Wooster11’s Techdirt Profile

wooster11

About Wooster11




Wooster11’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 19th, 2010 @ 11:37am

    Re: Why not...

    I totally agree with you here, but there is one caveat that will make this impossible right now - maybe 10 years from now it'll be possible if the funding is available. Not all students will have cell phones. Nor will the students with cell phones have a text message or data plan that will really let the system use the technology.

    I would love to see some innovation here, but I think it'll be really difficult to do because you have to still support those students who won't have access to the tech.

    I think the Twitter idea is a great one. There are also many other avenues to use the tech. We really can create a 24 hour virtual classroom. It's just a difficult problem to solve when not all students, in fact a very large chunk of students, won't be able to leverage the tech for themselves.

  • Nov 10th, 2008 @ 4:01pm

    (untitled comment) (as wooster11)

    Why not just set up the parameters, and let any qualifying site serve up the content instead?

    That's because it would be the smart thing to do... duh...

  • Oct 29th, 2008 @ 11:01am

    Unwritten Rules (as wooster11)

    I think the unwritten rules are pretty clear when dealing with security issues in software.

    These "Security Experts" (hackers) need to know these rules.

    The first step is always to notify the company privately of the security issue to see if they will respond.

    It is at that point, when a determination is made to whether or not to go public with the issue.

    If a company was not responding to the issue even after being notified (let's say within 90 days - software development takes time), then the security group has the option to go the public to get the company to move on the issue.

    The one good thing I can say is at least the security isn't releasing details on the flaw, but they still should have gone to Google in private first.

  • Apr 14th, 2008 @ 4:50pm

    Noise Noise Noise... It's not needed

    I have a hybrid and one of the reason's I bought it was for the fact that it was quiet. It's a feature of the car. I can't stand loud cars or motorcycles. We should think about limiting the amount of sound a car can produce first rather than making sure a car has a minimum amount of sound.

    The fact is that there is no such thing as a completely quiet car. All cars make noise. If an electric or hybrid car is stopped and there is no sound emitted from the car, well I would presume it's safe to cross the street since the car isn't even moving. Even if the car itself emitted no noise, there is plenty of road noise that comes from a car going down the street. That is the what us humans hear when we react to something coming to us. We don't usually hear the engine noise of the car, but rather the tires rolling on the road. And the last I can recall, all cars drive on tires on the road. Not to mention, cars have wind noise and brake noise too. That makes plenty of sound that's loud enough for us to know that there is something coming.

    It would be a stupid law to put into place that won't protect anybody.

  • Apr 1st, 2008 @ 9:54am

    I do think there is a market for this... (as wooster11)

    I do believe that there is a market for this. You're already seeing a bit of this with theaters like the ArcLight in Hollywood where they assign seats and never fill up a theater (on purpose). They have a bar and provide a really nice experience. I really enjoyed the one time I've been there. I'd go more often if it was closer to me. Tickets are about $15 though. I think there are people who are willing to pay for a really nice experience. This just won't be a theater that a family goes out to because of the cost.

    However, mentioned in your post is something about making the "regular" experience better. I definitely think that's where it needs to start. And to be honest, if they just kept the theaters clean, I think that would make huge strides into improving the experience. No one likes to stick to the floor when they walk the aisles in a theater.

  • Mar 10th, 2008 @ 5:48pm

    Not only that but...

    Not only that but what's to stop employers from doing what they do today with illegals; hire them under the table. Most illegals who do work don't have any kind of reported income. Employers aren't paying taxes for them nor are the employees. This is especially true with small businesses. An employer would just hire someone and completely skip the step of having to verify their eligibility. I understand that this is illegal, but it's extremely difficult to enforce. In addition to that, how can we expect small mom and pop type places to all implement this new technology to even check possible hires when many of them are technologically illiterate themselves.

    A system like that, although their heart is in the right place, isn't practical at all and is bound to fail.