So, that's one point I have rebutted.Do I have to even cite a source for the fact that any study ostensibly focused on impaired DRIVING that includes statistics for impaired PASSENGERS is pretty much void ab initio when proffered for that purpose?
Although, I think too many pot smokers read too much into the scant studies (non-RTC) about the effects of THC on tumor growth - it does NOT cure cancer or prevent tumors.
1. Citation, please, for your "not curing cancer, and for the not preventing tumors"?
2. It may not cure cancer, and it may not prevent tumors, but there is evidence to show that marijuana smokers have cancer rates as low, and possibly lower than those who smoke nothing, including tobacco.
So, until you can show a definitive causal relationship between smoking marijuana and increased rates of cancer, you can STUFF your dire warnings based on bias and conjecture, rather than facts.
"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."
I call Shennanigans.
1. Tests for THC Metabolites (which are ALL that the drug tests measure (rather than the incorrectly-stated delta-9 THC), have ZERO ability to determine whether a person was "high" at the time of the accident). That is because those Metabolites (but NOT the effects of the drug) stay in a typical human's bloodstream for weeks after the last "dose"; so, a statement regarding their presence in traffic accident "participants" has as much to do with establishing a causal relationship as mentioning their shoe size as a contributing factor.
2. The anti-marijuana bias of that "study", and that of the person who propounds it, is transparently p, and laughably, evident by including "motor vehicle crash victims" (other than drivers). So what now? We have a new classification of negligence called "RIDING while high"??? Yeah, those people SURELY should be included in a study if impaired DRIVING...
Apple pops up a notification (more annoying than Microsoft actually) that says "install these patches now or later?", and you have to click and open up before you can even see what you're clicking "now" or "later" for. Then it turns out it's just something stupid like itunes. So I ignore it. Then a few days later it repeats. Then a few days after that. And so on. It's basically the apple store window, even though I have zero software anywhere on or in the vicinity of the mac that even saw that store. So yes, I am indeed crawling under that sink to see what shit the plumber left there.
At least be glad microsoft isn't merging their updates and patches with their store.
While I must admit I liked the old Software Update system a bit better, overall I still find Microsoft's free-for-all pop ups during boot up to be far more annoying than the Growl-like notifications in OS X. For one thing, OS X NEVER says "I'm rebooting your system in x seconds" like Windows does, leaving you to scramble around to ask PERMISSION from your own computer to DELAY the Reboot.
BTW, Apple isn't "mixing their software updates with the App Store"; they are just using the same secure distribution method. It's not like they dump you at the front door of the App Store, hoping you'll get distracted by teh Shiny and buy something. And frankly, for the few apps I have that I have purchase through the Mac App Store, I kinda like the fact that their updates are announced/distributed in the same way, rather than having the Windows method of having the blizzard of pop ups each time I boot. With the OS X system, it's only ONE pop up, which can simply be dragged off the edge of the screen to dismiss.
That's why real pros backpedal with
sed 's/\%variablename\%/\$variablename/'./myperfectfile.sh...or we just sit in a corner and write MOS-6510 assembly, muttering to ourselves and remembering the good old days.
Get off my lawn, Whipper-Snapper!
Everybody with REAL experience (and real grey hair) knows that the MOS6510 was a custom variant of the 6502 (actually, not quite; I believe it was missing a couple of upper address lines, IIRC) that was built by Commodore for the C-64 computer (and maybe the VIC-20, too). And the joke of it all was the fact that Commodore didn't even USE the mini-VIA or real-time clock that were the main features of the 6510...
No, REAL programmers (like me, of course!) sit and hand-code machine-code (assembly is for dummies!) MOS6502 programs on their Apple 1 computers...
1. As I said, the Loop Pairs are ALWAYS within direct sight of the light/camera towers, and in relatively close proximity; I'd guess within 1,000 feet, never much more. Certainly within decent "zoom" range.
