I believe it has been alleged that he conspired with and encouraged the now-imprisoned person who leaked the information. Even if he claimed to be a journalist, the first amendment only goes so far. The laws about anyone handling classified information are strict and specific. Besides, there are still some people in Cuba who can attest that habeas corpus also only goes so far.
In any case, if the US government were willing to do something nasty over this, they would have done it before the information was published. They might not have stopped it all, but I have no doubt they could have forced it into the hands of someone who would have handled it more carefully.
How many other stories have remained in oral culture for as long? Gilgamesh was lost. Hammurabi's Code was lost. Beowulf is recent. The Iliad is still around, but it is certainly not as widely known. The Upanishads and Confucius date only slightly before recorded history (~500 BC). I am no expert, but Job (older than Genesis, but also biblical) is the only thing I can think of that has lasted more than 5000 years.
The story of Genesis has been around for longer than the idea of written language! It seems reasonable to guess that it will still be around when our current idea of written language begins to falter. It seems the only reasonable guess.
Really? When, exactly, did we break any of the laws of physics? The modern world began on 19 May 1919 when photographs of a solar eclipse, taken on the island of Principe off West Africa and at Sobral in Brazil, confirmed the truth of a new theory of the universe. It had been apparent for half a century that the Newtonian cosmology, based upon the straight lines of Euclidean geometry and Galileo's notions of absolute time, was in need of serious modification. It had stood for more than two hundred years. It was the framework within which the European Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the vast expansion of human knowledge, freedom and prosperity which characterized the nineteenth century, had taken place. But increasingly powerful telescopes were revealing anomalies. In particular, the motions of the planet Mercury deviated by forty-three seconds of arc a century from its predictable behaviour under Newtonian laws of physics. Why? -- Paul Johnson, "Modern Times"
Why do you think we do it--all the space probes and particle accelerators? We are looking for things we cannot explain, and it turns out that there are a lot of them. The truly revolutionary moments of discovery are not heralded by shouts of "Eureka," but by someone quietly rechecking the math and recalibrating the instruments because things just didn't add up. Most often, the battle-cry of science is "hmm, that's strange."
I'm not saying that these guys have rewritten everything we think we know about the universe, but they would be well within their rights if they had done so. More likely there is some other reactant consumed or the water is pressurized or ionized or heated or whatever. Steam locomotives ran on water too, you know. The articles linked do not describe the process in sufficient detail to talk intelligently about it one way or the other.
Really, all the posts here are about whether or not you, the reader, can accept something into your world that does not look like what you see every day. If not, well, you just keep waving that femur. Maybe we'll send you a postcard from The Future.
To those who say people wouldn't look, they wouldn't be interested, they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
This instrument can teach. It can illuminate and, yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends.
Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights -- in a box.
It's about reception. Any sort of broadcast flag could be easily stripped from transmissions, making the content recordable. There are already laws against building receivers that can pick up cellular phone signals. How awesome is that? In fact, software radio, with a more powerful (read faster) analog-to-digital converter would violate this law.
see 47 C.F.R. 15.121(a)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall:
(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). Scanning receivers capable of âoereadily being altered by the userâ include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication transmissions to analog voice audio.
(2) Be designed so that the tuning, control and filtering circuitry is inaccessible. The design must be such that any attempts to modify the equipment to receive transmissions from the Cellular Radiotelephone Service likely will render the receiver inoperable.
Just wait until a salesman gets a $100,000 commission for selling something you wrote and buys you lunch at McDonald's to show his appreciation.
Much of what has been said in this thread is spot-on, but I would also add that even working for the money is incorrect. If you really want to win at capitalism, work to learn. Learn the business and the customers and how the company makes money. Then someday you can take a shot at writing your own ticket. When you do, I guarantee that you will take credit for the accomplishments of every one of your employees. Rightfully so, since every penny you paid them came straight out of your pocket.
Considering that the ticks are vertically aligned, I would consider the interstitial spaces important parts of the message. Also note that the top block contains no more than three ticks consecutively, while the bottom block contains no more than two. Neither contain consecutive spaces, and both appear to start with a tick (not a space).
Part of it bears a striking resemblance to UPC code for "8200019288".
ARRL publications teach everything from how to plug in an electronic device to choosing the shape and composition of a core to get optimal performance in specific types of tuners when you wind your own transformer, et cetera. The Handbook is great! It reads something like this:
BUILDING PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS
Step 1: Do not try to build your own printed circuit board. Capacitive coupling (see chapter 2) between the traces will cause it not to work correctly.
