Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Not a big deal (Score 3, Interesting) 129

Speaking as a user of a similar product, interoperability was the wrong word, but I think I see his point. I always use it with the keyboard attached, just like a laptop. When trying to use it like a tablet (touchscreen only), it's a terrible experience that doesn't work well with most software on Windows. Pen input and touch input are only very occasionally useful, so the experience is overwhelmingly dominated by things that essentially need a keyboard and pointer device.

Moving forward, I think I'll stick to cheaper Android tablets for the things a Tablet can do, and traditional laptop for a Windows system when I need Windows (while tablet+keyboard is very similar experience once settled, it's clumsier than a laptop lid to set up, and much more awkward on the lap than a laptop.

Comment Re:Not a big deal (Score 1) 129

I think its largely a combination of things:

-MS is slow to refresh, so those who want it, already have the current model. Conversely if you are thinking of buying one, you know Kaby Lake iss out and 'any day now', a new Surface model will release.

-The tablet fad has pretty much come and gone. Apple doesn't talk excitedly about the iPad anymore, and that is the poster child for 'tablet'. The novelty and 'maybe this will be better' aspect seems to have largely given way to the reality that for most things, a keyboard and mouse in a laptop form factor is more convenient, and in terms of portability, it may be more portable than a laptop, but mobile phones win on that front. So a tablet is the best way to watch videos and read documents at your home or office, and that's about it. A surface is no better at those tasks than a cheaper android tablet.

-The new microsoft has lost its obsession at beating Apple at its own game, and has re-emphasized how they dominated Apple in the desktops, and is leaving things more in the hands of their partners. Manufacturing hardware is a thankless job, and a diverse ecosystem was what attracted consumers to Microsoft's partners in the first place. Of course Microsoft is currently stuck between Apple doing first party everything and Google offering Android for free, and letting the manufacturers pretty much tailor the platform to a much greater extent than Microsoft does. All this aside, once the market has chosen, it's very hard to make the market change its mind.

Comment Re:Safety hazard. (Score 1) 160

Well, this is beyond impractical, but on that specific front, it wouldn't be too hard to do, and I can swear I remember already seeing that. You have barriers that rise up before descending and the walls close over the hole like doors.

Of course, you could only go so far without destabilizing the ground, no way you could practically avoid all the underground infrastructure and have decent paths, the energy required to zip things around that fast would be significant unless you evacuated a lot of the air (like hyperloop), but a car cabin wouldn't be designed for it (instead of sled, a sealed capsule maybe....).

Either way, it won't happen because it would be impossibly expensive even if possible.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

Yeah, I mentioned the out of state thing. And you'd already explained how common these laws are. And I agree that it's isn't/wasn't "likely" that I found something overlooked. I was saying that it's at least possible.

For what it's worth, I found the part that explains how DIY activities on your own property are OK; that's in 672.060. I also found where they mention that you can refer to yourself as an engineer as long as you immediately thereafter clarify that you are unregistered to practice engineering in the state of Oregon. The laws are still poorly written, in that they could've tweaked the wording in such a way as to not require a massive list of exceptions. And they could've made mention of the exceptions section within 672.020. I read through the equivalent laws for my state, and I'm not hitting the same roadblocks of confusion since the statutes are better ordered and organized. My state also explicitly mentions taking things like good faith into account, which, potentially could have allowed this guy to avoid such a large fine. Regardless, the guy paid the fine, so that's over. It's just the question of the 1st amendment lawsuit and it sounds like whether or not it is won depends on the specifics of what he is arguing for. His arguments to try and avoid the fine weren't very good at all, but it sounds like he's got better legal help now.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

I left out the other requirements to register, but they are clearly connected with the word "and", meaning you must fulfill all the requirements listed to qualify. It's not cherrypicking to only quote the parts of something that are problematic. Cherrypicking would be if I used only those problematic parts to conclude something like "therefore all Oregon law is junk".