2. "traffic studies" (remember Bridgegate?) are always short-lived, usually only a week or so, and are (still) characterized by those pneumatic hoses stretched across ALL lanes. And today, they simply do traffic-flow analysis either from the air, or by using those solar-powered ultrasonic or RADAR units that are prominently displayed next to the edge of the highway (the ones that always seem to have a solar panel on them).
Those are probably from the "traffic flow" sensors they use to determine when ther are traffic jams. Those are the little grey "security-camera" looking things you see by the side of the road, usually with a prominent solar panel on the pole, too. Those are completely different.
because that amounts to surveillance. The closest thing to current system would be a detector placed at certain locations and would only ticket vehicles within 50meter radius. This would be similar to traffic cameras.
...Or those mysterious PAIRS of buried "loop detectors" (complete with a SHIELD buried between them, so that the "triggers" produced are crisply-timed), that have appeared (complete with the $50k (guessing) controller-boxes hiding in the bushes off the side of the road). What do you think a PAIR of loop detectors (positioned so you drive over one, then the other, in quick succession) in the SAME LANE is for?
I'll give you a hint: They are ALWAYS positioned within eyesight of the tall "lighting" towers (you know, the ones with the pan/tilt/zoom cameras in them, that the gummint called people crazy and paranoid for saying they (the hidden cameras) were there, until they started broadcasting the signals from them on the TV news every day).
Check it out. I am an embedded developer who has some experience working with vehicle loop detectors, and I can recognize a SPEED DETECTOR when I see one (that's why there are two detectors, to develop an "interval" between the signals, and the shield is to make the "detection time" more reliable (loop detectors were originally not designed to be so precise)).
They started appearing about 5 years ago on the interstate system in the state in which I live, and I have seen them in other states of the U.S.A., too. But no one EVER talks about them...
The difference is that I can choose to buy a vehicle without OnStar. This is a government mandate for all vehicle manufacturers. I no longer have a choice.
Again, you are missing the point.
Sheesh! I only mentioned OnStar specifically, because it is OBVIOUSLY the bellwether for LEO's uses for, and "interest" in, this type of technology in general.
> transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.
We already had this debate when they mandated installing lights on vehicles, which also transmits the location of a vehicle and raised privacy concerns. In the end, the ability to not crash into invisible cars beat out the privacy concerns, IIRC.
Quite a bit different, depending on how far the transmission can be received.
For example, if your vehicle is equipped with OnStar, your location is Tracked and possibly SOLD, even if you have elected to NOT subscribe to the OnStar "Service".
Apparently, only pulling the fuse (or chopping the antenna wire), stops this ridiculous intrusion.
And no government official would every request a kill switch option.
Coming to a cell phone near you next year and in your car just a few years from now. lol
According to this, it is already a "feature" of OnStar, just like the LEO ability to SILENTLY turn on the cabin microphone, which was (supposedly) outlawed by a Court decision, NOT because of privacy concerns, of course, (afterall, why should there be an "expectation of privacy" when having a conversation in your car with the windows up and the doors locked?), but because the designers of OnStar were so stupid they couldn't make the system do a manual override by the occupants in an emergency...
I find live tiles quite useful. They tell me if I have unused email, the weather, the time, the currency exchange rate, breaking news etc.
Besides, the springboard UI is for tablets where the expectation is someone runs one app at a time. If they switch away from an app it's to run another app. It is not comparable to a desktop where someone may have 20 windows open and therefore their mental processes and context are built around that. I have no major objection to the start screen in Windows for tablets but this isn't what the thread is about - it's for the desktop behaviour.
Ok, I'll try and take this one "objection" at a time...
In OS X, there are two ways to see these same things, without polluting the APPLICATION LAUNCHER with information that has NOTHING to do with Launching Apps:
2.OS X has a "Notification Center" Pane (again, only a "swipe" away, that shows you the weather, calendar events, etc. And it pops up Notification Bubbles (if you wish) to alert you to things you really want to "track"/wait for.
And on OS X, the Dock icon for Mail (like some other apps) has a little "bubble" that shows the number of unread mail messages. That bubble takes about 1/100th of the Screen space of even the smallest Tile in "Metro".
