I'm not 100% convinced. The trophy wife will hang around until the cash flow stops. The hot 'n sweaty girl is also a pay-per-service option. I would classify both of those things as renting love rather than buying love.
But I'm cool with the dog. Get yourself a dog and, in my experience, he'll love you to the grave.
I just hope that the poor folks at Microsoft don't see this headline - If their security is "completely useless", they'll obviously just sack all of their programmers that work on that side and throw in the towel.
On a related note, some random person just shouted that he can pick locks using standard gardening shears - He didn't give details. I guess that I'll just remove my front door when I get home today...
Interesting, I assume your in America? Here (Australia) we pay nothing to watch the Olympics & there would be civil outrage if that ever happened.
So you have Olympic coverage with no advertising? On over-the-air broadcasts? Without subsidizing through taxes?
Is there some rich Australian Olympic fan that's funding these broadcasts just to be nice?
I've never visited Australia, but the idea of "free" anything anywhere seems a little fishy. If you're not paying, somebody else is. Broadcasting isn't free.
I'd love to disagree with you (you're the only foe I've managed to acquire on/. so I guess I just want to nurture the relationship =) ). But I can't - At least not entirely. Governments are a necessary evil - It makes good sense to organize a system of laws/enforcement, public services, national defense, etc. But, once established, it is a constant struggle to keep the government a public service entity instead of a mechanism for oppressing the public in favor of those that have the most influence over the "public representatives".
Also, I believe that the system in America isn't entirely broken. We have a lot of uninformed people electing bad representatives, but our elections are at worst slightly rigged (too much, but better than many and we're working on it - Even a 1% majority would stifle crooked polling IMHO - Major problem, but the world has no system that's unscammable). The biggest exploitation here is people not bothering to research dodgy information they've been fed and acting on bad pretenses. And, this happens much more on the corporate level than the political level which gives the major corps power to lobby/endorse/bribe the government reps.
Once stable circulating beams have been established, they will be brought into collision, and the final step will be to commission the LHCâ(TM)s acceleration system to boost the energy to 5 TeV, taking particle physics research to a new frontier.
So I guess they're not waiting long after the "test laps" mentioned in the summary. OK. Blow off your project.
You've never seen Wild Turkey flying at 50 mph? Quickly consume about half of a fifth, put a radar gun in your toilet, and wait for the results. Another method that's about equally as enjoyable is to hurl insults at somebody drinking straight from the bottle and wait for it to fly at your head. 50 mph isn't at all unachievable.
For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
I'm going to need a derivation before I believe that. If we set up a set of goals (happy populace, efficient society, etc.) then we can derive a set of rights that we should have in order to achieve those goals. But a set of unalienable rights that all humans do have derived through logic? That seems a little tough.
We can infer a lot of rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans based on documentation that they left behind. We can define rights that we believe that we deserve and should defend (or possibly fight to acquire or take back). But I defy you to illustrate how simple logic can spell out a set of rights that all humans do have without invoking some kind of divine standard. And, assuming that these rights are not divinely inspired, did these rights also belong to all societies in the past? What about foreign societies? Or can you logically derive what set of unalienable rights that modern Americans have that would not apply to Europeans/Chinese/cavemen?
I'm all for logic over superstition any day. But the idea that the rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans could be exactly replicated through simple logic while supporting the notion of why they are unalienable as opposed to why they should be unalienable just seems nonsensical.
Unfortunately, NASA ran into some copyright / prior art issues with Frank Herbert's estate and they had to resort to drinking reprocessed pee.
Wouldn't that last run afoul of a certain Kevin Costner property as well?
I wish you hadn't brought that up - It wouldn't have been an issue.
There are a lot of people who have read Dune (or at least watched the mini-series or had the movie seared into their brains). But not even Costner sat through Waterworld - Since even the stage-hands and producers had blocked that movie out of their memories, nobody would have ever sued over the reprocessed pee scene.
I believe that Still Suits were the original goal. Unfortunately, NASA ran into some copyright / prior art issues with Frank Herbert's estate and they had to resort to drinking reprocessed pee.
