Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

by greenbird (#47905175) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

You're going to need a much more expensive black box to log enough to make the results unambiguous.

No you don't. Location, control inputs and velocity are all you need. Most cars already have that in them. Almost all cell phones do too.

They'll have to log enough information to make them prime targets for warrant-less searches for non-safety purposes.

As I stated just record the last half hour or so. That would limit there viability for intrusive monitoring.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

by greenbird (#47903383) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

First, your 'freebie' is ruinous to some people (we're talking living in a shelter losing the kids sort of ruinous).

Scale the fine based on income. The fine is more of a wake up slap than than anything else.

The second is ruinous to nearly anyone.

Yeah, because 40,000 dead and 2.5 million serious injuries isn't ruinous for anyone. And a good many of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Your argument is specious. I follow the traffic laws. Yet I engender road rage for such things as actually stopping at a stop sign. Yeah, people beep and flip me off for obeying the traffic laws. And this results in 40,000 dead and 2.5 million seriously injured every year. But you think actually making people responsible for thier actions that cause this carnage is ruinous. Causing the carnage though thats perfectly ok in your book.

So don't do it, you say. Fine as soon as cops start only writing fair and just tickets without quotas AND as soon as traffic court runs the kangaroos out and takes the right to a fair trial seriously.

Again a specious argument. Did you miss the part about the black boxes in the cars? There is no he said she said. There is no subjective judgment. There is an exact pretty much inflatable record of the actions.

Until; those very unlikely things happen, perhaps a court ordered technological solution with NO fine is more appropriate.

The problem has nothing to do with technology. People eating, guys shaving, women putting on makeup, the list is endless and no technology is going to help (short of fully autonomous cars which are a long ways off). People will drive like idiots until they are held accountable for the consequences.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 1) 326

by greenbird (#47902633) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

There is a problem with that. Law enforcement in the USA is dependent on most people pleading guilty they system isn't designed for people going to trial. If you lose your license for a month or a year, you have middle class defendants with means going to trial. Moreover let's not forget about the effects of push back. People who have negative experiences with police tend to be more suspicious of them and tend not to convict. So as you increase the level you decrease the conviction rate, further increasing the benefits of going to trial.

That's why the black box. Outside of jury nullification the evidence is irrefutable. Also make the law with no exceptions for anyone. Going to trial would have no benefits and would thus be pointless.

Your cost of enforcement far exceeds the benefit.

The primary benefit of enforcement would be the 40,000 lives lost every year. Think about that number. The Vietnam war only averaged 5000 dead per year and that was a friggin war. Auto collisions are the number one cause of death for children. Do it for the children and all that crap. I would also argue, even looking at it from a pure fiscal aspect it would make financial sense even if the enforcement cost was high. The direct and indirect costs of traffic issues cause by collisions alone would probably justify it without even going into the 2.5 million emergency room visits and other health care cost.

I think the far better system is frequent small penalties. Something like every driver gets two send in up to 2 license plate "assholes" per day. You erase one per month. If you get to 3, $50 fine no. Limit that everyone can only report the same driver once per year.

This would never work. The idiot who didn't think I was passing fast enough because I wasn't going 20 over the speed limit would report me. A good percentage of the idiots on the road think the people driving by the rules are the assholes causing the problems.

Comment: Re:Fines work better ... (Score 1) 326

by greenbird (#47900299) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

Fines and public education work better than a technical solution to stupidity. People understand when it hits their wallet directly and when their phones are confiscated.

Not really. How much a fine affects someone is directly related to how much money they have. You can't have a fine that's fair across economic brackets. Better and more democratic than fines is taking away their driving privileges. That solves the problem in 2 ways. Add to that, if you drive without a license you go to jail for a year. No exceptions.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 2, Interesting) 326

by greenbird (#47900267) Attached to: Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

It is against the law pretty much everywhere. However that law is enforced pretty much nowhere. It is just simply too difficult to enforce it, as a police officer has to catch the person in the act to even write a ticket. And then the ticket is so laughably small in terms of the monetary penalty as to be pointless to even write.

Make the punishment fit the crime. If you're swinging a loaded gun around pointing it at people and unintentionally shoot someone you're going to jail. You drive around like a jackass, speeding, weaving in traffic, running lights or stop signs, at worse you get a ticket that cost a little bit of money. And yet far more people are killed by idiot drivers than are by gun accidents. It's completely irrational.

