The 1977 Atari console has digitized speech (Quadrun)
The 1979 Atari 800 (and 5200) also did digitized speech. Anything IBM PCs could do, Ataris and Commodores usually got there 5-10 years earlier. They had the advantage of Jay Miner and Bob Yannes doing their sound and video engineering, and both were geniuses.
I could kiss you. THANK you for sharing those music videos. It really brings back memories, and makes me want to load SIDplay of PAULAplay to hear the classics again.
I have a 386SX (sits on a 16 bit databus). Does that make it a 16 bit CPU?;-)
I remember when the Pentiums first arrived. They were a mere 66 megahertz, which meant the Intel 80486/100s and AMD 486/133s were actually faster at executing operations. Pentiums also had a design-bug which further hurt their reputation.
Meanwhile I was using 68040 Macs and 68060 Amigas and laughing at the Intel/IBM PC owners with their buggy Pentiums. Of course once the 68000 series was discontinued, I wasn't laughing so much.:-|
Hence the need for a new amendment, since the Supreme Court is not doing a proper job of protecting our first, ninth, tenth, or State-level rights. "If a drawing looks like a child having sex, it's banned," should not even exist as a crime - there's no victim. Therefore we need this:
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act. ----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII. Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
.
With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional.
That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time in the courtroom.
>>>there were many legitimate gripes, but even if Microsoft had fixed those, a user would still have the preconceived notion.
"Windows Mohave" - Vista with a new paint job. Oh wait. That's what they did with Seven.;-) If they wanted to be completely honest, they could have named it "NT 6.1" and charged a minor $10 fee for a downloadable upgrade for existing vista users. It would have had the same effect of negating the vista negativity. ----- To charge $200 for what is basically just Vista Bugfixed Version (and mislabel 6.1 as 7.0) is as dishonest as if I had to pay $200 to get XP-SP3.
Anybody with even a smidgen of common sense can see we didn't get a new OS. Microsoft jumped from NT 4 to NT5 (XP) to NT6 (vista)..... the logical next jump would be NT7, but instead they released a mere bugfix (6.1) and charged full price.
I wonder what they'll call NT7 when they eventually get-around to releasing it? They've already used the "seven" name.
>>>>>or MAC OS 10.6.0 is to 10.6.1 >>> >>>No, as 10.5 is to 10.6.
No I had it right the first time. When Apple jumps from 10.4 to 10.5 to 10.6, it's truly a new OS, with major changes to the software. When Microsoft jumped from NT 6 to NT 6.1 (vista to seven), it was more akin to Apple's 10.6.0 to 10.6.1 revisions. Or XP-SP2 to XP-SP3.
In all honesty, I think Seven should have been Vista SP3, provided either free or for a nominal fee (say $10). It doesn't deserve to be a whole other OS costing ~$200. It's just Vista cleaned-up.
The next OS should have been NT 7.0 - a full jump, just as we made a full jump from NT4 to NT5 (XP) to NT6 (vista).
Hence the need for a new amendment, since the Supreme Court is not doing a proper job of protecting our first, ninth, tenth, or State-level rights. "If a drawing looks like a child having sex, it's banned," should not even exist as a crime - there's no victim. Therefore we need this:
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
.
With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional.
That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time in the courtroom.
>>>If you don't like the laws of a country then don't go there.
Okay. We Americans are good at this.:-) .
>>>Its up to Aussie citizens to vote in people to make the laws governing them.
Yes and as I SAID quite clearly - I don't understand why Aussies put-up with these anti-human-rights laws. I sure as hell wouldn't if I lived there. You setup a strawman argument that had nothing to do with what I originally said.
Cost? It used to be done with machines like the Atari 800 (1 MHz) and Commodore Amiga (7 MHz) running BBS software. That's like 1% demand on a modern CPU - the cost to host text-only groups like rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.startrek.current would be minimal. Heck Google Groups does it for free.
There's really no justifiable excuse for Duke or ISPs to eliminate usenet for their local users.
Not correct. My dollars are my votes. I have far more control over the policies of Microsoft (by simply boycotting them and encouraging others to do the same), than I do over Congress. We the People literally hold the power to bankrupt corporations out of existence (see circuit city). We have no such power over the U.S. government.