Also, there are already a few posts (including FP) that include some "Eww, yuck" content. Pretty much all of us are drinking reprocessed pee to some degree. NASA's just getting efficient about it. Accept it - It's OK. Everything used to be something else. Even you.
Generally, that hydrogen will require oxygen(e) to be useful, and they're splitting the oxygen off for other uses already.
Exactly - To use hydrogen, you typically either compress it or burn it. Compressing it is a lot of trouble and burning it is the exact opposite of extracting breathable oxygene* (a major goal).
* Oxygene - Just like regular oxygen, but now with more electrolytes!
Since a moderator decides on objective criteria, slashdot posting is therefore a sport.
Not entirely. If the mods were strictly deciding "Was this Informative?", I might agree. Some posts are clearly informative while others are clearly not.
But "Was this Funny?" is subjective. The same for Troll, Flamebait, Insightful, Interesting, and Over/Underrated. Now in my opinion, your post was Funny and Interesting, but not Insightful. Again in my opinion, this post may be Interesting or Insightful based on the mods opinions, but is certainly not Informative, Troll, or Flamebait. But, since I'm not modding this thread, that subjective judgment is left to others.
I am a parent as well, and I know myself well enough to realize that if someone were to hurt one of my children and the law let them get away with it, that I would most likely end up in jail.
If you had just said that you were a parent, that statement wouldn't bother me so much. But the phrase "one of my children" really darkens it. Like I said, I can't promise that I wouldn't take the law into my own hands. But if one of my children was hurt, I'd hope that my dedication/obligation to him (assuming he was still alive) and his sibling would outweigh my quest for vengeance (assuming that I couldn't enact it without going to jail).
Vigilantism is a worse crime than rape, murder or driving drunk in a society where the main purpose of the law seems to be to keep the law-abiding in line rather than stopping criminal behavior.
I'm going to have to request a little bit of an explanation on that statement - It seems to be self-contradicting. I consider vigilantism a lesser crime than rape or murder. But I still consider it a crime that warrants punishment, even when morally justified and "the right thing to do" - I've committed a lot of crimes, but never without accepting that there may be consequences. Sometimes it was because the "right" thing was illegal; other times it was just me being selfish and deciding that the benefit outweighed the risk & cost.
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice.
If the court doesn't create some kind of sense of justice, the community will go out and make its own. It's not always pretty, but one way or another, justice will be served.
Now that sounds like an endorsement of mob justice. I never claimed that I was above that mentality or denied that I could never be pushed to that level*, but my (possibly irrational) faith that a civilized society can exist with enforced laws pushes me to avoid it.
* My step-brother and I once grabbed the arms of a guy that had punched his GF in a mosh-pit, dragged him roughly across the pit, bounced him off of my younger brother's forearm (the sturdiest of we three), and let him fall on his back in the pit - A bad place to be - He got tromped. I've done other similar things and my brothers have done worse. I'm not above dealing out justice, I just typically try to be.
The parents of that child should keep an eye on where Drew goes after all this is over, if she is free. If she gets a job, rents an apartment, and buys Internet service, they should have newspaper clippings and a letter in hand to deliver to each and every manager and employer. Let them know who they're serving/employing.
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice. However, I really dislike this bitch and, as a parent, I could see myself falling into this kind of destructive behavior after losing a child. I'd like to think I'm emotionally adjusted enough to rise above that, but I've not dealt with that kind of emotional trauma since reaching adulthood and can't testify that I'd hold up well...
Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?
You're right - A lack of insurance doesn't imply that they can't compensate you.
But there's a very high degree of correlation between persons who drive without insurance and people who won't compensate you.
Judge the causation/correlation issue however you want. Uninsured drivers tend to fail to take account for at-fault accidents. Whether it's a direct causation effect or not is a moot point - Folks w/o insurance tend to skip out on the bill and I'll happily pony up on gambling odds if you want to volunteer to cover their unpaid damages trying to defend a lack of proof of causation.
Rather than waste energy avoiding the problem of these cameras, I dare say your energy would be better spent fighting their use all together.
Why? If somebody's driving around in a stolen car, I want them caught and arrested. If somebody has warrants out for their arrest and recognizing their plates helps the cops grab them, great - It cost me a little less to pay cops to apprehend them because they were caught in traffic instead of being stalked and grabbed.
