your post and mine beg the question of defining a "war."
True. That definition is definitely in flux, these days. Something that should probably be addressed at a governmental level, in fact, since it seems that the probability of having to prosectute "War" against something other than another country has gone way up in this first decade of the 21st century. It may actually be that there needs to be a legislative means to authorize things like the War on Terror. I was really thinking post-9/11 that there would be Congressional Declaration of War as defined in the Constitution and as we saw at the US entry into WWI and WWII.
The last handful of military actions the US has been invovled in did not have a Congressional Declaration, and I think they tended to loose focus largely for that reason. I think the War on Terror is in danger of loosing focus in much the same way.
It may be that, given modern methods, we (and Congress) should think of a Declaration of War more as a military mobilization that can be either short or long term. There's no real reason, imo, that Congress could not have declared War on Osama bin Ladin - regardless of the fact that he is not a nation per se. That would allow the prosecution of action against him using tradition methods (if not traditional materiel) - i.e. the whole problem of "enemy combatant" status questions would be obviated. I think it would be useful to have clear definitions in all matters relating to War - Who is the enemy? When will the state of War be ended? Stuff like that.
The situation of uncertainty of who the enemy is, what to do with him when we catch him, how long is this going to go on, etc is, imo, bad for the morale of the population, if not the troops. This would be pretty simple to fix, I think, if Congress would "get a clue" (note that this is not something that the executive branch could do easily, imo).
a rebel/terrorist/whatever with a gutful of hate and a loaded magazine isn't going to be happy blowing up a fancy little tractor.
I can only agree. I think there are some solutions to this, technologically speaking, though. If we think of the soldier as a weapon and go for the goal of expanding his reach, accuracy, and mobility - in general all the things that make a soldier an effective weapon - I think there's a lot that can be done. I think the SWORD thing is just a formal announcement that the military is interested in looking further into that.
I think we should exploit such advantage as we have while we have it, too. That is, the enemy in this case is low-tech - there's no real reason why we shouldn't overwhelm them with whatever we've got, including tech. That may not be as practical if and when we get into it with an enemy who is capable of techological countermeasures, but for now I think we should throw as may "robots" at them as we can throw together - there's no real reason to give them the satisfaction of blowing up a soldier just because they don't make it all the way to paradise for blowing up a machine...
Hope none of my postings come off as rabid military-is-right newspeak.
Definitely not. Well, not this thread, anyway. I haven't looked at any of your other ones. You come across as thoughtful and well-spoken, here.
Interesting. It's not clear what your post has to do with the topic, in but I do understand your need to re-assert a couple of you points, given that they remain unprovable, and I know many of you are striving to find that "how many assertions does it take to make a fact" threshold. I'm surprised you haven't been mod'd up, yet...
The majority of people consent to the bush administration's make up and policie
Unfortunately for the citizens of the United States of America and for the health of its democratic process, your assertion is completely unprovable. In fact, evidence to the contrary is manifest and abundant.
The reality of your alleged majority is, in fact, being closely questioned by some who are more concerned with the accuaracy of the answer than you appear to be. The Truth of the matter remains to be seen, pomp, circumstance, and wealthy rednecks notwithstanding....
Even those who hate him consider the bush presidency and its actions an inevitable toil that needs to be suffered through.
So you presume to speak for those who "hate" bush? Are you one of them?
What would have happened had Ghandi said "oh, those british, they're too powerful, we'll just wait until they leave by themselves"
Well, the British in that circumstance weren't crazed Right-wing fanatics trying fulfil a 2000-year-old prophecy, as the Bush Regime is. And the British didn't have the military capacity to split the planet into chunks of rapidly cooling space debris, as the Bush Regime does. I don't really see the basis of your analogy?
I think more to the point speculation in this case would be "Would you still be calling the Ukraine a democracy if the re-counts there had been suppressed?"
I realize this may become flamebait, but I just gotta answer.
While the parent may have been flamebaiting in tone, I think question is legit. It was about foremost in my mind after reading the article, anyway, and I'm sure it will come up in military circles as these things are deployed...
The SWORDS are weapons, clearly, regardless of relative sophistication, so the historical comparisons you make are good ones, imo.