Step 2: Refer to table 1 for suppliers of various types of blanks and table 2 for properties of commercially available etchants. Table 3 lists types of common markers and tapes that can be used for masking. Figure 4 shows a simple way of making through connections for multi-layer boards as discussed in the sidebar. When laying out components place the main-line RF components as close together as possible to reduce interference (see chapter 8) (for problems with inductive coupling, see chapter 3), as shown in diagram A of project 5, a simple 8 megawatt death ray.
It's great. The other nice thing about ham radio is that you can usually find someone more experienced who will be excited about helping you learn.
C is is great for being a very readable language that compiles fairly directly into assembly, but it is by no means the last word in performance. There are still systems for which even optimized C is too bloated. In the shop where I currently work, there are a lot of gray-haired, mainframe sages who still argue over which instruction is more appropriate. (They do not, of course, go to google for that kind of information.) The remarkable thing about it is that those choices sometimes make measurable differences. Those people scoff at C the way the C zealots posting here scoff at java.
I couldn't help but notice that there were no assembly languages in the list. Let's not lose site of the fact that this survey measures flow through the intertubes, not actual usage or utility. Let's also not loose site of the fact that each language has its purpose, however humble.
Even the mainframers agree, though, that you shouldn't program in COBOL if you can possibly avoid it.
Most of the video games in the record of this case, games that the City believes violate its ordinances, are stories. Take once again "The House of the Dead." The player is armed with a gun--most fortunately, because he is being assailed by a seemingly unending succession of hideous axe-wielding zombies, the living dead conjured back to life by voodoo. The zombies have already knocked down and wounded several people, who are pleading pitiably for help; and one of the player's duties is to protect those unfortunates from renewed assaults by the zombies. His main task, however, is self-defense. Zombies are supernatural beings, therefore difficult to kill. Repeated shots are necessary to stop them as they rush headlong toward the player. He must not only be alert to the appearance of zombies from any quarter; he must be assiduous about reloading his gun periodically, lest he be overwhelmed by the rush of the zombies when his gun is empty.
Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the "undead," fighting against overwhelming odds--these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young. "The House of the Dead" is not distinguished literature. Neither, perhaps, is "The Night of the Living Dead," George A. Romero's famous zombie movie that was doubtless the inspiration for "The House of the Dead." Some games, such as "Dungeons and Dragons," have achieved cult status; although it seems unlikely, some of these games, perhaps including some that are as violent as those in the record, will become cultural icons. We are in the world of kids' popular culture. But it is not lightly to be suppressed.
Although violent video games appeal primarily to boys, the record contains, surprisingly, a feminist violent video game, "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3." A man and a woman are dressed in vaguely medieval costumes, and wield huge swords. The woman is very tall, very fierce, and wields her sword effortlessly. The man and the woman duel, and the man is killed. Another man appears--he is killed too. The woman wins all the duels. She is as strong as the men, she is more skillful, more determined, and she does not flinch at the sight of blood. Of course, her success depends on the player's skill, and the fact that the player, whether male or female, has chosen to be the female fighter. (The player chooses which fighter to be.) But the game is feminist in depicting a woman as fully capable of holding her own in violent combat with heavily armed men. It thus has a message, even an "ideology," just as books and movies do.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it has been alleged that he conspired with and encouraged the now-imprisoned person who leaked the information. Even if he claimed to be a journalist, the first amendment only goes so far. The laws about anyone handling classified information are strict and specific. Besides, there are still some people in Cuba who can attest that habeas corpus also only goes so far.
In any case, if the US government were willing to do something nasty over this, they would have done it before the information was published. They might not have stopped it all, but I have no doubt they could have forced it into the hands of someone who would have handled it more carefully.
Nothing can stop a determined attacker with physical access. The benefit of anything more complex than this is marginal and illusory.
How many other stories have remained in oral culture for as long? Gilgamesh was lost. Hammurabi's Code was lost. Beowulf is recent. The Iliad is still around, but it is certainly not as widely known. The Upanishads and Confucius date only slightly before recorded history (~500 BC). I am no expert, but Job (older than Genesis, but also biblical) is the only thing I can think of that has lasted more than 5000 years.