Some laws are BS and some warrants are served based on those BS laws. I've spent a good deal of time breaking them openly and was always willing to serve the consequences if caught. But whining about cops having computers that can run checks on license plates is just silly. If you're going to that level, object to having the identifier on your car or go 'Civil Disobedience' and drive around without plates. But don't just whine because your publicly displayed identifier is being checked against known offenses. You may as well bitch because your picture is posted in a post-office with the word 'Wanted' above it. Automation is a sensible too and the solution to the real problem isn't to allow law-breakers to hide - It's to catch and convict law-breakers, fight the hell out of the legal system when people are going away for BS reasons, and continue to openly fight BS laws instead of trying to hide from enforcement.
Claiming to break the law as a right of 'Civil Disobedience' while hiding from law enforcement is cowardly and counter-productive.
This is a perfect place for a car analogy and you went with a custom-tailored silk dress? I mean... Driving around for 6 months without making payments and getting the car repossessed ~= A free car rental with the credit penalty being the only downside. It's that easy.
Is that even a legal requirement? A sign marked "private property" isn't the same thing as a sign saying "no trespassing" or "private property---no photographing from beyond this point". I've seen lots of mall parking lots that say "private property"; From what I understand, unless the sign is more specific, you can still show up and do pretty much anything you want until the owner (or his agent, e.g. a mall employee) asks you to leave.
IANAL, but I do like to shoot and eat quail. I'm always friendly with private property owners and, when it's clearly private land, I'll ask the owner before discharging a weapon on their property (it always pays to be polite when everyone's armed). But, if I was not polite and just out shooting things, property owners would need both fencing and regularly spaced "Private Property - No Hunting or Fishing" signs (I'm thinking the regs state ~50' spacing, but I could be wrong) if they hadn't asked me to leave, were upset, and wanted to defend their case to Game and Fish.
I cross fences all the time. Typically through gates, but sometimes we just pull the barbed wire back. They often span public land and are only in place for ranchers who graze their cattle there.
Long story short (too late), you're right. There's a huge difference between a simple fence, a Private Property sign, and a No Trespassing sign.
Frankly, if GoogleSat (or whatever) flies over my house (and I become aware of what they're doing) I'm going to shoot the fuckers down.
Good luck with that.
You own your property, but you don't own everything between the ground and the outer-reaches of the solar system. If somebody is far enough away and you're not living on some military base/airport/secret facility with restricted air-space, shooting at aircraft will get you in a lot of trouble - Even if they're taking pictures.
How much time do you spend threatening satellites with your rifle?
...like expecting people not to walk from a public beach area onto the beach behind your house merely because you put a sign there. You're going from one similar area to another, and the area really shouldn't have any legal protection because it is a shared, semipublic resource.
I may be misinterpreting your post - Forgive me if that's the case.
The defensive lasers that are aimed at targeting systems are pretty simple. Assuming you have a heat-seeker, you aim an infrared laser slightly off-axis at the missile. It chases the phantom heat signature instead of you. Not nearly a trivial engineering feat, but much easier than blasting the thing out of the air.
I question your mastery of the English language. The article is not about how to defend against missiles with lasers, but how to defend missiles against lasers -- specifically lasers which are aimed at a missile to poke a hole in it and/or destroy sensitive electronics.
I am actually a native speaker and I realize this. Not sure if you're a troll, a smart-ass, or just a pedant - Thanks for summarizing the summary.
I was just trying to point out that the main laser-based anti-missile tactic that I'm aware of involves misdirection rather than destruction and I was casting out a line for further thoughts. We (the US) have heavily investigated both sides. The main counter-weapon systems that I'm aware of (mainly for commercial jets) don't try to shoot down missiles, just make them miss. Just putting out a feeler in case somebody closer to the issue to me knows whether conventional targeting systems (laser/infrared - I realize that there are others that won't care) can be made compatible with this anti-high-power-laser defense.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not 100% convinced. The trophy wife will hang around until the cash flow stops. The hot 'n sweaty girl is also a pay-per-service option. I would classify both of those things as renting love rather than buying love.
But I'm cool with the dog. Get yourself a dog and, in my experience, he'll love you to the grave.
