Let's put this in perspective--This is a GREAT thing for Maine. Maine is, and has always been, one of the poorest states in the union; their major industries are logging and fishing (which are by no means big money-makers, at least for the laborers), and tourism, which is seasonal. Maine's proposal is not, as some have conjectured, to fill schools with laptops that would be "checked out" to the students -- no, Maine is GIVING every middle schooler in the state a computer, in a state where most families can't afford to buy their own. When the idea was initially proposed, some state legislators jeered that the money would be better spent putting a chainsaw in the hands of every schoolchild. But, despite the cynicism of those who believe their children have no hope of being anything but low-wage laborers, the state is equipping its students with one of the greatest tools they can have for success in a modern business environment. We should be celebrating!
Fuel cells have actually been around since the late 19th century, and were used successfully in NASA's Apollo program. The biggest reason that we haven't seen them in cars yet is:
(if you listen to radical environmentalists) The Auto industry's ties to the petrol industry
(if you listen ot the auto industry) The difficulty in coming up with a nationwide hydrogen production and distribution system
(if you're going about it rationally) Probably a combination of the two, along with some spange.
In any case, They certainly could have used fuel cells in the robot.
This law has been around for three years now, and I don't think it's likely to dissappear in any shorter time than that. The Skylarov case is certainly going to be a landmark one, which means that it will almost certainly see the Federal Appeals Courts, and, if they grant it considerations, the supreme court. Boucher ammendment aside, I know that there are those among us who will continue to argue that outlawing the writing of code is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Consitution ("The Congress shall make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of Speech or of the Press . ..").
At least they finally let him out on bail. My lord he looks tired in that picture.
I'd like to prefix this by saying: IANAL. Just an amateur constitutional scholar. That said, I'd like to try to clarify some of the questions that have been raised in response to this suggestion:
First, from the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 9:
"The Privilege of the writ of habeas ccorpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of reballion or invasion, the public safety may require it."[Emphasis added]
Notice that it says nothing about applying only to citizens.
A writ of habeas corpus is a court order demanding that the person of the imprisoned be brought before the court, and that the authority who holds him justify itself, usually by filing charges. Habeas corpus is latin for "give us the body!"
The privilege of the writ has only been suspended once in US history, by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. It doesn't say in the constitution who may suspend it, but legal scholars up until that point had always assumed that it was up to congress, for two reasons:
1) Under British common law, from which much of US law is taken, only parliament may suspend the privilege of the writ
2) The above quote is in Article I, which details the congress.
I would discuss this with a lawyer before trying it if I were you. IANAL, but consider that in some jurisdictions that could be borderline criminal in itself, never mind the fact that it is your property you're breaking into!
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is referred to in medicine as MRI (rather than NMR) NOT because of public fear of "nuclear" thingies, but because of a simple issue of hospital politics: Use of the word 'nuclear' meant that the Nuclear Medicine departments started saying that they should be the ones to get the machines, the techs, and the money, rather than radiology.
Since radiology was obviously the best place to put it (as they already have control of the X-Rays, CT scans, and various other imaging technologies), the name was changed to MRI to shut the folks in nuclear medicine up.
I'm amused at the plan to replace admins with bots that would "respond in a logical manner." Would this include IRCops, too? Somehow I doubt that AOL's AI technology is THAT good.
Ethidium
"If you don't be nice I'll say you're not omnipotent!"
--Laura Lutz, 11/8/99
IANAL, but my understanding of the law is that in order to legally record a conversation, you must inform the other party that the conversation is being recorded, and your recording device must beep every few seconds as a reminder that it's there.
Ethidium
NASA has been starving for funds since the collapse of the USSR, and it's high time they got some. Maybe they'll be able to throw this "faster-better-cheaper" crap out the window and onto the scrap heap where it belongs.
Now, what does this mean for us?
-Higher taxes? I'm all for it. If it means NASA gets more money, I for one wil gladly pay higher taxes.
-Cuts in other programs? I'm all for it. Stop buying the air force bombers they don't want, stop buying the marines VTOL planes that crash more often than they fly, stop letting the FBI read my email. And we all know that's not the end of the list.