And then they face legal consequences (like Toyota who is facing seversl class action suits). When the government kills people outright, who gets punished? Nobody. Even the U.S. government is guilty of experimenting upon (and killing) its own citizens, and the people responsible never faced justice.
I still insist that while corporations are suppressors, they are only 1/1000th as dangerous as a government which has the power of the army to suppress individual liberty. Look at the previous century (1910 to now). Almost 100,000,000 people were killed *by their own governments*. Corporations killed how many during that time? A few hundred? And it was mostly by accident/neglect..... not on purpose with gas chambers, machetes, and bullets. .
>>>We need the same sort of safeguards built into our economic system as well.
We do. It's called the Courts. Again see Toyota and the multiple lawsuits they are facing.
>>>Taxation and regulation of interstate commerce are powers mentioned in the Constitution.
But whether or not I buy hospital insurance is INTRA state regulation. The transaction occurs between me and my agent, both of whom are located inside this state. Neither I nor my money ever crosses the border. Congress was granted authority "AMONG the several states", not inside the states.
>>>Odds of winning hitting the jackpot in a 6/49 Lotto: 1 in 13,983,816.
>>>Odds of getting cancer before age 40.....
Odds of not being able to afford the ~$30,000 chemotherapy & thus being bankrupted by cancer, before age 40 - 1 in 100,000,000 (approximately). Humans are very poor at accessing risk. They see a story on Dateline about a bankrupt patient and automatically assume it's going to happen to them, when in reality they are more likely to win the Lotto.
If you can afford that $30,000 Lexus or SUV sitting in your front drive (times two), you can afford the chemo. You don't need insurance to pay that bill; you can pay it yourself with cash, or in installments.
The current law says hospitals must provide service at the emergency room, even if you have no money. I think that works just fine. Yes the corporation that owns the hospital will try to collect the money from the patient, but they can't collect what poor people don't have, so eventually it comes out of the corporation's (or CEO's) own pocket.
Given the "windfall profits" that corporations earn*, I think they can afford to give-away these free ER visits to poor persons. The $950 fine is not necessary, and only serves to chain us to the insurance companies (buy or else be punished). It is Anti-Choice and anti-liberty.
>>>call it what it is - you're taxed regardless. It's not a fine
A tax is something that applies to everyone, irregardless of their actions. A fine is something that is only applied when you do something wrong (like not buy insurance). It's a punishment for not complying with the wishes of the nobility.
As for your specific links, you have a strange way of looking at things. "Honk if you're paying my mortgage," "Stand idle while a Kenyan destroys America? Homey don't play dat," and "I didn't serve 22 years for socialism" - being held by Black tea party protesters - is clearly an anti-government stance. I don't see how you can interpret it as anything else.
While there are some nutters, that doesn't excuse painting the other 99% of us Tea Party members as "racists" or "violent".
Because we're not. It's stereotyping, and you should rise above that. Else you're just as guilty as those who say, "All blacks are dumb." or "All Jews are thieving bankers." It's the same stupidity.
(1) The Tea Party movement started in 2008..... long before the date you listed. We called ourselves "Tea Partiers" or "Supports of the Tea Party"
(2) This quote does NOT provide any proof that members called themselves "Tea Baggers". I mailed a bag of peanuts to CBS to protest the cancellation of Jericho, but we didn't start calling ourselves "Peanut Baggers". That's just silly. Nobody I knew did that. It was invented by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Olberman, et cetera as an insult (April 2009). That's the first I ever heard the term, and it angered me. (But then they started calling me racist, which made me even more angry.)
(3) You inadvertently provided proof that people of color are part of the Tea Party movement. "Graham Makohoniuk" Sounds Indian or Arabic to me.
>>>You can't sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize child pornography without inherently promoting its production. By doing so you are absolutely complicit in harming the child.
By that reasoning, if I am hosting the images of the Lizzie Borden murder photos on my website, I am inherently promoting the production of more murder photos, and I am complicit in the harming of the parents & should serve jailtime. (See how your argument is flawed? Observers of crime photos, are not the criminals.)
>>>Chill out and stop using AC as a sock puppet. It's the sort of pathetic shit only somebody with a Republican sig.....