I just hope that the poor folks at Microsoft don't see this headline - If their security is "completely useless", they'll obviously just sack all of their programmers that work on that side and throw in the towel.
On a related note, some random person just shouted that he can pick locks using standard gardening shears - He didn't give details. I guess that I'll just remove my front door when I get home today...
Interesting, I assume your in America? Here (Australia) we pay nothing to watch the Olympics & there would be civil outrage if that ever happened.
So you have Olympic coverage with no advertising? On over-the-air broadcasts? Without subsidizing through taxes?
Is there some rich Australian Olympic fan that's funding these broadcasts just to be nice?
I've never visited Australia, but the idea of "free" anything anywhere seems a little fishy. If you're not paying, somebody else is. Broadcasting isn't free.
Isn't this typical of most current governments?
I'd love to disagree with you (you're the only foe I've managed to acquire on /. so I guess I just want to nurture the relationship =) ). But I can't - At least not entirely. Governments are a necessary evil - It makes good sense to organize a system of laws/enforcement, public services, national defense, etc. But, once established, it is a constant struggle to keep the government a public service entity instead of a mechanism for oppressing the public in favor of those that have the most influence over the "public representatives".
Also, I believe that the system in America isn't entirely broken. We have a lot of uninformed people electing bad representatives, but our elections are at worst slightly rigged (too much, but better than many and we're working on it - Even a 1% majority would stifle crooked polling IMHO - Major problem, but the world has no system that's unscammable). The biggest exploitation here is people not bothering to research dodgy information they've been fed and acting on bad pretenses. And, this happens much more on the corporate level than the political level which gives the major corps power to lobby/endorse/bribe the government reps.
Although it does say:
Once stable circulating beams have been established, they will be brought into collision, and the final step will be to commission the LHCâ(TM)s acceleration system to boost the energy to 5 TeV, taking particle physics research to a new frontier.
So I guess they're not waiting long after the "test laps" mentioned in the summary. OK. Blow off your project.
Sorry, FTS they're only running a few "test laps" - Not actually smashing anything. Get to work.
TFA doesn't say when they actually plan on destroying earth.
You've never seen Wild Turkey flying at 50 mph? Quickly consume about half of a fifth, put a radar gun in your toilet, and wait for the results. Another method that's about equally as enjoyable is to hurl insults at somebody drinking straight from the bottle and wait for it to fly at your head. 50 mph isn't at all unachievable.
For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
I'm going to need a derivation before I believe that. If we set up a set of goals (happy populace, efficient society, etc.) then we can derive a set of rights that we should have in order to achieve those goals. But a set of unalienable rights that all humans do have derived through logic? That seems a little tough.
We can infer a lot of rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans based on documentation that they left behind. We can define rights that we believe that we deserve and should defend (or possibly fight to acquire or take back). But I defy you to illustrate how simple logic can spell out a set of rights that all humans do have without invoking some kind of divine standard. And, assuming that these rights are not divinely inspired, did these rights also belong to all societies in the past? What about foreign societies? Or can you logically derive what set of unalienable rights that modern Americans have that would not apply to Europeans/Chinese/cavemen?
I'm all for logic over superstition any day. But the idea that the rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans could be exactly replicated through simple logic while supporting the notion of why they are unalienable as opposed to why they should be unalienable just seems nonsensical.
Unfortunately, NASA ran into some copyright / prior art issues with Frank Herbert's estate and they had to resort to drinking reprocessed pee.
Wouldn't that last run afoul of a certain Kevin Costner property as well?
I wish you hadn't brought that up - It wouldn't have been an issue.
There are a lot of people who have read Dune (or at least watched the mini-series or had the movie seared into their brains). But not even Costner sat through Waterworld - Since even the stage-hands and producers had blocked that movie out of their memories, nobody would have ever sued over the reprocessed pee scene.
Thanks a lot for cluing them in...
Akshully...
--
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
I think that your spell-checker is making fun of you by granting you that sig but missing Akshully != Actually. ;-)
I believe that Still Suits were the original goal. Unfortunately, NASA ran into some copyright / prior art issues with Frank Herbert's estate and they had to resort to drinking reprocessed pee.
