was a great writeup a while back which I haven't found in years, but described various neurotransmitters and what low/normal/high levels of each correspond to in terms of subjective experience. I could kind of see how this would work.... if you naturally are in a state of mind where you interpret everyones actions as relating to you "they are all looking at me" ...then having a story to connect that to "of course they are, this shirt is amazing"; then it changes the character of the experience.
Wow the things people come up with, that really is clever mind hacking. Its almost like finding a trail of ants into your house and using strategic food placement to disrupt them and direct them elsewhere.
Total rookie mistake but, also a very common one. I have burned myself more than once not saving a document. Usually, it isn't all of my passwords.
Actually keepass has an option to save after every change, it just isn't turned on by default.
Seems like overkill to me. I have ridden some good sized bikes and, I mean, this was an issue for a little while, until I realized that I didn't really need to hold up that much weight. You know the bike, it has this big wheels....they can take the bike's weight, leave it on them. You don't need to take that much weight on your leg to keep stable.
Once in motion, the bike has two big rubber flywheels that do a great job of "self balancing". Overall I think the MSF course is probably a better buy than a bike with an extra flywheel. I actually learned on my own in a parking lot before I took the course and had to break myself of a bunch of bad habits, including how I sat at a stop.
I tried to get my wife to use keepass too, she did do it.....changed all her passwords then.... forgot to save the file and her computer rebooted with windows updates. She called me at work rather upset and spent the rest of the day resetting her passwords.
5 years later I am just now getting her warmed up to trying again.
Less than half for .01, 58% for .50, and 68% for 1.0? Seems like the single penny was the best value, possibly followed by the 50 cents. However, even if we assume "less than half" is as low as 40%, $1 is 10000% more payment for less than a 50% increase!
Am I? No and I don't see why you would even ask that.
Did I once talk about blame or fault? No; and I would appreciate you not trying to put words in my mouth thanks.
The world is what it is and that is not and never will be one of perfect safety. Blame is 100% on the attacker but, blame doesn't fix anything. Blame doesn't prevent attacks. However mindfulness of ones situation can prevent a lot of situations...even ones that would have been someone elses fault.
Should I, as a motorcycle rider, avoid staying too far to the right where a car door could open in front of me? Or is it enough to know I can blame the car driver for not looking before opening his door. Law says he is wrong....so that should totally fix any injuries I might sustain. Right Thats how it works in your myopic little world eh?
Having worked in PC service, I can relate to what the doctors must feel seeing this. Its so hard diagnosing a problem that isn't happening now. You don't know if the user has any idea what they are talking about, or if they are missing some piece of information or including red herrings.... when someone has the presence of mind to actually properly document the problem they are having so that you can actually see what is happening.... its great; those were always the best.
Even in nice places bad things happen, and college towns, sometimes attract certain kinds of scumbags, despite being, otherwise, pretty good and safe places to live, if you don't mind the occasional loud music or puke on the sidewalk.
No I didn't, that is a common spelling. Don't blame me because your vocabulary is incomplete.
> There is a continuum of possible impact reasonable self-protection can provide, from cases where shit happens
> and it wasn't preventable, to cases where an action of the victim directly causes the problem.
Yes. And if you listen to anyone who has familiarity with non-domestic assaults, muggings, rapes, etc, its commonly pointed out that criminals have profiles that THEY use to identify victims. Just the act of paying attention to your surroundings, where you are, who is around you, whats going on, just that is often enough to get them to decide you are not a good target.
Its like dealing with a predator animal, if you act like easy prey, they are more likely to treat you like easy prey.
> What will you do when she gets assaulted in a place or situation she didn't expect to, from a person she never expected it of?
I will be mad. I really don't know how to answer that better. What would I do if she expected it and was overpowered? What would I do if she expected it, but they had a gun? What if what if? The end result is the same either way. Thing is, nobody gets to choose whether or not they will be assaulted, only whether they watch out or what they do when it happens.
> Blaming the victim in that instance is like adding insult to injury--and that's what generally happens.
Who said blame? I never said blame. Can a person not recognize that they could have done better without blame coming into it? Its not a matter of blame, its a matter of recognizing that some things carry more risk than others.
I mean fuck, I used to (and plan to again once I get a few minor technical/financial issues sorted) ride motorcycles. 80% of riding a motocycle is looking out for risks. Should I have to worry about car doors flying open or assholes swerving into my lane without looking? No I really shouldn't, but you know what....thats not much consolation when you are laid up in a hospital bed or casket.
So you know what, when on a motorcycle, I pay extra attention to things car drivers gleefully ignore with abandon because being right is less important than being alive.
> Hey, but if you find them, look up undercover investigation precedents. It might turn out that this has already been covered by the Courts, and that you're wrong.
Or the courts are wrong, which is pretty typical as far as I can tell.
> If you want the rules to be the same for everybody,
You mean like, the rules against breaking into other people's systems to damage them and release their data? Doesn't sound like they had a warrant, does sound like they were conspirators.
If the courts rule this is ok, then the rules not being the same for everybody is exactly what they are ruling; which, to my mind, would make the courts themselves illegitimate.
> This goes far beyond that. It's one thing for the FBI to use an agent provocateur to see if a wannabe-terrist is
> radical enough to press the fake detonator on a fake bomb in order to get a conviction.
Except they don't even do that, its more like they look for people who can be conned into putting themselves into bad situations.
There was one guy, wasn't even a terrorist, was just a guy that if you asked him if he could get X for you, he would say yes, no matter what it was. They asked him for some shoulder fired missles, of course he said yes. Then....then they watched him try...ineptly, for MONTHS to try. Until they helped him behind the scenes, he barely was able to produce more than a brochure downloaded off the internet.
It wasn't his idea, it wasn't something he was after, they 100% initiated, they assisted him, they basically handed him a missle to sell back to them because he couldn't even do it on his own.
Then since their case was clearly so flimsy, they have him do the "delivery" in a hotel by the airport and get him to pose wioth the missle to make him look like a real bad guy.
This isn't justice or protection....its justification for their jobs.
I see this come up a lot and honestly..... I mean.... is it really wrong to suggest that a person should think about self-protection?
Do you lock the door to your house? Your car? I do. I generally wont even leave my phone in the locked car unless I expect I will not be out of view of the car for more than a minute, I even look around first when making such a decision. Why? Because people I know, including myself, have had shit stolen from their cars!
And you know what.... I, the victim, was stupid for thinking it was going to be ok to leave my GPS on the cradle in the car overnight. The person who stole it is still an asshole, still deserves to be punished, but you know what....that doesn't make me smart for exposing myself to his actions.
Should a woman be able to wear what she wants? Should she be able to walk down the street at night alone? Yes. Absolutely. However, when my wife clips a knife on her belt before going for walks at night, when she tells me what streets she avoids at night because she knows its where alot of the rapes are reported.... it makes me think I married a smart girl.
But hey maybe I am odd, I don't say "don''t wear that" I say "don't forget your knife"
Because its true, she shouldn't ever have to use it, and I hope she never does.... but if it ever happens, I hope she spills entrails on the sidewalk.
Sure makes sense but, that wasn't really what I was talking about. I wasn't considering what is or isn't a good filter for technical jobs, but rather how individuals filter what jobs they will or wont toss their name in the hat for. Its certainly a related question, but, not at all the same.
So if agents were involved in the plannning, then this hack was a de-facto FBI operation. All of the hackers involved should be paid, not prosecuted; or the FBI agents should ALSO be prosecuted.