So, unless you are some sort of OCD person that just must CONSTANTLY know how your Stocks are doing (in which case, wouldn't you really be wanting a dedicated app?), or the Currency Exchange Rate (Yeah, right!), I see little use in cluttering an APP LAUNCHER (which is what the Start Menu is (or was), PERIOD) with that detritus. Again, it's something that "Demos" well, but isn't TRULY useful.
Next, you mentioned that Launchpad is more suited to Mobile applications, where only one app at a time is "Running" (I think you actually meant "Active", but anyway). Well, there's no arguing that "Launchpad" (Springboard's UI) was developed for iOS, and that iOS currently supports only "Fullscreen" Apps. BUT, Launchpad was aimed at the 90% of users (including most "Power Users") that, MOST of the time, really only run one app at a time (be honest).
And besides, since we are talking about the "Modern UI" (Metro) here, if there is a way to DISPLAY 20 overlapping Application Windows in that abominable interface, I SURE haven't stumbled upon it. I guess there is a way to "tile" up to 4 (far less than 20!) Windows; but the number of apps is LIMITED BY SCREEN RESOLUTION (FFS!!!!). Screens have to be at least 1024 X 768 to even Tile TWO apps, and to display FOUR apps, you have to have a fairly whopping 2560 X 1440 pixels. But I'll tell you what, "Discovering" that ability is as NON-intuitive as it could POSSIBLY be. I had to do some Research just now to even know it was POSSIBLE. So, that means that 99.99997% of Users will NEVER even know you can DO that in "Metro". EPIC FAIL!
But it should be familiar to someone who is used to the start menu
Well, since Launchpad is essentially a carbon-copy of the Springboard interface from iOS, I'd say that pretty much anyone who has even used a smartphone of any type (which is obviously much higher than the number who are familiar with the Windows start Menu) would be instantly familiar with Launchpad.
And as far as stuff like having "live content" in the "tiles", while that "demos" nice in a 2 second video shot, it is actually an EPIC FAIL when it comes to human usability, especially on a smaller screen (regardless of resolution) of a phone or phablet.
So, Launchpad,like Springboard, is actually a fairly nice Launcher, and definitely not so garish and "crude-looking" as the Interface Formerly Known As Metro...
Slashdot Mirror
That wasn't a "reaction"; it was a Rebuttal. There Is an important difference.
Here is the very first hit Google returned with the search term What do pot tests measure?: From that search, the second paragraph contained the text Unlike alcohol, for which impairment can be reasonably measured using a breathalyser (and confirmed with a blood alcohol content measurement), valid detection for cannabis is time-consuming, and tests cannot determine an approximate degree of impairment. The lack of suitable tests and agreed-upon intoxication levels is an issue in the legality of cannabis debate, especially regarding intoxicated driving.
So, that's one point I have rebutted.Do I have to even cite a source for the fact that any study ostensibly focused on impaired DRIVING that includes statistics for impaired PASSENGERS is pretty much void ab initio when proffered for that purpose?
Although, I think too many pot smokers read too much into the scant studies (non-RTC) about the effects of THC on tumor growth - it does NOT cure cancer or prevent tumors.
1. Citation, please, for your "not curing cancer, and for the not preventing tumors"?
2. It may not cure cancer, and it may not prevent tumors, but there is evidence to show that marijuana smokers have cancer rates as low, and possibly lower than those who smoke nothing, including tobacco.
So, until you can show a definitive causal relationship between smoking marijuana and increased rates of cancer, you can STUFF your dire warnings based on bias and conjecture, rather than facts.
"After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC."
I call Shennanigans.
1. Tests for THC Metabolites (which are ALL that the drug tests measure (rather than the incorrectly-stated delta-9 THC), have ZERO ability to determine whether a person was "high" at the time of the accident). That is because those Metabolites (but NOT the effects of the drug) stay in a typical human's bloodstream for weeks after the last "dose"; so, a statement regarding their presence in traffic accident "participants" has as much to do with establishing a causal relationship as mentioning their shoe size as a contributing factor.