It's simple. The first ticket is a freebie, a $1000 and lose your license for a day. The second ticket within a year and you lose your license for a month. The third ticket in a year and you lose your license for a year. You get caught driving without a license you go to jail for a year. You put black boxes in cars that record the last half hour of activity to provide irrefutable evidence. Also use that information in the case of a collision and if it shows any person caused the collision it's their third strike and they lose their license for a year. No need for distracted driving or no telephoning or no texting or even drink driving laws. One way or another the people left on the roads will be much safer and nicer. Oh, and the 40,000 killed and hundreds of thousands more injured and maimed would go away almost over night along with much of the massive financial burden caused by the idiotic carnage on the roads.

Comment: Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 2) 166

by greenbird (#47899955) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

Now, would you please refer to sections B. and C below? To answer your question, you must angle the camera's down so that they record only up to the top of the fence or to the property line.Private property has an expectation of privacy in Georgia.

Not taking a section quoted out of context to make it appear you are right when you were really wrong:

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage (fenced yard) of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded;

Ummm...you do realize the parts you quoted out of context are really the exceptions to the law that state where recording is legal? Reading the entire section it only states it's illegal to record activities "which occur in any private place and out of public view". It doesn't say a single word about recording on another persons property. In other words what you linked to actually shows you're wrong. At least with regards to GA law. Please try again.

I'd advise you in the future to ask someone for evidence first, especially if you are going to make demands after you've just insulted them via their speech. For example, a better way, "It smells like BS to me, would you please supply some evidence and additional information?

My original post said exactly what you suggest except I spelled out "bullshit" instead of a weaselly acronym. I even said please. I certianly didn't say you smelled like it or were stepping in it or anything.

Comment: Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 2) 166

by greenbird (#47899349) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

Also, as far as I am aware, you are not allowed to have security cameras on your property that film parts of other's properties. Those laws should suffice, or at least be amended to include "roaming" cameras.

Ok. I'm calling bullshit. Please provide a sample of such a law. I've never seen video camera footage that did NOT film others peoples property. I'm not really sure how that would be possible while still getting a useful image.

Comment: Re:Follow the money... (Score 2) 188

Many will likely go 'cluck, cluck...they are the independent press and shouldn't do that' and, of course, they are right. But the 'independent press' is rapidly disappearing because there is no longer any money to be made in being part of the 'independent press.' Newspapers (such as the LA Times) have a plummeting circulation of mostly older subscribers and a shrinking advertising base. Most of them are losing money hand over fist or, at best, barely breaking even. Television news (network and local) is seeing its viewer base plummeting and consequently, its advertising revenues are declining rapidly, leaving it fortunate to still be on the air. Internet media gets lots of hits but not much revenue.

Da. Their 20th business model doesn't work anymore. Rather than adapt to the world changing technological advancements of the last 30 years they just bitch and moan lamenting over people no longer wanting their news spoon feed using 20th century technology. But of course none of that is the news disseminating organizations fault. It's technologies fault or their customers fault or anyone elses fault.

The LA Times reporter was likely grateful for any scraps of information that his CIA friends would give him because he would never have any way of getting that information otherwise. He is probably lucky if the LA Times will pay him car mileage to drive over to meet with a source. You get what you pay for. Follow the money. What do you pay for news?

You're arguments make no sense. No one pays directly for news nor have they for the last century. The cost of a newspaper doesn't even cover the printing and distribution costs much less the actual news gathering cost. I don't recall ever receiving a bill for the nightly news. You're as clueless as the news organizations. You don't even know what they were selling (hint: it had nothing to do with the news). Their ad revenue dropping, well let me just guess who's fault you think that is.

There are organizations that that are taking over at least part of the function of the 20th century press. You've probably heard of at least one, WikiLeaks. And the government is doing their best to outlaw them. The government wants nothing more to do with that whole freedom of the press thing again. It's too much of a pain in the ass when they do all the things they're not supposed to be doing. It actually holds they accountable. The only press they want is press like the LA Times.

Comment: Re:Probably US Navy missile (Score 3, Interesting) 138

Here's something I don't know the answer to: Do air-to-airs or ground-to-airs have any sort of range safety feature like rockets, or do they just automatically blow up at the end of their runs? Or both? Or neither (in which case why did it blow up?)?

In that era, yes. I beleive most anti-aircraft missle systems in that era were semi-active radar guided missiles which require a ground based radar to paint the target. Most likely there was a safety system where if the painting radar shuts down the missle destructs. Even air to air radar missles (e.g. Aim-7 Sparrow) required the firing aircraft to keep it's nose pointed towards the target aircraft to keep it painted. I beleive the Aim-54 Phoenix was one of the first missles with self contained terminal guidance.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous (Score 1) 124

by greenbird (#47585705) Attached to: The CIA Does Las Vegas

Balderdash. There is not a press. What is this, communism, comrade? We have many presses.