Having long been an advocate of push-button, automated warfare (when warfare is required) I am most interested in your statement
In the end, however, wars have always come down to a soldier/marine/Zulu standing on a piece of ground and saying, "This is mine." Technology simply expands the size of that piece of ground.
I've talked to quite a few soldiers (including officers of various ranks) - mostly retired - since the 1991 Gulf War, and I remain unconvinced that the nature of War in the 21st Century should remain what it has been throughout history.
It becomes increasingly questionable in situations like Iraq, imo, since - at the strategic level - there is no requirement that the incoming force (the US) actually hold the ground once the entrenched force (the Saddam Hussein's troops) have been overthrown.
Iraq is even more of a "police action" than Vietnam, in that respect. The Warfare portion of the action proper could - it seems to me - be accomplished entirely thru remotely activated, automated weapons. Only the "reconstruction" portions of the action actually require a human presence, and arguably that could be re-thought, as well.
I don't really see that the US has done anything to date in Iraq that - given a sufficiently sophisticated robotic weapon (probably not much beyond what the SWORD described in the article) - couldn't have been done by e.g. Marines in aboard a naval vessel offshore with a bunch of PlayStation consoles and a high-speed radio link... I'm not trying to demean the troops, here understand - I'm speaking strategicly to the point that we're not supposed to be occupying the place.
Of course, the other thing the stories didn't mention - and that hasn't shown up in this discussion (as far as I've read so far) is the low-tech defense against these robots: Attacks against the control center. They're talking fairly short range control links - "a few miles" I think it said. That still has the operators in harms way.
Don't you mean 'MSNBC censors' ? Probably should include ABC, CBC, CNN, and Fox censors, as well, just to make sure your attrocities can be sold to the highest bidder after editting instead of just randomly played 'live'....
True enough. It is Dick Cheney that is the hick from Wyoming that got tossed out of Yale... which is why US policy is "redneck" - it's not Bush setting policy, it is that Cheney has been working his way into a position to mandate this policy since he went to work for Dick Nixon. Dubya is Cheney's fukboy, that's all. Dubya is a pantywaist east coast liberal compared to Hard Dick Cheney.
RIAA is redundant with Slashdot Trolls; 2 redundancies
(RIAA and MPAA) is redundant with Slashdot Trolls; 3 redundancies
The RIAA and MPAA and Slashdot Trolls are philosphically indistinguishable, imo, although they seem to go by different names depending on the context. The 3 terms could, of course, be re-combined in other ways to create a redundancy count greater than 3, but I figured that would be redundant...
Are you suggesting that Article I doesn't state that Congres...
Actually, no. I'm suggesting that you go fuck yourself, you self-important prick. But I'm not surprised that that fact went quite over your air-filled head...
See, I've read the founding documents of the United States.
Yeah? Well..... have you read the Constitution.... on weed?
You sound like you haven't, but have some ideas of what they should say, and just assumes that's what's there. You're like a Christian who says that not judging people's flaws and stoning them for them would violate everything Jesus stood for.
Well very well, then. I suggest (further) that you have this poorly framed and badly presented argument with yourself - you seem to be doing quite well without me contibuting anything at all to it except perhaps the odd epithet. You can make up a positilon that you can imagine you opponent to have, then you can cleverly demolish that argument by raising counter arguments that your imaginary opponent will decline to answer because of your l33t pseudo-intellcetual assertions with respect to being able to read and and imply simple concept like "dogmatic fundamentalism" which you can fling at your imagary opponent like a monkey flings pooh.
I'm not interested in your gradeschool gibberish, your constructed oppposing fallacies, or your pitiful high school debating tactics; in short, you need to pigeonhole me so badly you're just pathetic. Quit embarassing yourself.
I was just flaming some dumbass who was obviously and completely misguided, and you thought I might be interested in your opinion of my views. I'm not. I know damn well I'm right, and you do too, you just can't let yourself admit it, for whatever reasons, and frankly, I don't care what those reasons are. They're just excuses that keep you from being right, and the sooner you recognize that the better off you'll be.
Call back when you grow up - or get a clue - whichever comes first.