If you're talking to me, you missed the mark. I never post anonymously, because I like the automatic +2 boost my posts get. AC's only get a score of 0 (effectively invisible), so I never use AC posting.
>>>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In no time does it make any statement about the freedom of expression. >>>
Yes it does. It's contained in your State Constitution. (Or at least it's in MY state constitution; yours may be different.) So since it's in the state constitution, photographs, art, and other non-speech are protected by State law, and Congress can not overrule that law (per amend.10).
>>>And the same court ruled that porn is not protected.
Bzzz. *Obscenity* is not protected. Porn IS protected (playboy exists). And nude photographs, regardless of age, is also protected - read the Supreme Court cases for yourself. It is why Borders and Barnes&Noble have books filled with naked children in the rear of their stores (photography section).
>>>How is child porn an expression? An expression of what?
In the case of nudists, it's an expression of freedom. Or more simply: A family portrait of mom, dad, and the kids enjoying summer vacation at the beach.
Similarly murder photos are commonplace. They are not outlawed. I can look at the Lizzie Borden murder photos any time I feel like it. The government has NO constitutional authority to outlaw these photos.
When I go to my company's toilet, it has two different flushes: 1 for urine and 2 for solids. I guess now we'll need a 3rd option - Gas collection. "Insert hose into hole to begin procedure"
1 megawatt is really not that impressive. Put another way 1 cow makes 100 watts. So if I wanted to run my central AC (10,000) I'd need to squeeze 100 cows in my basement, plus hire several dump trucks to move tons of feed to my location. Not exactly an energy reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
The 1977 Atari console has digitized speech (Quadrun)
The 1979 Atari 800 (and 5200) also did digitized speech. Anything IBM PCs could do, Ataris and Commodores usually got there 5-10 years earlier. They had the advantage of Jay Miner and Bob Yannes doing their sound and video engineering, and both were geniuses.
I could kiss you. THANK you for sharing those music videos. It really brings back memories, and makes me want to load SIDplay of PAULAplay to hear the classics again.
I have a 386SX (sits on a 16 bit databus). ;-)
Does that make it a 16 bit CPU?
I remember when the Pentiums first arrived. They were a mere 66 megahertz, which meant the Intel 80486/100s and AMD 486/133s were actually faster at executing operations. Pentiums also had a design-bug which further hurt their reputation.
Meanwhile I was using 68040 Macs and 68060 Amigas and laughing at the Intel/IBM PC owners with their buggy Pentiums. Of course once the 68000 series was discontinued, I wasn't laughing so much. :-|
2nd attempt at post:
Hence the need for a new amendment, since the Supreme Court is not doing a proper job of protecting our first, ninth, tenth, or State-level rights. "If a drawing looks like a child having sex, it's banned," should not even exist as a crime - there's no victim. Therefore we need this:
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed.
Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior.
.
With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional.
That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time in the courtroom.
>>>there were many legitimate gripes, but even if Microsoft had fixed those, a user would still have the preconceived notion.
"Windows Mohave" - Vista with a new paint job. Oh wait. That's what they did with Seven. ;-) If they wanted to be completely honest, they could have named it "NT 6.1" and charged a minor $10 fee for a downloadable upgrade for existing vista users. It would have had the same effect of negating the vista negativity. ----- To charge $200 for what is basically just Vista Bugfixed Version (and mislabel 6.1 as 7.0) is as dishonest as if I had to pay $200 to get XP-SP3.
Anybody with even a smidgen of common sense can see we didn't get a new OS. Microsoft jumped from NT 4 to NT5 (XP) to NT6 (vista)..... the logical next jump would be NT7, but instead they released a mere bugfix (6.1) and charged full price.
I wonder what they'll call NT7 when they eventually get-around to releasing it? They've already used the "seven" name.
>>>>>or MAC OS 10.6.0 is to 10.6.1
>>>
>>>No, as 10.5 is to 10.6.
No I had it right the first time. When Apple jumps from 10.4 to 10.5 to 10.6, it's truly a new OS, with major changes to the software. When Microsoft jumped from NT 6 to NT 6.1 (vista to seven), it was more akin to Apple's 10.6.0 to 10.6.1 revisions. Or XP-SP2 to XP-SP3.
