Who is actually doing this routinely and how is this even a problem?
For actual data work, any sort of "rich formatting" is no bueno and icons are great for quick reflexive categorization for information-dense habitually used interfaces. They just take a slightly slower learning curve.
I used to be an Eddie Bauer customer, but the quality of even their basic clothes (think business casual "docker" pants) rapidly diminished and their technical/functional gear was never remotely in the same category as Patagonia or Arc'teryx.
I still hold out hope for Patagonia in the post Yvon Chouinard era.
Their quality and customer service remain top-tier. Hell, they repaired my puffy jacket's zipper for free--hopefully it will have another decade of hard use.
It will be a non-issue with the inevitable additional (charging) infrastructure roll-outs along with mandates for on-board heat-pump battery management.
I concur. I was completely ignorant of the entire patent troll "business model" until dealing with some corp patent stuff in 2003.
My immediate visceral reaction then is same as it is some 20 years later: "Fuck these assholes, they add zero value to society and shouldn't be allowed to exist."
You have an absolute "right to travel" (see the 14th amendment and other cases as recently as 1999), but you're also absolutely correct that "common carriers" can can refuse commercial service and you can be criminally trespassed from an airport, BUT TSA can not charge you a fee to attempt to fly.
Unlike other service providers, a common carrier by definition cannot refuse service to anyone willing to pay the fare in the tariff. Common carrier laws are some of the oldest consumer protection laws, enacted to protect travelers and shippers of goods against predatory and discriminatory pricing. Federal law recognizes the "public right of transit" by air, and requires boith airlines and Federal agencies to respect it.
This is only true for the "ticket purchase" not for the service itself.
Outside of ERs in exigent circumstances, any commercial enterprise in the U.S. retains the right to "refuse service" though the nuances of enumerated reasons backed by jurisprudence differ by industry and locale.
An airline can not refuse the "service purchase" unless the customer has been "banned" (technically a trespass statute), but they can refuse to "execute service" for a whole host of reasons including unforeseeable "Acts of God", logistics, or simply if the customer is intoxicated.
This is not true, in at least 2 respects: (1) a common carrier has a legal duty not just to sell a ticket but to provide transportation according to the tariff, and (2) this means an airline can't order a passenger not to board, or order them off the plane, unless they have violated some terms of the tariff. Some airlines have tried to create their own no-fly lists, but without opening up another area of discussion these have no more basis in law than the government's no-fly list, and have never (so far as I know) been reviewed by courts.
Intoxication, ill health, threats to other passengers/crew, assault, and battery are just a few of the many reasons an airline is well within its rights to "refuse service" and this includes not allowing the passenger to ever board the plane.
You're correct that any sort of federal no-fly list is not lawful and, so far, there isn't enough court precedence to make a general policy and the ACLU has won some (limited) court victories. IMO, it is unconstitutional.
In practice, a "banned" passenger is trespassed off of airline property (the plane or gate) and that prior trespass is noted in their customer registry. If the "banned" passenger attempts to fly with the airline again, they are advised verbally or with text that they will not be able to board the plane, but they can still book a ticket. The passenger is then "trespassed" (again) at the gate and not allowed to board.
If you are flying domestically, the airline doesn’t care. They know that someone bought a ticket to get pass security and that ticket matched the ID of the person who got through security. They don’t lose money and thier is no increased safety risk.
I hadn't heard about this, but this is blatantly against the explicit and implied "right to travel" that's baked into the 14th amendment and had over a 156 years of precedence since Paul vs. Virginia.
I once had sushi (at a group table) with the man at a JavaOne.
They say "don't meet your heroes", but he was exactly as gracious, humble, funny, and knowledgeable as you would expect.
This was just after the first "Embedded Java" specs came out and we all had grand fun recognizing the over-engineering and dead-on-arrival of that architecture.
Given that they've been in continuous use for centuries I question the conclusion that they're not effective, but I'm open to altering my opinion backed-up with data.
> Bear bells may be a popular item to put on your backpack, but they don’t effectively warn a bear you’re in the area. Bears won’t hear the bells until you’re too close. Yelling, clapping, and talking are more effective ways of alerting a bear to your presence.
> In the most advanced testing, bear biologist Tom Smith jingled bear bells in varying volumes in front of brown bears in Katmai National Park. Regardless of how vigorously he shook, 15 different sets of bruins ignored the bells. And yet they snapped at attention the second he broke a pencil in half.
It's not that the bells definitively have zero value, but their effectiveness has been questioned enough that there's been a shift in opinion about them over the last couple of decades.
That's so cool. Like mathematical primitive archeology. The history of these sorts of analog computing devices that physically encode non-linear mathematical relations is fascinating.
With much tutoring, I learned to use a sextant and doing that gives one some sense of the "sorcery" and power achievable with blue-water navigation.
Boyer and Merzbach cover some of the development of these tools in their "History of Mathematics". Highly recommended.
For actual data work, any sort of "rich formatting" is no bueno and icons are great for quick reflexive categorization for information-dense habitually used interfaces. They just take a slightly slower learning curve.
reply