It's very easy to cause unconsciousness and, eventually, death, by compressing the carotid arteries. This is essentially painless.
It can be applied manually with a rear naked choke (don't mind the name - it's a strangle not a choke, as it prevents blood-flow but doesn't block the wind-pipe).
I doubt it would take a huge feat of engineering to achieve that.
My preferred solution would be to stop executing people, mind. That would solve the problem neatly.
As society advances, there will be an ongoing increase in the number of issues that government needs to address, requiring ever-increasing specific powers.
cops walking (note that walking and driving are NOT the same) a beat
I've heard the same thing. I wonder if it's because walking is slower than driving (stop beating the guy for a second as the car passes), or if it's because seeing 'people' has more of an effect.
let's also require that for every person hurt by anything the government does(absolutely anything, justified or not), a government employee or family member will also suffer some equivalent harm
Good idea, but let's make a small adjustment: the individual responsible for the harm should be the one punished, as that's only fair. And only wrongful actions should be punished, as punishing justified harm would obviously be idiotic.
Oh, wait. That's on the books already, and it's certainly a damn sight less stupid than your suggestion of punishing random government employees for justified government actions.
Steady on. Until FPGA can do a good job for real server or desktop use, it seems premature to just assume FPGA will win. You're right that they've proven very good at certain tasks, but we're not talking about your algorithm, we're talking about doing real computer tasks (GNU/Linux + GUI, say) on a trusted FPGA platform.
You're right of course that we'll probably never be able to 'print' a chip anywhere near as well as a billion dollar foundry can, but that's not necessarily to say that Free and Open hardware is totally pointless.
(And I'm ignoring the effort in designing a high-speed CPU. Even if fabrication were trivial, designing a competitive CPU isn't easy.)
A 'trusted' low-speed CPU in FPGA might still have its uses.
That said, we can do this today, but it doesn't seem to see much use.
The 'We need free digital hardware designs' section of TFA gives some other reasons for Free hardware.
Hardware is not the same. no one is going to even give away the raw materials.
Is it too much to ask that you read the summary?
Don't worry, no need to read the whole thing. Here's the appropriate extract:
The concept we really need is that of a free hardware design. That's simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design (i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with or without changes.
Or if that's still too much: free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer.
Slashdot Mirror
Your phrasing rather implies you do object to the project.
The idea is to make a shitload of money off poor people who are desperate.
Let's try that more neutrally: there's a profit-motive here, whether or not it's benefiting the Africans themselves.
Let's not ignore the free-as-in-beer alternatives, such as Open Office and its forks.
increasing the supply of consumers.
Isn't that just a cynical way of saying making Africans richer and more computer literate?
Sure, the likely Windows lock-in kinda sucks, and a FOSS utopia would be great and all, but still it seems a lot better than doing nothing.
It's very easy to cause unconsciousness and, eventually, death, by compressing the carotid arteries. This is essentially painless.
It can be applied manually with a rear naked choke (don't mind the name - it's a strangle not a choke, as it prevents blood-flow but doesn't block the wind-pipe).
I doubt it would take a huge feat of engineering to achieve that.
My preferred solution would be to stop executing people, mind. That would solve the problem neatly.
Well sure, that's my assumption. I'm not sure what's the nearest example we can look at.
The old anything government does is wrong line, then.
It's not self-evident that government efforts to stop botnets are doomed to fail.
the group responsible for the harm gets to investigate their own involvement in the harm
In the UK, we have an official body separate from the police who follow up police complaints. Is that not how things are done stateside, or does it exist in theory but fail in practice? Either way is a problem, but improvement is possible.
paid time off while this is happening
As it should be: presumed innocence. The real problem is if an officer faces no consequences even when guilt is clear from the investigation.
I don't see how putting crooked cops in cars will stop that. They can still get out of the car and strong-arm people, no?
Government "needs" to address them since society is too lazy to do so on their own.
It's government or nothing. Sure, in a perfect world, everyone would maintain good security on their own machines. But it's not happening.
I'll have a go at a less cynical explanation:
As society advances, there will be an ongoing increase in the number of issues that government needs to address, requiring ever-increasing specific powers.
Are you trying to say that you think their use of helicopters is expensive?
cops walking (note that walking and driving are NOT the same) a beat
I've heard the same thing. I wonder if it's because walking is slower than driving (stop beating the guy for a second as the car passes), or if it's because seeing 'people' has more of an effect.
let's also require that for every person hurt by anything the government does(absolutely anything, justified or not), a government employee or family member will also suffer some equivalent harm
Good idea, but let's make a small adjustment: the individual responsible for the harm should be the one punished, as that's only fair. And only wrongful actions should be punished, as punishing justified harm would obviously be idiotic.
Oh, wait. That's on the books already, and it's certainly a damn sight less stupid than your suggestion of punishing random government employees for justified government actions.
Did you not read the summary? Crime numbers for a whole week fell when there were more choppers.
Precisely what Vulkan and the new Direct3D hope to address.
It seems better to view it as a good example of why totally unregulated markets aren't a good thing.
Is it a free market of intellectual property if a country has no copyright laws?
we can say you're totally wrong too
Steady on. Until FPGA can do a good job for real server or desktop use, it seems premature to just assume FPGA will win. You're right that they've proven very good at certain tasks, but we're not talking about your algorithm, we're talking about doing real computer tasks (GNU/Linux + GUI, say) on a trusted FPGA platform.
Will they be legal for sale in the USA, or will design patents prevent that?
Because a) hardware engineers don't need jobs
So we shouldn't try to make Free hardware because it might put someone out of a job?
As Austerity Empowers says, these engineers aren't a charity-case.
any idiot with a copy of Eagle is a board design expert.
No-one's saying it's easy to design a CPU competitive with Intel's latest, but working Free and Open CPU designs already exist.
You're right of course that we'll probably never be able to 'print' a chip anywhere near as well as a billion dollar foundry can, but that's not necessarily to say that Free and Open hardware is totally pointless.
(And I'm ignoring the effort in designing a high-speed CPU. Even if fabrication were trivial, designing a competitive CPU isn't easy.)
A 'trusted' low-speed CPU in FPGA might still have its uses.
That said, we can do this today, but it doesn't seem to see much use.
The 'We need free digital hardware designs' section of TFA gives some other reasons for Free hardware.
And servers go without saying.
The summary doesn't even contain the word 'mine'.
It's an old custom to whine about Slashdot editing, I admit, but really now.
Hardware is not the same. no one is going to even give away the raw materials.
Is it too much to ask that you read the summary?
Don't worry, no need to read the whole thing. Here's the appropriate extract:
The concept we really need is that of a free hardware design. That's simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design (i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with or without changes.
Or if that's still too much: free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer.
Vala is surely the most ironic language yet.
GObject: because we don't want to use a whole new programming language just to add objects to C.
Vala: because GObject is better approached using a whole new programming language.
C++ is a disaster for kernel development.
I honestly have no idea, so: why?