In all honesty, I think Seven should have been Vista SP3, provided either free or for a nominal fee (say $10). It doesn't deserve to be a whole other OS costing ~$200. It's just Vista cleaned-up.
The next OS should have been NT 7.0 - a full jump, just as we made a full jump from NT4 to NT5 (XP) to NT6 (vista).
Hence the need for a new amendment, since the Supreme Court is not doing a proper job of protecting our first, ninth, tenth, or State-level rights. "If a drawing looks like a child having sex, it's banned," should not even exist as a crime - there's no victim. Therefore we need this: The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act. ----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII. Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the State legislatures declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. Section 2. The Supreme Court will have the authority to review cases, and as part of the ruling declare these cases constitutional or unconstitutional, however the decision by the States (section 1) shall be superior. . With our current system, you first have to wait until some government arrests you for a crime (for example: owning a gun in Washington DC). Then you have to file in court to defend yourself against this unconstitutional law. In most cases you'll lose, but if you're lucky it can rise to the level of the United States' government court who may or may not declare it unconstitutional. That process took ~30 years to overturn D.C.'s unconstitutional banning of guns. With my proposed amendment, there'd be no need to wait. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided. My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not 30), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or waste time in the courtroom.
>>>If you don't like the laws of a country then don't go there.
Okay. We Americans are good at this. :-)
.
>>>Its up to Aussie citizens to vote in people to make the laws governing them.
Yes and as I SAID quite clearly - I don't understand why Aussies put-up with these anti-human-rights laws. I sure as hell wouldn't if I lived there. You setup a strawman argument that had nothing to do with what I originally said.
Cost? It used to be done with machines like the Atari 800 (1 MHz) and Commodore Amiga (7 MHz) running BBS software. That's like 1% demand on a modern CPU - the cost to host text-only groups like rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.startrek.current would be minimal. Heck Google Groups does it for free.
There's really no justifiable excuse for Duke or ISPs to eliminate usenet for their local users.
Not correct. My dollars are my votes. I have far more control over the policies of Microsoft (by simply boycotting them and encouraging others to do the same), than I do over Congress. We the People literally hold the power to bankrupt corporations out of existence (see circuit city). We have no such power over the U.S. government.
>>>Corporations can kill you outright
And then they face legal consequences (like Toyota who is facing seversl class action suits). When the government kills people outright, who gets punished? Nobody. Even the U.S. government is guilty of experimenting upon (and killing) its own citizens, and the people responsible never faced justice.
I still insist that while corporations are suppressors, they are only 1/1000th as dangerous as a government which has the power of the army to suppress individual liberty. Look at the previous century (1910 to now). Almost 100,000,000 people were killed *by their own governments*. Corporations killed how many during that time? A few hundred? And it was mostly by accident/neglect..... not on purpose with gas chambers, machetes, and bullets.
.
>>>We need the same sort of safeguards built into our economic system as well.
We do. It's called the Courts. Again see Toyota and the multiple lawsuits they are facing.
Are you serious? Are you serious? Come on. It literally took me 30 seconds to find this on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc
And here's a general link for a whole host of Congressmen saying they either don't obey, or don't understand, the Supreme Law they swore to uphold. They should be removed - http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=congressman+constitution&aq=f
.
>>>Taxation and regulation of interstate commerce are powers mentioned in the Constitution.
But whether or not I buy hospital insurance is INTRA state regulation. The transaction occurs between me and my agent, both of whom are located inside this state. Neither I nor my money ever crosses the border. Congress was granted authority "AMONG the several states", not inside the states.
>>>Odds of winning hitting the jackpot in a 6/49 Lotto: 1 in 13,983,816.
>>>Odds of getting cancer before age 40.....
Odds of not being able to afford the ~$30,000 chemotherapy & thus being bankrupted by cancer, before age 40 - 1 in 100,000,000 (approximately). Humans are very poor at accessing risk. They see a story on Dateline about a bankrupt patient and automatically assume it's going to happen to them, when in reality they are more likely to win the Lotto.
If you can afford that $30,000 Lexus or SUV sitting in your front drive (times two), you can afford the chemo. You don't need insurance to pay that bill; you can pay it yourself with cash, or in installments.
>>>Please let me know which one you pick.