You call that "calling bullshit" !? That's all you've got? LoL. Okay. You might not believe it, but I not only tried to compare (sp!) the causes, I actually did. Imagine that! I don't really give a shit what you think they were trying to do because you're obviously a toid. If what I said is a slap in the face to any of those I named, I will be more than happy to take it up with them or anyone who actually supports their causes directly. You obviously don't qualify, since you are the one who so clearly stated that what they had done was wrong.
These two people are criminals as defined by the laws.
Well, you're a dumbass as defined by me. And I am a law. Like it or not. So there.
Yes, I am a US Citizen.
Go back and read yourconstitution, baby. Learn some of the history that goes with it, and then start for gods sake acting like one. You should eb ashamed that you can claim citizenship yet can't recognize crime - violation of law - unless it's point out to you by the minions of some rackateers who are just trying to enforce their consumerist doctrine.
Damn. You're a bot, aren't you [ThousandStars]? I wondered why your constructs seemed a litle off kilter; I guess I should be embarassed. Regardless, you failed the Turing Test, this time....
How's about you get over yer muther, dimbulb. Who the fuk do you think you are to say what is Civil Disobediance and what is not? One man's act of defiance, doncha know...
A couple of guys hiding behind the (assumed) anonymity of the Internet
Hah! That's good for a laugh. Get a clue, dumbass. That little tidbit never was true, and belief in it is a good 10 years out of date - unless you're, say, the RIAA or some equally techless bunch of losers, thugs, and criminals.
What you're saying there is that the guys who were running these servers were as stupid concerning that workings of the network as e.g. you which they obviously were not, since they were running servers and could not possibliy have been so naive as to believe in the fairy tale of "anonymity on the intrenet".
Jeez, where'd you pick that up, some "introduction to the Internet for hoplessly paper-bound law clerks?
Uh huh. Rosa parks wasn't "protesting" - she just wanted to sit down. Same with Thereaux. Probably the same with the Boston Tea Party - you think those guys were sitting around the pub muttering about going to the Govoner to get the law changed? Hell no they weren't. They were mad as hell and went out and committed a crime.
Besides, I was addresssing that dumbshits over general statement about laws and how the should be treated by the population. He is advocating that people be Sheep, and I can in no way agree with that. I don't believe that was ever the intent of th framers of the Constitution, and that is the highest Law of the Land, whether you like it or not.
disingenuous to compare copyright infringement to the civil rights movement and the US government to the dictators.
Yeah well, it's kind of a no-brainer if you spend 15 to 20 minutes in Reality as opposed to whatever pile of sand you've got your head buried in these days...
What the RIAA is doing is blatently illegal. Why not suggest to them that they obey the law instead of trying lame snipes at the/. population. The Federal government is systematically and thoroughly violating ever precept of the founding documents of the nation and bragging about it in international media. Tell them to "work to change the law, but don't break it".
The disingenutity here is yours, friend. Grab a crate and have at, you're wasting time, here.
f you don't like the law, work to change it. Don't think that you can get away with breaking it because you don't believe in it.
By god you are one smug asshole! Don't they teach Civil Disobedience in school these days? I take it you're not a citizen of the US?
You just came out against the entire Civil Rights movement, Henry David Thereaux, and most of the Founding Fathers of the US of A.
You think the suffragettes should not have gone to jail to get sufferage?... the list is fukking endless - these events are taking place in the United States, not the USSR. It is not only traditional to fight unjust laws by breaking them, it's widely accepted as a form of protest.
I'm guessing you are a citizen of some Islamic theocracy? Or perhaps a communist or fascist totalitarian state? Many dictators would have agreed with you quickly and completely, but - as I believe I mentioned - this is the US you're talking about, an the Regime is only trying to lock it down, they haven't actually succeeded in suppressing all dissent just yet...
Yes, the so-called "business" community in the US is a source of ongoing amazement, if not outright entertainment...
Funny thing is, nobody made any secret of this. American business read the analyses, agreed with it, and gave up the business rather than invest in something that wouldn't make money within a year. European businesses were nearly as foolish.
