Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In the absence of an effective goverment... (Score 0) 427

If the total doesn't change, that really doesn't prove anything. Other technologies help reduce accidents. 1 in 4 accidents were linked to cell phone use. If all of those accidents could have been avoided, you would probably have seen a drop in rates.

I do honestly believe that some people can drive and talk on a phone at the same time safely, but they should have to prove they have that skill rather than just let everyone do it and hope for the best.

Comment: In the absence of an effective goverment... (Score 1) 427

If the government had actually dealt with known issues regarding driving and cell phone use, his vigilantism would not have been necessary. I know I have thought about doing the same thing myself. And I wonder how many politicians receive contributions from the cell phone companies.

Still... he committed a crime and should be punished. Civil disobedience requires a willingness to accept the punishment to help solve the problem.

Comment: Re:It's not all about the recording (Score 1) 921

by sacdelta (#46358599) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

Wow. You must be superman or something to jump that far.

I'm simply positing where some of the hostility may be coming from. Nothing in there about whether or not you should own one.

While it does not excuse their behavior (theft and violence are rarely excused), it is meant to explain it. If you ignore what motivates people, you open yourself up for unexpected reactions.

I wish we lived in a society where people ask questions before they react to things they don't understand, but that is often not the case.

Comment: Re:It's not all about the recording (Score 1) 921

by sacdelta (#46358469) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

Not really a valid comparison. Most people don't go running around wearing their $500 video card everywhere they go. Flaunting is not owning something, it is showing it off. By the nature of the device, it is visible and goes everywhere the user goes. The user may not be intentionally doing it, but to people around them it may come off that way.

Most people see the value in paying more for a good camera. While there may be value in Google Glass, most people don't see it. As such, they see the device as frivolous. It may be worth that much, or even more, but they don't recognize it. People understand "saving up" for a good camera. I have yet to hear of anyone saving up for Google Glass.

Additionally, someone who can't afford your expensive camera can opt for a cheaper version of similar technology. In the case of the Glass, if you can't afford it (or are not "invited" to purchase it) you can't just buy a cheaper version of something similar. Once other similar cheaper products are available a lot of the stigma will
go away.

While for a lot of people, the issue is the potential for recording secretly (though most of that is just not understanding what the product is primarily for), I believe (opinion) for many people that is just the convenient excuse they give so that they don't come off petty.

Comment: It's not all about the recording (Score 2) 921

by sacdelta (#46357369) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

While I would prefer to see a red led indicating that it is actively recording, that's not the only issue.

The early adopters are also actively running around flaunting that they had an extra $1,500 just lying around. It is also similar to the hostility growing about the elite companies busing their employees. There is a level of elitism that is being flaunted about by these people and that doesn't sit well with many people. Especially with a growing divide of haves and have nots.

In this case it seems that since they eventually just grabbed the device, that all of the bluster was probably just show to get them in a position to steal it.

Comment: Re:So..... (Score 4, Insightful) 445

by sacdelta (#46221329) Attached to: FBI: $10,000 Reward For Info On Anyone Who Points a Laser At an Aircraft

35 incidents where pilots required medical attention. There's your damage.

There are generally two ways to approach safety.
1) Wait for consequences and then try to fix the cause
2) Identify dangerous situations and fix them before people get hurt

Either approach can be taken too far to the extreme, but in this case there have already been issues and the frequency of the incidents are increasing. I would rather stop the problem before a plane falls out of the sky. At 11 incidents PER DAY, statistics favor something happening.

One could argue that "kids will be kids", but at what point is a kid playing with matches not considered safe. Tools exist and many tools are dangerous and it takes education and awareness to help people know how to use things properly.

Personally, I think they should make an example out of a few of them and have them charged with 200 counts of attempted murder. It would certainly get some awareness to the issue.

Comment: 51% of readers think this was a good article (Score 1) 523

by sacdelta (#40946243) Attached to: Poll Finds Americans Think the TSA Is 'Doing a Good Job'

Why is it, if a poll shows an approval of over 50%, the media takes that to be overwhelming support? Taking into account that many polls are biased to provide the answer they are looking for, a narrow margin is not really something that major decisions should hinge upon.

Comment: Re:Yeah, another Slash***'s Platitudes is the answ (Score 1) 158

by sacdelta (#40701531) Attached to: Al Franken Calls for Tight Rules on Facial Recognition Software

Citing criminal behavior as a reason to require more legal restrictions doesn't really work well as a convincing argument. Someone who has decided to engage in a high level crime is not going to think twice about committing a lesser crime in the process.

That being said, I believe the restrictions would be good to prevent a company from providing that service and making it easy for said criminals.

Comment: Re:Trust (Score 1) 247

by sacdelta (#39646125) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: At What Point Has a Kickstarter Project Failed?

The only requirement to receive funding is that it meets the project guidelines and that they receive the target funding. Kickstarter is an all or nothing goal. Once they receive the money there is really nothing to control them but their own drive to complete their project.

Most projects are being done by inexperienced people and they learn things along the way. There are usually delays because of unexpected hurdles. Most projects are on KS because they could not receive traditional funding and some of them for good reason. Most don't get funded. Sometimes they fail even after funding. And that is nothing odd. Just look at the statistics for failed small businesses. That is part of the risk. It is also part of the allure and reward is to help people accomplish their goals.

Many projects have few updates because they only think to report milestones. Once a month after the campaign for complicated technology is pretty good.

As with anything that involves money, there are people out there trying to get it without working for it. Those projects are usually easy to spot. No updates, no prototypes/sketches, poor description, copies existing product or recently successful KS. If it sound too good to be true, it usually is.

If you want your assured reward, you should wait for the product to hit the market and buy it then. KS is not for the skittish.

Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...