I'm not trying to act as though "lol, I'm smarter than the legislators, I deserve a cookie." or any such snarky attitude. I merely started to read the laws, found that, unlike many others that I've read, these have some confusing aspects, and I shared them. I absolutely could be misreading them but I don't think that means I'm being stupid. Laws are written to be overly-broad all the time, and they are thrown out by judicial review all the time for being overly broad too. Is it so hard to believe that this could be one of those situations? To every single one of my arguments, you've basically said "no that's not true" without providing any reasoning or counter-evidence. You've merely described your interpretation of the intention of the law. I'm not asking you to walk me through anything, but it would've been nice to see some sort of informative correction of my understanding before you started insulting me.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

ORS 672.005 defines practicing engineering as "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."

So if I have a creative work, and on it I perform investigation, planning, or design during the construction in connection with that private project that I myself own, by the letter of the law, I am practicing engineering. Again, this is because the wording is poorly written so as to be overly broad. You can't just say "that's alright because no one will report you for that." I should not need to investigate the complete history of case-law in the state of Oregon just to figure out whether or not I'm able to build a potato cannon in my own backyard without risking a $500 fine.

The average person believes that if you have a degree in engineering, that makes you an engineer. I fully understand that requiring engineers to be registered and certified is for the purpose of protecting life, health & property. But the law should stipulate that the laws only apply to circumstances that present a possibility of risk to other people or their property.

And further, 672.098 states that in order to register as an engineer, (which again, is required to practice engineering in Oregon), you must have "Have a work record of four years or more of active practice in engineering work satisfactory to the board". So I guess the only way to become an engineer in Oregon is to either break the law for four years, or spend four years practicing engineering in a state that doesn't have such poorly written laws!

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

I'm not saying there's anything unique about the case, but, I don't understand this comment or how applies to my comment. What is a "poorly written description"? what I said in my most recent comment? The hypothetical comment that I claim to be infracting the law? What the defendant said?

I'm well aware the TYPE of laws are common, and in my opinion, they are generally reasonable. The guy designing a bridge I might someday drive over better know what the Hell he's doing. But the wording of THIS law is shit. For comparison, At least in my state, as I understand it, you're allowed to call yourself a "contractor". But you are not allowed to call yourself a "licensed contractor", and you are not allowed to do things that require a licensed contractor unless you are indeed a licensed contractor. Likewise, in the contractor world, you are allowed to DIY almost anything, you are just sometimes required to get it inspected (and call before you dig). The wording of this law, it sounds like under no circumstance are you allowed to DIY engineering of any sort; even for stuff that you own, that is on your property. and that makes no damned sense.

Comment Re: theodp (Score 1) 199

I think the theory is that by obtaining the extra credentials, you have more invested in your situation that acts as an incentive to not do things that would cause you to lose your license....I don't think this makes that much sense either. And I WISH pharmacists in the US could prescribe certain drugs. I spent 7 years as a pharmacy tech, and they absolutely have the knowledge to do so, and most pharmacists almost never get to flex those pharmacist muscles.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

Not according to the letter of the law: "A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person...Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer" 672.001 and "no person shall practice or offer to practice engineering in this state unless the person is registered and has a valid certificate to practice engineering" 672.020. You are not allowed to imply that you are an engineer unless you're a registered engineer. In practice, sure, they'd probably be fine with it. You are not even allowed to claim to be capable of building stuff if you aren't registered. It doesn't have any clause that allows you to speak in hypotheticals. It is a poorly written law.

Comment Re:Yes but (Score 1) 730

It's not that hard, but it's completely unreasonable. If you are licensed or legally employed as an engineer in other state, it's appropriate to call yourself an engineer. It's a dumb law. Make Registered Engineer a reserved word if you want, but not "engineer". According to the laws wording, you can say the examples you give. But if you said "I'm an engineer, but I'm not registered in Oregon" that still means you called yourself an engineer, and thus, you're practicing engineering without registering, thus you've broken the law. That's broken.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.

Working...