The story of Genesis has been around for longer than the idea of written language! It seems reasonable to guess that it will still be around when our current idea of written language begins to falter. It seems the only reasonable guess.
-- Paul Johnson, "Modern Times"
Why do you think we do it--all the space probes and particle accelerators? We are looking for things we cannot explain, and it turns out that there are a lot of them. The truly revolutionary moments of discovery are not heralded by shouts of "Eureka," but by someone quietly rechecking the math and recalibrating the instruments because things just didn't add up. Most often, the battle-cry of science is "hmm, that's strange."
I'm not saying that these guys have rewritten everything we think we know about the universe, but they would be well within their rights if they had done so. More likely there is some other reactant consumed or the water is pressurized or ionized or heated or whatever. Steam locomotives ran on water too, you know. The articles linked do not describe the process in sufficient detail to talk intelligently about it one way or the other.
Really, all the posts here are about whether or not you, the reader, can accept something into your world that does not look like what you see every day. If not, well, you just keep waving that femur. Maybe we'll send you a postcard from The Future.
Software radio, as a concept, has been illegal for a long time. DMCA arguments are neither necessary nor relevant.
Transmission is really not an issue. The F.C.C. has neither difficulty nor qualms about finding and seizing unlicensed transmitters.
To those who say people wouldn't look, they wouldn't be interested, they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
This instrument can teach. It can illuminate and, yes, it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends.
Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights -- in a box.
Good night and good luck.
And yes, I did go to google for the wording.
see 47 C.F.R. 15.121(a) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, shall:
(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular telephone bands). Scanning receivers capable of âoereadily being altered by the userâ include, but are not limited to, those for which the ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication transmissions to analog voice audio.
(2) Be designed so that the tuning, control and filtering circuitry is inaccessible. The design must be such that any attempts to modify the equipment to receive transmissions from the Cellular Radiotelephone Service likely will render the receiver inoperable.
Just wait until a salesman gets a $100,000 commission for selling something you wrote and buys you lunch at McDonald's to show his appreciation.
Much of what has been said in this thread is spot-on, but I would also add that even working for the money is incorrect. If you really want to win at capitalism, work to learn. Learn the business and the customers and how the company makes money. Then someday you can take a shot at writing your own ticket. When you do, I guarantee that you will take credit for the accomplishments of every one of your employees. Rightfully so, since every penny you paid them came straight out of your pocket.
Considering that the ticks are vertically aligned, I would consider the interstitial spaces important parts of the message. Also note that the top block contains no more than three ticks consecutively, while the bottom block contains no more than two. Neither contain consecutive spaces, and both appear to start with a tick (not a space).
Part of it bears a striking resemblance to UPC code for "8200019288".
ARRL publications teach everything from how to plug in an electronic device to choosing the shape and composition of a core to get optimal performance in specific types of tuners when you wind your own transformer, et cetera. The Handbook is great! It reads something like this:
BUILDING PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS
Step 1: Do not try to build your own printed circuit board. Capacitive coupling (see chapter 2) between the traces will cause it not to work correctly.
Step 2: Refer to table 1 for suppliers of various types of blanks and table 2 for properties of commercially available etchants. Table 3 lists types of common markers and tapes that can be used for masking. Figure 4 shows a simple way of making through connections for multi-layer boards as discussed in the sidebar. When laying out components place the main-line RF components as close together as possible to reduce interference (see chapter 8) (for problems with inductive coupling, see chapter 3), as shown in diagram A of project 5, a simple 8 megawatt death ray.
It's great. The other nice thing about ham radio is that you can usually find someone more experienced who will be excited about helping you learn.
73 SK KE5TWD
They call it Citizenship in the World.
C is is great for being a very readable language that compiles fairly directly into assembly, but it is by no means the last word in performance. There are still systems for which even optimized C is too bloated. In the shop where I currently work, there are a lot of gray-haired, mainframe sages who still argue over which instruction is more appropriate. (They do not, of course, go to google for that kind of information.) The remarkable thing about it is that those choices sometimes make measurable differences. Those people scoff at C the way the C zealots posting here scoff at java.
I couldn't help but notice that there were no assembly languages in the list. Let's not lose site of the fact that this survey measures flow through the intertubes, not actual usage or utility. Let's also not loose site of the fact that each language has its purpose, however humble.
Even the mainframers agree, though, that you shouldn't program in COBOL if you can possibly avoid it.