Well, I do feel constrainted to point out that the Americans and the Europeans - ever the masters of the Brute Force algorithm - have done their best to corner - or at least gate - the world's energy supply. Clearly they understand that all that is required for them to appear successful by their own (admittedly flawed) standards is to maintain their strangle-hold on e.g. peteroleum - after all, what good is a car without fuel? So why should we maintain our edge in Steel when we have Petro? Narrow? Yes. Short-sighted? Yes. But it looks to remain as a very large funnel for world economies at least until the current generation of power-mongers dies out. And note the pretetious efforts to co-opt what they think is the next generation of "leaders" into their flawed paradigm. Fortunately for the world, it doesn't look like next generation of war-mongers will have anything even remotely resembling the kind of technology that should be their birthright - a situation directly traceable to their forefathers complete lack of emphasis on sustainable economics.
it would sure be nice if someone with a lot of money would step up and fund more research that isn't commercially viable
What're you, crazy? Why would anyone with a lot of money want to fund something not commercially viable? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to make it commercially viable by funding, then marketting it?
Furthermore, Eternal Life is nothing if not commercially viable. Chuches have been proving that for at least 2000 years, now. And I'm pretty sure that if I had a product or method in had that would bestow immortaility - hey, my children's children's children' children down to the nth generation wouldn't be able to spend all the "commercial viability" of such a product - even considering their own eterenal existence...
Or maybe you have some alternative definition of "commerce" and/or "viable" ?
Okay, I'm going to try to summarize some of this stuff, 'cause I am way out at the limits of my abiility to implement any of it before the end of the week, and I need to be able to show some sort of progress, at least in the analysis phase of the design.... Please be free to correct any or all of this - correction of design errors is always a lot cheaper early on, regardless of whether the design is hardware or software...
From your remarks about the discontinuous nature of the WiFi signal, it sounds like the thing is behavious somewhat analogous an Ethernet signal in a wire. That may sound like a no-brainer, but I am accustomed to thinking of RF in terms of "carrier" frequencies that don't just stop and start, so please be patient... Anyway - the "burst" refered to is a collection of packets manfisting as an RF signal? Can you point me at some kind of a "how it works" source for info on this? I think it might be a good idea if I did some homework before I continue harrassing the good denizens of/. lest I ulitmately annoy them, thereby deprving myself of useful information altogether.
A common point in your posts seems to be the need for a micro-controller. As I understand what you are saying, that microcontroller is required in order to have any reasonable fascimile of the traditional concept of "hardwiring" an input to the RF core. Based on your description of the problems involved, I find that eminently reasonable - a small thing to ask, in fact, given the scope of the problem. I want one too, now.
Which (somewhat lame) summary (of course) leads me directly to additional questions:
How much processor is required? 8-bit 10Mhz? 24-bit DSP? (how much RAM/ROM obviously goes along with this)
You mentioned in one post that the ASIC has a micro-controller integrated. Are we talking about another uC in addition to that one, or was the one in the ASIC still theoretical?
And then - given that I don't have 20k^+ on me right now to purchase one of the official versions of this type of product - is anyone currently selling this kind of a design as the fabled $20US widget? Is anyone working on it? If not, could you (or - assuming there is such a person - someone like you) produce a working design for one for, say, $10k US?
Slashdot Mirror
True. That definition is definitely in flux, these days. Something that should probably be addressed at a governmental level, in fact, since it seems that the probability of having to prosectute "War" against something other than another country has gone way up in this first decade of the 21st century. It may actually be that there needs to be a legislative means to authorize things like the War on Terror. I was really thinking post-9/11 that there would be Congressional Declaration of War as defined in the Constitution and as we saw at the US entry into WWI and WWII.
The last handful of military actions the US has been invovled in did not have a Congressional Declaration, and I think they tended to loose focus largely for that reason. I think the War on Terror is in danger of loosing focus in much the same way.
It may be that, given modern methods, we (and Congress) should think of a Declaration of War more as a military mobilization that can be either short or long term. There's no real reason, imo, that Congress could not have declared War on Osama bin Ladin - regardless of the fact that he is not a nation per se. That would allow the prosecution of action against him using tradition methods (if not traditional materiel) - i.e. the whole problem of "enemy combatant" status questions would be obviated. I think it would be useful to have clear definitions in all matters relating to War - Who is the enemy? When will the state of War be ended? Stuff like that.
