Stop making excuses and justifications for this behavior by "elected" leaders. Pack your bags, gather your family, take your intelligence and talent (and savings - while you can!) - and leave this sorry ass country behind. Go somewhere and create a new life where you will be respected and appreciated. Don't think such a place exists? Get a passport...and then look forward to dumping it for a new and improved one in the future.
Or we could, you know, not be a bunch of chickenshits, and actually stand the fuck up for ourselves. Well, OK, maybe not a cut-and-run pussy like yourself, but the rest of us...
Seriously, guys, the only reason they get away with this kind of shit is because we let them, and we let them because we're too busy either looking for an exit like this asshole, or arguing with each other about trivial nonsense.
You want to effect change? Just stand up. That's it - Just. Stand. Up.
use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers
However, I don't think they go to the trouble of enforcing this very often.
They will, if enough people start running their own mail servers.
The only amendment that I think is currently being observed, mainly out of practical considerations rather than any sort of effort to try and find ways to avoid its observation, is the 3rd amendment.
Depends on how you define "soldier."
If we only define it as actual humans in uniforms, then yea, they respect it.
However, if we also include "agents," such as the kind one would find within a computer network...
the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.
Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution. They can "pass" all the bullshit "laws" they want, but the fact remains that there is not a soul in the federal government who has the power to supersede our Constitutional Liberties. The only, ONLY legitimate way to alter the content of said document would be via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures, or by the formation of a Constitutional Congress. Neither of these events have occurred, therefore your right to tell us that the NSA is trying to force you to turn over your encryption keys stands firm. Fuck you Stasi dogfuckers ('cuz I know you're skimming this).
FYI, by making such a statement, and doing as they tell you, you're only helping them perpetuate the myth that they can do this kind of shit and get away with it.
A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare. If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.
Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.
A non-inclusive answer is that the energy stored in a capacitor rises with the square of the voltage, so what you want for really high energy density is very high voltage caps. But, along with that, when you discharge them, you're relying on an extremely quick discharge so you get huge amounts of amperage out of them (discharge current = voltage / time) so you also need massive current-carrying capability for the plates and wiring. That means fairly specialized capacitors.
So, basically what you're saying is that it's possible, but difficult and costly at our current level of technological achievement?
What sort of figures should I be looking for here? Like, in this chart, what are the relevant columns? I'm guessing "Rated Voltage" and "Energy." Oh, and of course the "Cap" listing.
Probably just that this is a friggen PROTOTYPE (FTS), indicating that they WILL build a deadly version of this. Shit, who the fuck doesn't understand how "progress" works?
I'm pretty sure our first ICBM prototype wasn't a water-pump model with a warhead on the top of it.
Apples and oranges - an ICBM is based on long existing and well-vetted technology rocket-based weapons technology; it's more akin to the not-yet-existing "deadly version" mentioned by OP than the prototype. Even the "first ICBM prototype" was based on pretty well known, time tested stuff.
You'd be more accurate if you compared this prototype to, say, Goddard's rockets from the early 20th Century.
A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare. If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.
Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Electronic voting just makes it easier to rig elections.
I presumed that's what they meant by "modernize the electoral process"
Stop making excuses and justifications for this behavior by "elected" leaders. Pack your bags, gather your family, take your intelligence and talent (and savings - while you can!) - and leave this sorry ass country behind. Go somewhere and create a new life where you will be respected and appreciated. Don't think such a place exists? Get a passport...and then look forward to dumping it for a new and improved one in the future.
Or we could, you know, not be a bunch of chickenshits, and actually stand the fuck up for ourselves. Well, OK, maybe not a cut-and-run pussy like yourself, but the rest of us...
Seriously, guys, the only reason they get away with this kind of shit is because we let them, and we let them because we're too busy either looking for an exit like this asshole, or arguing with each other about trivial nonsense.
You want to effect change? Just stand up. That's it - Just. Stand. Up.
Found it!
Under "Technical Restrictions," they list
use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network
content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises
LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited
equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy
services and servers
However, I don't think they go to the trouble of enforcing this very often.
They will, if enough people start running their own mail servers.
Does anyone have replacement recommendations for the NSA?
A rotting stump.
People had offline-only consoles for a long time before the Dreamcast was the first (?) to have an online mode, and pretty much failed.
Point of Clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBAND
Yea, it sucked pretty hard, too.
some of you people are crazy. spend lots of money to bypass some feature that costs less than the workaround
Yea, but they get to hand money over to a different corporation. So, you know, like, totally different, man.
Fight the power!
They can and will get away with it, because they have more and bigger guns than we do. The war is over, my friend. We lost.
With an attitude like that, yes you have.
May I assume tat you will fund such challenges for these violations? Or are we all talk?
With my life, if need be.
What about you? Will you stand up and put your ass on the line for Liberty, or are snarky retorts all you bring to the table?
The only amendment that I think is currently being observed, mainly out of practical considerations rather than any sort of effort to try and find ways to avoid its observation, is the 3rd amendment.