Just today I was browsing the "security focus" headlines, and musing about the number of times egghead had been cracked. I'd been wondering when they were going to tell us that something important had been compromised; now i have my answer.
That is a very dangerous statement to make. While it is true that women are a minority in science (except perhaps for the life sciences) and technology, this is a rapidly shrinking minority. Statements like yours, however, reinforce the status quo by sending a message that women are unwelcome in the field of information technology. It is also, in my opinion, untrue. I have a somewhat unique perspective, in that physiologically speaking I am 100% male, however from an early age I spent (and still do spend) most of my time around females, and have been socialized to what is much closer to a feminine than a masculine ideal. From this perspective, I have seen very few outright attempts to discourage women from becoming experts in science and technology. However, we still send more subtle messages through the media, of men as scientists and women as homemakers, cooks, librarians, teachers and professionals in other atechnical fields. This is a hard message to change. Women scientists and technologists work in isolated facilities and receive little public exposure unless they make major discoveries, however we encounter female nurses, teachers, and librarians every day. The fact is, however, that this has little impact on a science-minded girl growing up. Of my friends who are female, almost all are planning carreers in science and technology, and those who are not choose to spend their time in other pursuits because that is where their interests lie, not because they want to be scientists but feel that they cannot succeed as women in that field.
This will be a great aid for places such as Northern Maine, where it's generally considered unsafe to drive at night, let one get run over by a moose. (for those of you city folk who don't understand how it works: you don't run over the moose, the moose runs over you. Or at least just stands there. Either way, the moose is the one that's going to walk away.) Wonder what its range is . . .
Yes, the.com is supposedly for commercial uses. The other common ones are.org (not-profit orgs),.gov (US Government),.net (networks) and then the country domains,.us,.fr, etc. So, where do personal pages fit in this scheme (besides in subfolders or their ISPs, like http://members.aol.com)? I would agree with you on principal, though, that the domains should be used for their intended purpose. As a better example, http://www.cyride.com is a city transportation department. Why isn't it at cyride.gov, or ames.bus.ia.us?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's put this in perspective--This is a GREAT thing for Maine. Maine is, and has always been, one of the poorest states in the union; their major industries are logging and fishing (which are by no means big money-makers, at least for the laborers), and tourism, which is seasonal. Maine's proposal is not, as some have conjectured, to fill schools with laptops that would be "checked out" to the students -- no, Maine is GIVING every middle schooler in the state a computer, in a state where most families can't afford to buy their own. When the idea was initially proposed, some state legislators jeered that the money would be better spent putting a chainsaw in the hands of every schoolchild. But, despite the cynicism of those who believe their children have no hope of being anything but low-wage laborers, the state is equipping its students with one of the greatest tools they can have for success in a modern business environment. We should be celebrating!
Here are the URLS for NASA's web sites on the projects in question:
t ml
0 05 andbeyond.html
Posse (Pluto mission): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/proposed/posse.h
Mars 2005 and beyond:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/proposed/mars2
Mars Exploration:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/
Europa Orbiter:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/europaorbiter/
Fuel cells have actually been around since the late 19th century, and were used successfully in NASA's Apollo program. The biggest reason that we haven't seen them in cars yet is:
(if you listen to radical environmentalists) The Auto industry's ties to the petrol industry
(if you listen ot the auto industry) The difficulty in coming up with a nationwide hydrogen production and distribution system
(if you're going about it rationally) Probably a combination of the two, along with some spange.
In any case, They certainly could have used fuel cells in the robot.
This law has been around for three years now, and I don't think it's likely to dissappear in any shorter time than that. The Skylarov case is certainly going to be a landmark one, which means that it will almost certainly see the Federal Appeals Courts, and, if they grant it considerations, the supreme court. Boucher ammendment aside, I know that there are those among us who will continue to argue that outlawing the writing of code is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Consitution ("The Congress shall make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of Speech or of the Press . . .").
At least they finally let him out on bail. My lord he looks tired in that picture.
First, from the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 9:
"The Privilege of the writ of habeas ccorpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of reballion or invasion, the public safety may require it."[Emphasis added]
Notice that it says nothing about applying only to citizens.