Also, there are already a few posts (including FP) that include some "Eww, yuck" content. Pretty much all of us are drinking reprocessed pee to some degree. NASA's just getting efficient about it. Accept it - It's OK. Everything used to be something else. Even you.
Generally, that hydrogen will require oxygen(e) to be useful, and they're splitting the oxygen off for other uses already.
Exactly - To use hydrogen, you typically either compress it or burn it. Compressing it is a lot of trouble and burning it is the exact opposite of extracting breathable oxygene* (a major goal).
* Oxygene - Just like regular oxygen, but now with more electrolytes!
Since a moderator decides on objective criteria, slashdot posting is therefore a sport.
Not entirely. If the mods were strictly deciding "Was this Informative?", I might agree. Some posts are clearly informative while others are clearly not.
But "Was this Funny?" is subjective. The same for Troll, Flamebait, Insightful, Interesting, and Over/Underrated. Now in my opinion, your post was Funny and Interesting, but not Insightful. Again in my opinion, this post may be Interesting or Insightful based on the mods opinions, but is certainly not Informative, Troll, or Flamebait. But, since I'm not modding this thread, that subjective judgment is left to others.
I am a parent as well, and I know myself well enough to realize that if someone were to hurt one of my children and the law let them get away with it, that I would most likely end up in jail.
If you had just said that you were a parent, that statement wouldn't bother me so much. But the phrase "one of my children" really darkens it. Like I said, I can't promise that I wouldn't take the law into my own hands. But if one of my children was hurt, I'd hope that my dedication/obligation to him (assuming he was still alive) and his sibling would outweigh my quest for vengeance (assuming that I couldn't enact it without going to jail).
Vigilantism is a worse crime than rape, murder or driving drunk in a society where the main purpose of the law seems to be to keep the law-abiding in line rather than stopping criminal behavior.
I'm going to have to request a little bit of an explanation on that statement - It seems to be self-contradicting. I consider vigilantism a lesser crime than rape or murder. But I still consider it a crime that warrants punishment, even when morally justified and "the right thing to do" - I've committed a lot of crimes, but never without accepting that there may be consequences. Sometimes it was because the "right" thing was illegal; other times it was just me being selfish and deciding that the benefit outweighed the risk & cost.
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice.
If the court doesn't create some kind of sense of justice, the community will go out and make its own. It's not always pretty, but one way or another, justice will be served.
Now that sounds like an endorsement of mob justice. I never claimed that I was above that mentality or denied that I could never be pushed to that level*, but my (possibly irrational) faith that a civilized society can exist with enforced laws pushes me to avoid it.
* My step-brother and I once grabbed the arms of a guy that had punched his GF in a mosh-pit, dragged him roughly across the pit, bounced him off of my younger brother's forearm (the sturdiest of we three), and let him fall on his back in the pit - A bad place to be - He got tromped. I've done other similar things and my brothers have done worse. I'm not above dealing out justice, I just typically try to be.
The parents of that child should keep an eye on where Drew goes after all this is over, if she is free. If she gets a job, rents an apartment, and buys Internet service, they should have newspaper clippings and a letter in hand to deliver to each and every manager and employer. Let them know who they're serving/employing.
That's encouraging harassment and an endorsement of mob justice. However, I really dislike this bitch and, as a parent, I could see myself falling into this kind of destructive behavior after losing a child. I'd like to think I'm emotionally adjusted enough to rise above that, but I've not dealt with that kind of emotional trauma since reaching adulthood and can't testify that I'd hold up well...
Sad.
Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they can't compensate you. How many times a day does correlation v causation have to be covered on slashdot?
You're right - A lack of insurance doesn't imply that they can't compensate you.
But there's a very high degree of correlation between persons who drive without insurance and people who won't compensate you.
Judge the causation/correlation issue however you want. Uninsured drivers tend to fail to take account for at-fault accidents. Whether it's a direct causation effect or not is a moot point - Folks w/o insurance tend to skip out on the bill and I'll happily pony up on gambling odds if you want to volunteer to cover their unpaid damages trying to defend a lack of proof of causation.
Rather than waste energy avoiding the problem of these cameras, I dare say your energy would be better spent fighting their use all together.