Depends on how you define "soldier."
If we only define it as actual humans in uniforms, then yea, they respect it.
However, if we also include "agents," such as the kind one would find within a computer network...
I will say this, every time I've seen an accident or been hit in one, the other driver had a phone in their hand. I'm curious who funded this study.
After skimming the first couple pages, I'm a bit offended that this qualifies as a "scientific study."
Basically, the "researchers" looked at a couple of graphs, and said, "OOH! Look! A correlation! CORRELATION == CAUSATION!!! WE GEE-NYUS-SES!"
The crocodiles in Pearls Before Swine do better research.
as long as the supreme court will back up congress they certainly do have that authority.
No, as long as the Supreme Court will back up Congress on creating illegal legislation, they are complicit.
Criminal A 'having the back' Criminal B does not legitimize their crimes.
Ah, yes, thank you for the clarification.
I've had a copy of Garfield's Book of Insults, Put-Downs, and Slams since it was published in 1994, and I have to say, some of the best burns I've ever heard were contained therein.
No, seriously.
Just like at the movie theater!
Oops, wrong reference...
I like my women like I like my coffee - ground up and in the freezer.
Damn AC, beat me to it!
the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.
Congress does not have the authority to violate the Constitution. They can "pass" all the bullshit "laws" they want, but the fact remains that there is not a soul in the federal government who has the power to supersede our Constitutional Liberties. The only, ONLY legitimate way to alter the content of said document would be via a Constitutional Amendment approved by 2/3 of all state legislatures, or by the formation of a Constitutional Congress. Neither of these events have occurred, therefore your right to tell us that the NSA is trying to force you to turn over your encryption keys stands firm. Fuck you Stasi dogfuckers ('cuz I know you're skimming this).
FYI, by making such a statement, and doing as they tell you, you're only helping them perpetuate the myth that they can do this kind of shit and get away with it.
The phone will be worth over $1000 when it ships.
My ass. Who pays over a grand for a cell phone?
I am loading up.
I recommend running that decision past your financial adviser before you finalize it.
Or not - what do I care if you sink your own ship?
This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.
If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html
A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.
Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer?
Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.
A non-inclusive answer is that the energy stored in a capacitor rises with the square of the voltage, so what you want for really high energy density is very high voltage caps. But, along with that, when you discharge them, you're relying on an extremely quick discharge so you get huge amounts of amperage out of them (discharge current = voltage / time) so you also need massive current-carrying capability for the plates and wiring. That means fairly specialized capacitors.
So, basically what you're saying is that it's possible, but difficult and costly at our current level of technological achievement?
What sort of figures should I be looking for here? Like, in this chart, what are the relevant columns? I'm guessing "Rated Voltage" and "Energy." Oh, and of course the "Cap" listing.
Thanks for the info thus far, BTW.
Why do this? You could make anything with a 3D printer, what does it say about you that you only want to make weapons?
How about making a computer case? A motorbike? A fembot?
TL;DR, huh?
Didn't even bother with the summary...
Probably just that this is a friggen PROTOTYPE (FTS), indicating that they WILL build a deadly version of this. Shit, who the fuck doesn't understand how "progress" works?
I'm pretty sure our first ICBM prototype wasn't a water-pump model with a warhead on the top of it.
Apples and oranges - an ICBM is based on long existing and well-vetted technology rocket-based weapons technology; it's more akin to the not-yet-existing "deadly version" mentioned by OP than the prototype. Even the "first ICBM prototype" was based on pretty well known, time tested stuff.
You'd be more accurate if you compared this prototype to, say, Goddard's rockets from the early 20th Century.
This kind of gauss weapon is not new. The big limitation is power.
If you're the U.S. Navy, with a nuclear power plant aboard your aircraft carrier, a railgun is easy to power:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html
A rifle? Catch Doc Brown next time he stops over in 2013. Maybe he has an extra Mr. Fusion to spare.
If you throw that in a backpack, maybe you can power your handheld rifle for a few shots.
Couldn't BFC's (Big Fucking Capacitors) be used to store charges? Like the kind you would get from a car stereo dealer?
Can anyone explain why they would/wouldn't work? I'm fairly newbish when it comes to the intricacies of electronics, and trying my best to develop a healthy understanding.
lol, been a while since I've see that one.
Still, were I in Vincent's shoes, I probably would have responded the same way.
Dude - most people clean their food before trying to cook/eat it.
1. Don't eat dolphin
2. Don't eat pigs
(...2500 years of science passes in which the level of consciousness of various animals is "discovered", leading to the ethical stipulations...)
1. Don't eat dolphin
2. Don't eat pigs
We could have saved a lot of time here. Just sayin'.
Hey, if pigs didn't want to be eaten they shouldn't have evolved to be so gorram delicious.
Were the founding fathers responding negatively when they had the Boston tea party?
Not to mention how they responded to the British attempts at disarming Lexington and Concord...
Worked out pretty well for us, in the end.