The situation of uncertainty of who the enemy is, what to do with him when we catch him, how long is this going to go on, etc is, imo, bad for the morale of the population, if not the troops. This would be pretty simple to fix, I think, if Congress would "get a clue" (note that this is not something that the executive branch could do easily, imo).
I can only agree. I think there are some solutions to this, technologically speaking, though. If we think of the soldier as a weapon and go for the goal of expanding his reach, accuracy, and mobility - in general all the things that make a soldier an effective weapon - I think there's a lot that can be done. I think the SWORD thing is just a formal announcement that the military is interested in looking further into that.
I think we should exploit such advantage as we have while we have it, too. That is, the enemy in this case is low-tech - there's no real reason why we shouldn't overwhelm them with whatever we've got, including tech. That may not be as practical if and when we get into it with an enemy who is capable of techological countermeasures, but for now I think we should throw as may "robots" at them as we can throw together - there's no real reason to give them the satisfaction of blowing up a soldier just because they don't make it all the way to paradise for blowing up a machine ...
Definitely not. Well, not this thread, anyway. I haven't looked at any of your other ones. You come across as thoughtful and well-spoken, here.
Interesting. It's not clear what your post has to do with the topic, in but I do understand your need to re-assert a couple of you points, given that they remain unprovable, and I know many of you are striving to find that "how many assertions does it take to make a fact" threshold. I'm surprised you haven't been mod'd up, yet...
Unfortunately for the citizens of the United States of America and for the health of its democratic process, your assertion is completely unprovable. In fact, evidence to the contrary is manifest and abundant.
The reality of your alleged majority is, in fact, being closely questioned by some who are more concerned with the accuaracy of the answer than you appear to be. The Truth of the matter remains to be seen, pomp, circumstance, and wealthy rednecks notwithstanding....
So you presume to speak for those who "hate" bush? Are you one of them?
Well, the British in that circumstance weren't crazed Right-wing fanatics trying fulfil a 2000-year-old prophecy, as the Bush Regime is. And the British didn't have the military capacity to split the planet into chunks of rapidly cooling space debris, as the Bush Regime does. I don't really see the basis of your analogy?
I think more to the point speculation in this case would be "Would you still be calling the Ukraine a democracy if the re-counts there had been suppressed?"
While the parent may have been flamebaiting in tone, I think question is legit. It was about foremost in my mind after reading the article, anyway, and I'm sure it will come up in military circles as these things are deployed...
The SWORDS are weapons, clearly, regardless of relative sophistication, so the historical comparisons you make are good ones, imo.
Having long been an advocate of push-button, automated warfare (when warfare is required) I am most interested in your statement
I've talked to quite a few soldiers (including officers of various ranks) - mostly retired - since the 1991 Gulf War, and I remain unconvinced that the nature of War in the 21st Century should remain what it has been throughout history.
It becomes increasingly questionable in situations like Iraq, imo, since - at the strategic level - there is no requirement that the incoming force (the US) actually hold the ground once the entrenched force (the Saddam Hussein's troops) have been overthrown.
Iraq is even more of a "police action" than Vietnam, in that respect. The Warfare portion of the action proper could - it seems to me - be accomplished entirely thru remotely activated, automated weapons. Only the "reconstruction" portions of the action actually require a human presence, and arguably that could be re-thought, as well.
I don't really see that the US has done anything to date in Iraq that - given a sufficiently sophisticated robotic weapon (probably not much beyond what the SWORD described in the article) - couldn't have been done by e.g. Marines in aboard a naval vessel offshore with a bunch of PlayStation consoles and a high-speed radio link... I'm not trying to demean the troops, here understand - I'm speaking strategicly to the point that we're not supposed to be occupying the place.
Of course, the other thing the stories didn't mention - and that hasn't shown up in this discussion (as far as I've read so far) is the low-tech defense against these robots: Attacks against the control center. They're talking fairly short range control links - "a few miles" I think it said. That still has the operators in harms way.
Well, neither do "The Ten Commandments" but that doesn't stop "experts" from talking about them all the time.
Don't you mean 'MSNBC censors' ? Probably should include ABC, CBC, CNN, and Fox censors, as well, just to make sure your attrocities can be sold to the highest bidder after editting instead of just randomly played 'live' ....