2. The anti-marijuana bias of that "study", and that of the person who propounds it, is transparently p, and laughably, evident by including "motor vehicle crash victims" (other than drivers). So what now? We have a new classification of negligence called "RIDING while high"??? Yeah, those people SURELY should be included in a study if impaired DRIVING...
Thank you for expressing your interest in a position at Microsoft. Unfortunately we are not currently hiring.
There, fixed that for you.
Apple pops up a notification (more annoying than Microsoft actually) that says "install these patches now or later?", and you have to click and open up before you can even see what you're clicking "now" or "later" for. Then it turns out it's just something stupid like itunes. So I ignore it. Then a few days later it repeats. Then a few days after that. And so on. It's basically the apple store window, even though I have zero software anywhere on or in the vicinity of the mac that even saw that store. So yes, I am indeed crawling under that sink to see what shit the plumber left there. At least be glad microsoft isn't merging their updates and patches with their store.
While I must admit I liked the old Software Update system a bit better, overall I still find Microsoft's free-for-all pop ups during boot up to be far more annoying than the Growl-like notifications in OS X. For one thing, OS X NEVER says "I'm rebooting your system in x seconds" like Windows does, leaving you to scramble around to ask PERMISSION from your own computer to DELAY the Reboot.
BTW, Apple isn't "mixing their software updates with the App Store"; they are just using the same secure distribution method. It's not like they dump you at the front door of the App Store, hoping you'll get distracted by teh Shiny and buy something. And frankly, for the few apps I have that I have purchase through the Mac App Store, I kinda like the fact that their updates are announced/distributed in the same way, rather than having the Windows method of having the blizzard of pop ups each time I boot. With the OS X system, it's only ONE pop up, which can simply be dragged off the edge of the screen to dismiss.
By the way, you can customize plenty of things about how Updates and their notifications happen (or don't)
If you're handy, here's a DIY ADB to USB adapter:
http://hackaday.io/project/907...
If not, there are a few of the Griffin ones on eBay for $20-30.
When the heat death of the universe comes, that thing will still be tanking along.
Yep. Just like my HP Laserjet 4.
Bought it at a thrift store about 5 years ago for $10. The copy count was 8,000. The engine is conservatively rated at 1,000,000 copies.
So, unless I start printing out and distributing copies of my Manifesto to the entire planet, it will likely outlive me.
Yeah! Try to demonstrate a capacitor-charge curve on a digital meter...
I have TWO 547s. And the best thing is, if your furnace ever goes out, you can heat a four-bedroom home with them!
HP-21C Manuals? Here's the result of 2 seconds on Google:
http://www.appraisalinstitute....
http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/...
http://www.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c...
That's why real pros backpedal with sed 's/\%variablename\%/\$variablename/' ./myperfectfile.sh ...or we just sit in a corner and write MOS-6510 assembly, muttering to ourselves and remembering the good old days.
Get off my lawn, Whipper-Snapper!
Everybody with REAL experience (and real grey hair) knows that the MOS6510 was a custom variant of the 6502 (actually, not quite; I believe it was missing a couple of upper address lines, IIRC) that was built by Commodore for the C-64 computer (and maybe the VIC-20, too). And the joke of it all was the fact that Commodore didn't even USE the mini-VIA or real-time clock that were the main features of the 6510...
No, REAL programmers (like me, of course!) sit and hand-code machine-code (assembly is for dummies!) MOS6502 programs on their Apple 1 computers...
Whatever. Government-owned speed sensors are being deployed to update online speed databases.
And I suppose the NSA supplies marketing info to Google, too, right? [/sarcasm]
No Tinfoil here.
1. As I said, the Loop Pairs are ALWAYS within direct sight of the light/camera towers, and in relatively close proximity; I'd guess within 1,000 feet, never much more. Certainly within decent "zoom" range.
