You could design them with frosted windows or blinds that obstruct passengers from looking at downwards angles, so they could still see the horizon and the sky.
I think I've read about a train being build through a city somewhere, where it'd pass close by residential buildings, but only briefly. This was solved by installing "Smart glass" so they windows are obscured temporarily when going past the buildings.
The way the "trapped" situation is solved for large Ferris wheels is a secondary spool of cable that you can attach to a truck and propel the system for long enough to evacuate it. That strikes me as applicable here.
I think the distinction is between software and hardware DRM. DirecTV controls the entire hardware chain. This means they can do various proper encryption schemes (public/pre-shared key etc) that are actually near impossible to crack and make it really, really hard to obtain the key by making the key write-only in the crypto-chip.
In a pure software solution, you control the hardware, and any hiding of the key is subject to reverse engineering the software.
There's also a distinction between access to the data stream vs the ability to make a duplicate of it.
For all of the success they've had in protecting DirecTV, if you've got a legitimate access card feeding HDMI data out, you can make a perfect digital copy of the video stream that has no copy protection whatsoever. So ultimately the DRM offers no protection for the media content companies (at least those that don't benefit from live performances like say sports games), though it does for the pipe provider who will surely get his monthly satellite fees.
Well, Ubuntu's unwavering pragmatism in getting GNU/Linux on the desk- and laptops of reasonably regular people has had a big impact.
But being right (even very right) in the 80s and 90s doesn't make you automatically right forever after; I found his assertion that you should starve rather than write or run a single line of unfree code[1] to be wrong and very counterproductive to spreading free and open source software.
The conspiracy theories generally hold that 9/11 wasn't perpetrated by "terrorists", regardless of their benefactors. E.g. WTC towers were brought down by explosives, not planes crashing into them, Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane.
The simplest and most plausible theory is simply that Bush and Cheney knew, but didn't do anything because they needed the attack to go into Iraq. Even then, at least tens of people in the White House and upper echelons of US intelligence would have known and would have known that they could have stopped this by making a few phone calls. Even 12 years later, not one of them has regretted his complicity in killing thousands of civilians and spilled the beans to a reporter.
Wouldn't it be a factor that On2 isn't/wasn't in the search space at all? Only after the Google acquisition did duck.com come to be associated with search, and then only by virtue of Google redirecting it to their main page.
There is a certain chance that this is not, in fact, an example of bad password management. This service ("MilFlip") could be an internal service on an internal, secure network (the kind of networks that, if someone was to penetrate it, you have bigger fish to fry than keeping them out of "MilFlip") that just doesn't have a good way of turning passwords off - and, to be "secure", requires a non-simple password.
In almost two years of being a ZipCar client, I've never had any issues. Yes, the occasional coke can or candy wrapper left behind, but never a mess that I thought to be unreasonable.
If it turns out to be a bigger problem, install a camera that takes a shot when you take possession of the car, and when you relinquish it. Charge the renters credit card for messiness.
> install a camera that takes a shot when you take possession of the car, and when you relinquish it.
Such a system would be good to have anyway as part of a dashcam. One facing forward, and a fish-eye facing the rear window and also capturing the interior of the car. I am hoping that car insurance companies will start offering discounts for cars with installed dashcams.
A tangent of a tangent now, this would be great (though creepy) for public restrooms. Given that there's a physical method, like positioning on the door, that prohibits it from seeing anything while the stall door is closed or locked, I think it would cut down on the seriously depraved messes people leave behind when they know they can get away with it.
In what ways do you consider Sweden a conservative country? It is very socially liberal and while it's finances are run mostly sanely, it has a huge re-distributive welfare state.
Conservative in the sense that they are trying to preserve continuity and stability. Probably not the best choice of words on my part. I'll edit it out.
Despite the fact that nominally conservative parties implement such policies does not make those policies 'conservative' in any meaningful political-history/ideological sense. Just like Obama renewing the Patriot Act doesn't make it liberal legislation.
Conservative in the sense of personal and societal responsibility and a strong adherence to tradition. Switzerland is the same way, very conservative by European measures, but by the way we (Americans) rate conservatism, not at all. All these countries are socially progressive with strong safety nets, but relatively liberal economically (again, in the real sense of "liberal"). I would think that the American/New world conservatism is the one that's messed up and twisting the meaning of these words.
I don't agree with your comments about arrogance. You can be right and strongly opinionated without being arrogant. Junior or senior -- making anyone, boss or not, look bad anywhere, but especially in front of a client is a perfect way of finding yourself at the business end of some pretty nasty social dynamics.
Practice voicing your opinion and arguing for it in a way that isn't confrontational. 9 out of 10 times, it's as simple as acknowledging the other person: "I see where you're going with this, it's a good way to solve A, B and C. But when we get to D, I fear X will bite us in the tail - Y can avoid that.". This also avoids the stinging embarrassment of being arrogant and later being proven wrong.
> "I see where you're going with this, it's a good way to solve A, B and C. But when we get to D, I fear X will bite us in the tail - Y can avoid that."
In practice, I word things similar to what you've described here, probably even more deferent.
Still, if I believe it is in a clients best interest to do Y, I don't mind sticking my neck out and make the case more strongly for it, even if I turn out to be wrong.
Additionally, I've found over my career that I've learned the most useful skills, both technical and otherwise, from developers who were fantastically arrogant. They also happened to deliver the most value to the business, so no one cared.
You can be arrogant if you're brilliant - not the other way around. As a junior engineer (in the 'not much experience', not 'pay grade' sense), you're probably not brilliant enough to be arrogant.
I think I've read about a train being build through a city somewhere, where it'd pass close by residential buildings, but only briefly. This was solved by installing "Smart glass" so they windows are obscured temporarily when going past the buildings.