True enough. It is Dick Cheney that is the hick from Wyoming that got tossed out of Yale ... which is why US policy is "redneck" - it's not Bush setting policy, it is that Cheney has been working his way into a position to mandate this policy since he went to work for Dick Nixon. Dubya is Cheney's fukboy, that's all. Dubya is a pantywaist east coast liberal compared to Hard Dick Cheney.
... are also the bin Ladin family and the Saudi Royal family. Probably Saddam Hussein before the Bush family turned on him.
And don't forget that Master of War Profiteering: Dick Cheney
Halliburton is just one of the war efforts he controls.
Well, the original phrase was
and I was counting it as
The RIAA and MPAA and Slashdot Trolls are philosphically indistinguishable, imo, although they seem to go by different names depending on the context. The 3 terms could, of course, be re-combined in other ways to create a redundancy count greater than 3, but I figured that would be redundant...
E Publius Unum
Actually, no. I'm suggesting that you go fuck yourself, you self-important prick. But I'm not surprised that that fact went quite over your air-filled head...
Yeah? Well..... have you read the Constitution.... on weed?
Well very well, then. I suggest (further) that you have this poorly framed and badly presented argument with yourself - you seem to be doing quite well without me contibuting anything at all to it except perhaps the odd epithet. You can make up a positilon that you can imagine you opponent to have, then you can cleverly demolish that argument by raising counter arguments that your imaginary opponent will decline to answer because of your l33t pseudo-intellcetual assertions with respect to being able to read and and imply simple concept like "dogmatic fundamentalism" which you can fling at your imagary opponent like a monkey flings pooh.
I'm not interested in your gradeschool gibberish, your constructed oppposing fallacies, or your pitiful high school debating tactics; in short, you need to pigeonhole me so badly you're just pathetic. Quit embarassing yourself.
I was just flaming some dumbass who was obviously and completely misguided, and you thought I might be interested in your opinion of my views. I'm not. I know damn well I'm right, and you do too, you just can't let yourself admit it, for whatever reasons, and frankly, I don't care what those reasons are. They're just excuses that keep you from being right, and the sooner you recognize that the better off you'll be.
Call back when you grow up - or get a clue - whichever comes first.
Aha! And you don't go to the library, either! I knew it...
You call that "calling bullshit" !? That's all you've got? LoL. Okay. You might not believe it, but I not only tried to compare (sp!) the causes, I actually did. Imagine that! I don't really give a shit what you think they were trying to do because you're obviously a toid. If what I said is a slap in the face to any of those I named, I will be more than happy to take it up with them or anyone who actually supports their causes directly. You obviously don't qualify, since you are the one who so clearly stated that what they had done was wrong.
Well, you're a dumbass as defined by me. And I am a law. Like it or not. So there.
Go back and read yourconstitution, baby. Learn some of the history that goes with it, and then start for gods sake acting like one. You should eb ashamed that you can claim citizenship yet can't recognize crime - violation of law - unless it's point out to you by the minions of some rackateers who are just trying to enforce their consumerist doctrine.
And I'm supposed to care why, exactly? Or was that for other's benefit - a little newspeak to counter-act some plain talk, perhaps ...
Well, just be glad I'm not a bot. Are you?
Well, okay, but I stipulate that you're a moron and a troll.
Damn. You're a bot, aren't you [ThousandStars]? I wondered why your constructs seemed a litle off kilter; I guess I should be embarassed. Regardless, you failed the Turing Test, this time....
How's about you get over yer muther, dimbulb. Who the fuk do you think you are to say what is Civil Disobediance and what is not? One man's act of defiance, doncha know...
Hah! That's good for a laugh. Get a clue, dumbass. That little tidbit never was true, and belief in it is a good 10 years out of date - unless you're, say, the RIAA or some equally techless bunch of losers, thugs, and criminals.
What you're saying there is that the guys who were running these servers were as stupid concerning that workings of the network as e.g. you which they obviously were not, since they were running servers and could not possibliy have been so naive as to believe in the fairy tale of "anonymity on the intrenet".
Jeez, where'd you pick that up, some "introduction to the Internet for hoplessly paper-bound law clerks?
That clause is triply redundant.
A beautiful post, though, thanks.
