I disagree.
I think a pat on the back is definitely in order here. Not many people (let alone large, multinational corporations) are willing to stand down when they're wrong. Kellogg did just that and even took it further than was strictly necessary. Not only did they drop the issue they're actually contributing to MAI's project.
I also think a pat on the back is in order for MAI. They were in the right and stood their ground against what must have seemed like overwhelming odds.
100% bug-free software is almost impossible to achieve. If liability for relatively minor bugs becomes precedent I expect there would be a wide-spread chill among programmers (major, egregious bugs are a different matter). I for one would think twice before releasing anything.
...app spys on you?
I wonder how long before the news gets out that while people are using this app to report on others, it's secretly reporting on them.
Yeah, I'm a cynic and a tiny bit paranoid. But then, I've always found irony to be the best way to predict the future.
That providers can either choose to block content they don't like -OR- they can choose to be immune from prosecution for illegal uses of their network by its users. I don't see how they can make a case for both.
I think it bears pointing out that Moore and Clement had differing viewpoints on copyright reform. Then they received a directive from the Prime Minister.
Moore got his way on copyright, Clement got very quiet about his perspective and began towing the party line and all of a sudden, Clement's riding is virtually swimming in government money.
Apparently, lobbying fairies (and leprechauns) come from the magical land of the Prime Minister's Office where the king's word is law and money grows on trees (which grow beside fake lakes).
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it. I will attempt to simply for you: there are 3 (three) times with which we are concerned.
Time A: The 1st photo is taken. The light as been red for 24.9 seconds.
Time B: 0.1 seconds later - the light turns green. There is no photograph of this.
Time C: "about two seconds" after the first photo was taken. This is when the second photo was taken showing the car in the intersection.
Ginsberg used math to show that in the 0.1 seconds between Time A and Time B he could not have travelled far enough to enter the intersection and therefore didn't run the red; by the time he DID enter the intersection, the light had changed.
My point was that while Ginsberg's math is correct, he also implicitly admits that he was approaching the red light at 15mph. Given the distance to the intersection in the photo, that implies that he had no intention of stopping for the red and was attempting to time his entry into the intersection to coincide with the light changing. That practice may not be explicitly illegal but it is generally unsafe and could have resulted in a dangerous driving charge which, in light of Ginsberg's own math might have stuck.
I hope that clarifies my point and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my earlier comments.
Hmmm. Comment field doesn't seem to like "less than" signs. Carrying on...
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s
and since he traveled [less than] 2.5 feet in 0.1s: 2.5'/0.1s = 25ft/s. 25ft/s x 3600s = 90000 ft/h. 90000ft / 5280 = 17.05mph. The same math says that at 15mph the actual distance travelled in 0.1s is 2.2 feet which is consistent with both the statement and the camera data.
Therefore, he had to be in motion travelling ~15mph at the time the first photo was recorded.
Hi Mike.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I didn't read it incorrectly. To clarify my observation, the math and the statement from Ginsberg prove he was traveling at 15mph in photo #1.
In one-tenth of a second, Ginsberg calculated he traveled less than 2 1/2 feet
That's "traveled" not "could have traveled" (and remember, this is an attorney defending himself in court, not an off-hand remark so I believe such minutia is relevant).
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s
and since he traveled
Re: Re: D.S.D.D.
I disagree.
I think a pat on the back is definitely in order here. Not many people (let alone large, multinational corporations) are willing to stand down when they're wrong. Kellogg did just that and even took it further than was strictly necessary. Not only did they drop the issue they're actually contributing to MAI's project.
I also think a pat on the back is in order for MAI. They were in the right and stood their ground against what must have seemed like overwhelming odds.
Kudos all around.
If the password is a trade secret...
would he be off the hook if he changed it?
On The Other Hand…
100% bug-free software is almost impossible to achieve. If liability for relatively minor bugs becomes precedent I expect there would be a wide-spread chill among programmers (major, egregious bugs are a different matter). I for one would think twice before releasing anything.
In Capitalist America...
...app spys on you?
I wonder how long before the news gets out that while people are using this app to report on others, it's secretly reporting on them.
Yeah, I'm a cynic and a tiny bit paranoid. But then, I've always found irony to be the best way to predict the future.
(untitled comment)
Virtualization at its finest! :)
It seems to me...
That providers can either choose to block content they don't like -OR- they can choose to be immune from prosecution for illegal uses of their network by its users. I don't see how they can make a case for both.
Re:
I think it bears pointing out that Moore and Clement had differing viewpoints on copyright reform. Then they received a directive from the Prime Minister.
Moore got his way on copyright, Clement got very quiet about his perspective and began towing the party line and all of a sudden, Clement's riding is virtually swimming in government money.
Apparently, lobbying fairies (and leprechauns) come from the magical land of the Prime Minister's Office where the king's word is law and money grows on trees (which grow beside fake lakes).
Re: Re: noscript
I'm pretty sure I've read Mike post more than once that any ad-blockers you wish to use at Techdirt are fine by him. It is after all, your computer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks like
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it. I will attempt to simply for you: there are 3 (three) times with which we are concerned.
Time A: The 1st photo is taken. The light as been red for 24.9 seconds.
Time B: 0.1 seconds later - the light turns green. There is no photograph of this.
Time C: "about two seconds" after the first photo was taken. This is when the second photo was taken showing the car in the intersection.
Ginsberg used math to show that in the 0.1 seconds between Time A and Time B he could not have travelled far enough to enter the intersection and therefore didn't run the red; by the time he DID enter the intersection, the light had changed.
My point was that while Ginsberg's math is correct, he also implicitly admits that he was approaching the red light at 15mph. Given the distance to the intersection in the photo, that implies that he had no intention of stopping for the red and was attempting to time his entry into the intersection to coincide with the light changing. That practice may not be explicitly illegal but it is generally unsafe and could have resulted in a dangerous driving charge which, in light of Ginsberg's own math might have stuck.
I hope that clarifies my point and I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my earlier comments.
Re: Re: Re: Looks like����¯�¿�½������¢������¯������¿������½��
Hmmm. Comment field doesn't seem to like "less than" signs. Carrying on...
Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s and since he traveled [less than] 2.5 feet in 0.1s: 2.5'/0.1s = 25ft/s. 25ft/s x 3600s = 90000 ft/h. 90000ft / 5280 = 17.05mph. The same math says that at 15mph the actual distance travelled in 0.1s is 2.2 feet which is consistent with both the statement and the camera data.
Therefore, he had to be in motion travelling ~15mph at the time the first photo was recorded.
Re: Re: Looks like�
Hi Mike. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I didn't read it incorrectly. To clarify my observation, the math and the statement from Ginsberg prove he was traveling at 15mph in photo #1.
That's "traveled" not "could have traveled" (and remember, this is an attorney defending himself in court, not an off-hand remark so I believe such minutia is relevant). Since 1 mile = 5280 feet and 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600s and since he traveled