2. "traffic studies" (remember Bridgegate?) are always short-lived, usually only a week or so, and are (still) characterized by those pneumatic hoses stretched across ALL lanes. And today, they simply do traffic-flow analysis either from the air, or by using those solar-powered ultrasonic or RADAR units that are prominently displayed next to the edge of the highway (the ones that always seem to have a solar panel on them).
Those are probably from the "traffic flow" sensors they use to determine when ther are traffic jams. Those are the little grey "security-camera" looking things you see by the side of the road, usually with a prominent solar panel on the pole, too. Those are completely different.
New versions of OnStar do not have this limitation, and can spy on you without disabling safety features.
And besides, the Court ruling only affects the 9th Circuit, plus, "Law Enforcement" NEVER disobeyed a Court Order, right?
because that amounts to surveillance. The closest thing to current system would be a detector placed at certain locations and would only ticket vehicles within 50meter radius. This would be similar to traffic cameras.
...Or those mysterious PAIRS of buried "loop detectors" (complete with a SHIELD buried between them, so that the "triggers" produced are crisply-timed), that have appeared (complete with the $50k (guessing) controller-boxes hiding in the bushes off the side of the road). What do you think a PAIR of loop detectors (positioned so you drive over one, then the other, in quick succession) in the SAME LANE is for?
I'll give you a hint: They are ALWAYS positioned within eyesight of the tall "lighting" towers (you know, the ones with the pan/tilt/zoom cameras in them, that the gummint called people crazy and paranoid for saying they (the hidden cameras) were there, until they started broadcasting the signals from them on the TV news every day).
Check it out. I am an embedded developer who has some experience working with vehicle loop detectors, and I can recognize a SPEED DETECTOR when I see one (that's why there are two detectors, to develop an "interval" between the signals, and the shield is to make the "detection time" more reliable (loop detectors were originally not designed to be so precise)).
They started appearing about 5 years ago on the interstate system in the state in which I live, and I have seen them in other states of the U.S.A., too. But no one EVER talks about them...
The difference is that I can choose to buy a vehicle without OnStar. This is a government mandate for all vehicle manufacturers. I no longer have a choice.
Again, you are missing the point.
Sheesh! I only mentioned OnStar specifically, because it is OBVIOUSLY the bellwether for LEO's uses for, and "interest" in, this type of technology in general.
Similar reasoning can help along the process of mandating all sorts of stuff.
...and almost all of it Unconstitutional.
OnStar is not a mandated feature in all vehicles.
So?
I was simply pointing out what LEO (and OnStar themselves) is ALREADY doing with automatic (not user-controlled) "vehicle communications"..
Oh look, Protesters. Let's brick their car with V2V.
I'm sorry. I have ZERO confidence that V2V will not have a back door for abuse by authorities, never mind the hacker/crook people.
It would have to be passive and have an OFF switch.
I have a nice pair of wire cutters that says "OFF"...
> transmission of a vehicle's location, which comes with privacy concerns.
We already had this debate when they mandated installing lights on vehicles, which also transmits the location of a vehicle and raised privacy concerns. In the end, the ability to not crash into invisible cars beat out the privacy concerns, IIRC.
Quite a bit different, depending on how far the transmission can be received.
For example, if your vehicle is equipped with OnStar, your location is Tracked and possibly SOLD, even if you have elected to NOT subscribe to the OnStar "Service".
Apparently, only pulling the fuse (or chopping the antenna wire), stops this ridiculous intrusion.
And worse yet, since OnStar isn't a Governmental Agency, by definition, it (technically) CANNOT abuse your Constitutional Rights, PERIOD.
And no government official would every request a kill switch option.
Coming to a cell phone near you next year and in your car just a few years from now. lol
According to this, it is already a "feature" of OnStar, just like the LEO ability to SILENTLY turn on the cabin microphone, which was (supposedly) outlawed by a Court decision, NOT because of privacy concerns, of course, (afterall, why should there be an "expectation of privacy" when having a conversation in your car with the windows up and the doors locked?), but because the designers of OnStar were so stupid they couldn't make the system do a manual override by the occupants in an emergency...