Why? If somebody's driving around in a stolen car, I want them caught and arrested. If somebody has warrants out for their arrest and recognizing their plates helps the cops grab them, great - It cost me a little less to pay cops to apprehend them because they were caught in traffic instead of being stalked and grabbed.
Some laws are BS and some warrants are served based on those BS laws. I've spent a good deal of time breaking them openly and was always willing to serve the consequences if caught. But whining about cops having computers that can run checks on license plates is just silly. If you're going to that level, object to having the identifier on your car or go 'Civil Disobedience' and drive around without plates. But don't just whine because your publicly displayed identifier is being checked against known offenses. You may as well bitch because your picture is posted in a post-office with the word 'Wanted' above it. Automation is a sensible too and the solution to the real problem isn't to allow law-breakers to hide - It's to catch and convict law-breakers, fight the hell out of the legal system when people are going away for BS reasons, and continue to openly fight BS laws instead of trying to hide from enforcement.
Claiming to break the law as a right of 'Civil Disobedience' while hiding from law enforcement is cowardly and counter-productive.
A dress? Really?
This is a perfect place for a car analogy and you went with a custom-tailored silk dress? I mean... Driving around for 6 months without making payments and getting the car repossessed ~= A free car rental with the credit penalty being the only downside. It's that easy.
A dress?
Is that even a legal requirement? A sign marked "private property" isn't the same thing as a sign saying "no trespassing" or "private property---no photographing from beyond this point". I've seen lots of mall parking lots that say "private property"; From what I understand, unless the sign is more specific, you can still show up and do pretty much anything you want until the owner (or his agent, e.g. a mall employee) asks you to leave.
IANAL, but I do like to shoot and eat quail. I'm always friendly with private property owners and, when it's clearly private land, I'll ask the owner before discharging a weapon on their property (it always pays to be polite when everyone's armed). But, if I was not polite and just out shooting things, property owners would need both fencing and regularly spaced "Private Property - No Hunting or Fishing" signs (I'm thinking the regs state ~50' spacing, but I could be wrong) if they hadn't asked me to leave, were upset, and wanted to defend their case to Game and Fish.
I cross fences all the time. Typically through gates, but sometimes we just pull the barbed wire back. They often span public land and are only in place for ranchers who graze their cattle there.
Long story short (too late), you're right. There's a huge difference between a simple fence, a Private Property sign, and a No Trespassing sign.
...
Frankly, if GoogleSat (or whatever) flies over my house (and I become aware of what they're doing) I'm going to shoot the fuckers down.
Good luck with that.
You own your property, but you don't own everything between the ground and the outer-reaches of the solar system. If somebody is far enough away and you're not living on some military base/airport/secret facility with restricted air-space, shooting at aircraft will get you in a lot of trouble - Even if they're taking pictures.
How much time do you spend threatening satellites with your rifle?
...like expecting people not to walk from a public beach area onto the beach behind your house merely because you put a sign there. You're going from one similar area to another, and the area really shouldn't have any legal protection because it is a shared, semipublic resource.
Get off my beach!
You just lost the game.
I may be misinterpreting your post - Forgive me if that's the case.
The defensive lasers that are aimed at targeting systems are pretty simple. Assuming you have a heat-seeker, you aim an infrared laser slightly off-axis at the missile. It chases the phantom heat signature instead of you. Not nearly a trivial engineering feat, but much easier than blasting the thing out of the air.
I question your mastery of the English language. The article is not about how to defend against missiles with lasers, but how to defend missiles against lasers -- specifically lasers which are aimed at a missile to poke a hole in it and/or destroy sensitive electronics.
I am actually a native speaker and I realize this. Not sure if you're a troll, a smart-ass, or just a pedant - Thanks for summarizing the summary.
I was just trying to point out that the main laser-based anti-missile tactic that I'm aware of involves misdirection rather than destruction and I was casting out a line for further thoughts. We (the US) have heavily investigated both sides. The main counter-weapon systems that I'm aware of (mainly for commercial jets) don't try to shoot down missiles, just make them miss. Just putting out a feeler in case somebody closer to the issue to me knows whether conventional targeting systems (laser/infrared - I realize that there are others that won't care) can be made compatible with this anti-high-power-laser defense.