A writ of habeas corpus is a court order demanding that the person of the imprisoned be brought before the court, and that the authority who holds him justify itself, usually by filing charges. Habeas corpus is latin for "give us the body!" The privilege of the writ has only been suspended once in US history, by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. It doesn't say in the constitution who may suspend it, but legal scholars up until that point had always assumed that it was up to congress, for two reasons:
1) Under British common law, from which much of US law is taken, only parliament may suspend the privilege of the writ
2) The above quote is in Article I, which details the congress.
Hope this helps ease the confusion.
I would discuss this with a lawyer before trying it if I were you. IANAL, but consider that in some jurisdictions that could be borderline criminal in itself, never mind the fact that it is your property you're breaking into!
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging is referred to in medicine as MRI (rather than NMR) NOT because of public fear of "nuclear" thingies, but because of a simple issue of hospital politics: Use of the word 'nuclear' meant that the Nuclear Medicine departments started saying that they should be the ones to get the machines, the techs, and the money, rather than radiology.
Since radiology was obviously the best place to put it (as they already have control of the X-Rays, CT scans, and various other imaging technologies), the name was changed to MRI to shut the folks in nuclear medicine up.
I'm amused at the plan to replace admins with bots that would "respond in a logical manner." Would this include IRCops, too? Somehow I doubt that AOL's AI technology is THAT good.
Ethidium
"If you don't be nice I'll say you're not omnipotent!"
--Laura Lutz, 11/8/99
IANAL, but my understanding of the law is that in order to legally record a conversation, you must inform the other party that the conversation is being recorded, and your recording device must beep every few seconds as a reminder that it's there. Ethidium
Now, what does this mean for us?
-Higher taxes? I'm all for it. If it means NASA gets more money, I for one wil gladly pay higher taxes.
-Cuts in other programs? I'm all for it. Stop buying the air force bombers they don't want, stop buying the marines VTOL planes that crash more often than they fly, stop letting the FBI read my email. And we all know that's not the end of the list.
Just today I was browsing the "security focus" headlines, and musing about the number of times egghead had been cracked. I'd been wondering when they were going to tell us that something important had been compromised; now i have my answer.
Chia
That is a very dangerous statement to make. While it is true that women are a minority in science (except perhaps for the life sciences) and technology, this is a rapidly shrinking minority. Statements like yours, however, reinforce the status quo by sending a message that women are unwelcome in the field of information technology. It is also, in my opinion, untrue. I have a somewhat unique perspective, in that physiologically speaking I am 100% male, however from an early age I spent (and still do spend) most of my time around females, and have been socialized to what is much closer to a feminine than a masculine ideal. From this perspective, I have seen very few outright attempts to discourage women from becoming experts in science and technology. However, we still send more subtle messages through the media, of men as scientists and women as homemakers, cooks, librarians, teachers and professionals in other atechnical fields. This is a hard message to change. Women scientists and technologists work in isolated facilities and receive little public exposure unless they make major discoveries, however we encounter female nurses, teachers, and librarians every day. The fact is, however, that this has little impact on a science-minded girl growing up. Of my friends who are female, almost all are planning carreers in science and technology, and those who are not choose to spend their time in other pursuits because that is where their interests lie, not because they want to be scientists but feel that they cannot succeed as women in that field.
This will be a great aid for places such as Northern Maine, where it's generally considered unsafe to drive at night, let one get run over by a moose. (for those of you city folk who don't understand how it works: you don't run over the moose, the moose runs over you. Or at least just stands there. Either way, the moose is the one that's going to walk away.) Wonder what its range is . . .
Yes, the .com is supposedly for commercial uses. The other common ones are .org (not-profit orgs), .gov (US Government), .net (networks) and then the country domains, .us, .fr, etc. So, where do personal pages fit in this scheme (besides in subfolders or their ISPs, like http://members.aol.com)? I would agree with you on principal, though, that the domains should be used for their intended purpose. As a better example, http://www.cyride.com is a city transportation department. Why isn't it at cyride.gov, or ames.bus.ia.us?