No. It's Corporate and Government collusion. It's the quid pro quo. The Corporations only print stuff that keeps in power the Government that they pay to pass the laws that keep them in power. It would be a waste of money to get the politicians they're paying off thrown out of office.

We The People have the government, and thus the press, which we deserve.

Anyone who thinks voting really matters in this country needs to wake up and start paying attention to what's happening. When the Executive branch rules by fiat (both Republican and Democrat) and government officials are not so much as questioned about blatantly and admittedly perjuring themselves it's clear rule of law is pretty much gone. Democracy and voting only works when the rules are followed. Anyone who tries to change the current unworkable system would be labeled a subversive and discredited. Just look at what has happened to everyone who has revealed Government wrong doing over the last 8 or 10 years.

Comment: Re:Transparency (Score 1) 139

The difference between then and now is not that this administration has kept them secret, but that they were discovered during this administration. What seems to be different is that during this administration more secret programs are coming to light rather than they are keeping significantly more secrets.

That's just plain bullshit. Obama has done more to penalize and intimate anyone who dares to disclose what he doesn't want disclosed than any past administration.

Even in the current far more partisan atmosphere far more Reagan officials were actually indicted or convicted of actual federal crimes, and last I checked the current administration hasn't started any questionable wars leading to thousands of casualties. Not to excuse any misconduct on the part of the current administration, but I think its an exaggeration to say this administration is objectively more secretive or less competent. It certainly isn't objectively more criminal.

That's because anyone who has leaked information that Obama doesn't want leaked, even illegal government activities, has been at best harassed to the point they have no way to make a living and at worse and in most cases prosecuted and thrown in jail. And the officials that actually committed the illegal activities exposed are not even investigated much less prosecuted. So that there have been less prosecutions has nothing to do with less illegal activity.

Comment: Re:Transparency (Score 2) 139

Maybe? I don't think there is any chance the government could hide something like Area 51 in 2014. Watergate would have been revealed as quickly as Bridgegate. Secretes that would have previously taken decades to get out now take hours, days and weeks. Secrets that could have been squelched just a decade ago are now easily retrievable from computer storage and backups and surveillance and the ease of communicating not just messages, but evidence such as video, audio and pictures.

Without a doubt, the governments of the past were able to keep more secrets. This is why the Arab Spring happened. Information is easily transferred and stored thanks to technology that has become mainstream in the past 5 - 10 - 15 years.

This is just plain wrong. Those same technologies that you mention (and more) allow governments to collect and maintain orders of magnitude more information on individuals then in the past. There are more leaks because the amount of secrets has increased orders of magnitude. And the ratio is severely skewed towards the secrets rather than the leaks.

Just 20 years ago it took a large number of man hours and money to monitor one individual to the level they can monitor whole populations now. You would have a dozen or more people just to follow them around determining their location. You would have to bug every phone they used. The conversations recorded and each one manually listened to for pertinent information. And even with all that effort you still wouldn't have the level of information they collect now.

Comment: Re: How about (Score 1) 385

Government protects rights that apply to the least popular person as much as to the most popular person. Business gives the rich more rights.

And yet when those businesses fail it's the government that perpetuates those failed businesses. Strange that. You are truly a fool if you believe we live in a capitalist democracy. In the US we live in the imploding hell that Ayn Rand predicted. Capitalism has given way to who can buy the most politicians to pass laws perpetuating obsolete and/or failing business models and businesses. Democracy has given way to who will pay the most to get their business perpetuated.

Comment: Re:Uh... Yeah? (Score 1) 242

by greenbird (#47366385) Attached to: Court Allowed NSA To Spy On All But 4 Countries

Countries have interests. They have a foreign policy aimed at defending these interest.

Collecting all and storing all communications between everyone including US citizens who happen to communicate with someone overseas has absolute nothing to do with "foreign policy aimed at defending these interest" or using "spies as a tool of their foreign policy". If anything it's a detriment to that since resources are being wasted on on irrelevancies rather than being focused on schwerpunkt. It's exclusively a means to control the people. The whole point of the government in the US is that the people are supposed to control the government. What the NSA is doing isn't in their charter. You're argument is what is called a straw man. You're defended a premise that wasn't at issue. At issue is the NSA's actions that have nothing to do with the foreign policy interests of the US.

Man will never fly. Space travel is merely a dream. All aspirin is alike.

Working...