The current law says hospitals must provide service at the emergency room, even if you have no money. I think that works just fine. Yes the corporation that owns the hospital will try to collect the money from the patient, but they can't collect what poor people don't have, so eventually it comes out of the corporation's (or CEO's) own pocket.
Given the "windfall profits" that corporations earn*, I think they can afford to give-away these free ER visits to poor persons. The $950 fine is not necessary, and only serves to chain us to the insurance companies (buy or else be punished). It is Anti-Choice and anti-liberty.
*
* to borrow from Hillary Clinton
>>>call it what it is - you're taxed regardless. It's not a fine
A tax is something that applies to everyone, irregardless of their actions. A fine is something that is only applied when you do something wrong (like not buy insurance). It's a punishment for not complying with the wishes of the nobility.
Here's a better search. It negates the claim that Tea Parties are racist or exclusionary: http://www.google.com/images?q=black+tea+party
As for your specific links, you have a strange way of looking at things. "Honk if you're paying my mortgage," "Stand idle while a Kenyan destroys America? Homey don't play dat," and "I didn't serve 22 years for socialism" - being held by Black tea party protesters - is clearly an anti-government stance. I don't see how you can interpret it as anything else.
While there are some nutters, that doesn't excuse painting the other 99% of us Tea Party members as "racists" or "violent".
Because we're not. It's stereotyping, and you should rise above that. Else you're just as guilty as those who say, "All blacks are dumb." or "All Jews are thieving bankers." It's the same stupidity.
(1) The Tea Party movement started in 2008..... long before the date you listed. We called ourselves "Tea Partiers" or "Supports of the Tea Party"
(2) This quote does NOT provide any proof that members called themselves "Tea Baggers". I mailed a bag of peanuts to CBS to protest the cancellation of Jericho, but we didn't start calling ourselves "Peanut Baggers". That's just silly. Nobody I knew did that. It was invented by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Olberman, et cetera as an insult (April 2009). That's the first I ever heard the term, and it angered me. (But then they started calling me racist, which made me even more angry.)
(3) You inadvertently provided proof that people of color are part of the Tea Party movement. "Graham Makohoniuk" Sounds Indian or Arabic to me.
>>>You can't sell, consume, promote, or otherwise utilize child pornography without inherently promoting its production. By doing so you are absolutely complicit in harming the child.
By that reasoning, if I am hosting the images of the Lizzie Borden murder photos on my website, I am inherently promoting the production of more murder photos, and I am complicit in the harming of the parents & should serve jailtime. (See how your argument is flawed? Observers of crime photos, are not the criminals.)
>>>Chill out and stop using AC as a sock puppet. It's the sort of pathetic shit only somebody with a Republican sig .....
If you're talking to me, you missed the mark. I never post anonymously, because I like the automatic +2 boost my posts get. AC's only get a score of 0 (effectively invisible), so I never use AC posting.
>>>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In no time does it make any statement about the freedom of expression.
>>>
Yes it does. It's contained in your State Constitution. (Or at least it's in MY state constitution; yours may be different.) So since it's in the state constitution, photographs, art, and other non-speech are protected by State law, and Congress can not overrule that law (per amend.10).
>>>And the same court ruled that porn is not protected.
Bzzz. *Obscenity* is not protected. Porn IS protected (playboy exists). And nude photographs, regardless of age, is also protected - read the Supreme Court cases for yourself. It is why Borders and Barnes&Noble have books filled with naked children in the rear of their stores (photography section).
>>>How is child porn an expression? An expression of what?
In the case of nudists, it's an expression of freedom. Or more simply: A family portrait of mom, dad, and the kids enjoying summer vacation at the beach.
Similarly murder photos are commonplace. They are not outlawed. I can look at the Lizzie Borden murder photos any time I feel like it. The government has NO constitutional authority to outlaw these photos.
When I go to my company's toilet, it has two different flushes: 1 for urine and 2 for solids. I guess now we'll need a 3rd option - Gas collection. "Insert hose into hole to begin procedure"
1 megawatt is really not that impressive. Put another way 1 cow makes 100 watts. So if I wanted to run my central AC (10,000) I'd need to squeeze 100 cows in my basement, plus hire several dump trucks to move tons of feed to my location. Not exactly an energy reduction.