Uh huh. Rosa parks wasn't "protesting" - she just wanted to sit down. Same with Thereaux. Probably the same with the Boston Tea Party - you think those guys were sitting around the pub muttering about going to the Govoner to get the law changed? Hell no they weren't. They were mad as hell and went out and committed a crime.
Besides, I was addresssing that dumbshits over general statement about laws and how the should be treated by the population. He is advocating that people be Sheep, and I can in no way agree with that. I don't believe that was ever the intent of th framers of the Constitution, and that is the highest Law of the Land, whether you like it or not.
Yeah well, it's kind of a no-brainer if you spend 15 to 20 minutes in Reality as opposed to whatever pile of sand you've got your head buried in these days...
What the RIAA is doing is blatently illegal. Why not suggest to them that they obey the law instead of trying lame snipes at the /. population. The Federal government is systematically and thoroughly violating ever precept of the founding documents of the nation and bragging about it in international media. Tell them to "work to change the law, but don't break it".
The disingenutity here is yours, friend. Grab a crate and have at, you're wasting time, here.
Wake up and smell the cabbages.
By god you are one smug asshole! Don't they teach Civil Disobedience in school these days? I take it you're not a citizen of the US?
You just came out against the entire Civil Rights movement, Henry David Thereaux, and most of the Founding Fathers of the US of A.
You think the suffragettes should not have gone to jail to get sufferage? ... the list is fukking endless - these events are taking place in the United States, not the USSR. It is not only traditional to fight unjust laws by breaking them, it's widely accepted as a form of protest.
I'm guessing you are a citizen of some Islamic theocracy? Or perhaps a communist or fascist totalitarian state? Many dictators would have agreed with you quickly and completely, but - as I believe I mentioned - this is the US you're talking about, an the Regime is only trying to lock it down, they haven't actually succeeded in suppressing all dissent just yet...
Never. Admit. Anything.
Funny, that was exactly my advice for Rush Limbaugh...
Corporate "bad stuff" filter caught it...
Hey, I like it!
Here's a minimally CGI enabled version: foggy_cgi.txt
Yes, the so-called "business" community in the US is a source of ongoing amazement, if not outright entertainment...
Well, I do feel constrainted to point out that the Americans and the Europeans - ever the masters of the Brute Force algorithm - have done their best to corner - or at least gate - the world's energy supply. Clearly they understand that all that is required for them to appear successful by their own (admittedly flawed) standards is to maintain their strangle-hold on e.g. peteroleum - after all, what good is a car without fuel? So why should we maintain our edge in Steel when we have Petro? Narrow? Yes. Short-sighted? Yes. But it looks to remain as a very large funnel for world economies at least until the current generation of power-mongers dies out. And note the pretetious efforts to co-opt what they think is the next generation of "leaders" into their flawed paradigm. Fortunately for the world, it doesn't look like next generation of war-mongers will have anything even remotely resembling the kind of technology that should be their birthright - a situation directly traceable to their forefathers complete lack of emphasis on sustainable economics.
What're you, crazy? Why would anyone with a lot of money want to fund something not commercially viable? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to make it commercially viable by funding, then marketting it?
Furthermore, Eternal Life is nothing if not commercially viable. Chuches have been proving that for at least 2000 years, now. And I'm pretty sure that if I had a product or method in had that would bestow immortaility - hey, my children's children's children' children down to the nth generation wouldn't be able to spend all the "commercial viability" of such a product - even considering their own eterenal existence...
Or maybe you have some alternative definition of "commerce" and/or "viable" ?
I've got adult ADD, you insensitive clod! I can't prusue my own interests for a week, let long 935 years!
Okay, I'm going to try to summarize some of this stuff, 'cause I am way out at the limits of my abiility to implement any of it before the end of the week, and I need to be able to show some sort of progress, at least in the analysis phase of the design.... Please be free to correct any or all of this - correction of design errors is always a lot cheaper early on, regardless of whether the design is hardware or software...
Which (somewhat lame) summary (of course) leads me directly to additional questions:
And then - given that I don't have 20k^+ on me right now to purchase one of the official versions of this type of product - is anyone currently selling this kind of a design as the fabled $20US widget? Is anyone working on it? If not, could you (or - assuming there is such a person - someone like you) produce a working design for one for, say, $10k US?