Instead they will configure the V2V so that cops can simply read your speedometer as you pass. No need for radar and no way to argue it in court.
...and they will have a field in the protocol that will MASK the display of cops, so they can hide, even when they want you to NOT be able to hide...
Hacking the Protocol in 3... 2... 1...
I find live tiles quite useful. They tell me if I have unused email, the weather, the time, the currency exchange rate, breaking news etc.
Besides, the springboard UI is for tablets where the expectation is someone runs one app at a time. If they switch away from an app it's to run another app. It is not comparable to a desktop where someone may have 20 windows open and therefore their mental processes and context are built around that. I have no major objection to the start screen in Windows for tablets but this isn't what the thread is about - it's for the desktop behaviour.
Ok, I'll try and take this one "objection" at a time...
In OS X, there are two ways to see these same things, without polluting the APPLICATION LAUNCHER with information that has NOTHING to do with Launching Apps:
1. You can use Dashboard Widgets (what you Windows-Saddled people call "Charms", I think). With Mission Control, the Dashboard is a "Space" (Desktop) that is a mere "swipe" away (and you can set Keyboard Shortcuts to the Dashboard, too). And Dashboard Widgets can do many, many things, and even better, the User can create their own Dashboard Widgets in HTML/CSS/Javascript (Dashcode), or by simply "snipping" parts of webpages (maybe that is possible with Charms, too? Afterall, OS X has had the ability for around 5 years now...)
2.OS X has a "Notification Center" Pane (again, only a "swipe" away, that shows you the weather, calendar events, etc. And it pops up Notification Bubbles (if you wish) to alert you to things you really want to "track"/wait for.
And on OS X, the Dock icon for Mail (like some other apps) has a little "bubble" that shows the number of unread mail messages. That bubble takes about 1/100th of the Screen space of even the smallest Tile in "Metro". So, unless you are some sort of OCD person that just must CONSTANTLY know how your Stocks are doing (in which case, wouldn't you really be wanting a dedicated app?), or the Currency Exchange Rate (Yeah, right!), I see little use in cluttering an APP LAUNCHER (which is what the Start Menu is (or was), PERIOD) with that detritus. Again, it's something that "Demos" well, but isn't TRULY useful.
Next, you mentioned that Launchpad is more suited to Mobile applications, where only one app at a time is "Running" (I think you actually meant "Active", but anyway). Well, there's no arguing that "Launchpad" (Springboard's UI) was developed for iOS, and that iOS currently supports only "Fullscreen" Apps. BUT, Launchpad was aimed at the 90% of users (including most "Power Users") that, MOST of the time, really only run one app at a time (be honest).
And besides, since we are talking about the "Modern UI" (Metro) here, if there is a way to DISPLAY 20 overlapping Application Windows in that abominable interface, I SURE haven't stumbled upon it. I guess there is a way to "tile" up to 4 (far less than 20!) Windows; but the number of apps is LIMITED BY SCREEN RESOLUTION (FFS!!!!). Screens have to be at least 1024 X 768 to even Tile TWO apps, and to display FOUR apps, you have to have a fairly whopping 2560 X 1440 pixels. But I'll tell you what, "Discovering" that ability is as NON-intuitive as it could POSSIBLY be. I had to do some Research just now to even know it was POSSIBLE. So, that means that 99.99997% of Users will NEVER even know you can DO that in "Metro". EPIC FAIL!
But it should be familiar to someone who is used to the start menu
Well, since Launchpad is essentially a carbon-copy of the Springboard interface from iOS, I'd say that pretty much anyone who has even used a smartphone of any type (which is obviously much higher than the number who are familiar with the Windows start Menu) would be instantly familiar with Launchpad.
And as far as stuff like having "live content" in the "tiles", while that "demos" nice in a 2 second video shot, it is actually an EPIC FAIL when it comes to human usability, especially on a smaller screen (regardless of resolution) of a phone or phablet.
So, Launchpad,like Springboard, is actually a fairly nice Launcher, and definitely not so garish and "crude-looking" as the Interface Formerly Known As Metro...