>>We joked about subjecting our selves as ginuea pigs for him to practice on
I can't understand why it's necessary to practice on people, either for traditional "manual" tatooing or this robotic-style tatooing. Why not use a pork shoulder from the grocery butcher case, instead?
So where does it end? Must we immediately ban gasoline, then? Four gallons = 1 stick of dynamite, after all, and we can't risk some nutcase getting ahold of such a dangerous weapon, can we? Dangerous people in a free society can barely be identified, nevermind controlled. The solution then, certainly, is NOT to disarm the victims; Evil cannot be "banned" and these sort of laws only increases the criminal's effectiveness.
>>includes a 1700 mAh high capacity battery >Perhaps they meant "Mega" here as well? We're talking about a PDA, not a portable Fermi proton-antiproton collider. It's "milli-amp hour," I'm certain.;)
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say that it is everybody's right to bear arms. A well regulated militia is given that right. You, explicity, are not. This is not interpretation, this is what it says.
Then you, sir, cannot read well and niether do you understand history. The Federalist papers (as well as the anti-federalist writings) written by the authors of the Constitution document well the desire for an armed populace. "Well regulated" means well trained, and the "militia clause" states merely one need for an armed populace, not the only reason. It was (and it) well understood that the most effective ultimate measure against tyranny is a populace which cannot be led by force because it posesses the means to fight back. The Miller SCoTUS decision, often championed by anti-gun zealots because of its ban of certain types of weapons (such as sawn-off shotguns). The SCoTUS came to this decision not because they believed that firearm ownership was a collective right, but rather that a sawn-off shotgun was NOT MILITARILY USEFUL. In other words, if a firearm wasn't a useful militar weapon, it wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment. This is precisely why I find some recent laws such as the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (which is really just a ban on scary-looking rifles) a henious violation of not only the 2nd Amendment, but also of prior Supreme Court decisions.
Additionally, All of the the Bill of Rights specifically defines INDIVIDUAL rights, would you agree? Why then, according to your claim, is this not true for the 2nd Amendment? The BoR was written as an explicit guarantee of certain rights that could NEVER be eroded by lawmakers in the future. Time has proven this not to be the case.
I understand your want for the 2nd Amendment to say other than it clearly does, but that does not make it so.
What about the FBI or ATF or frickin navy seals or CIA? You want to disband all of these?
Yes, because I want to live in a Constitional Republic, not a nation of "whatever." The FBI, a Federal police force, is not specified in the Constitution, therefore it is extraconstitional. Ditto for the CIA.
The ATF (more properly, the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) is part of the Department of the Treasury -- a Tax collection agency. When was the last time a BATF agent collected taxes? Yeah, right. They're a Federal police force. Disband them immediately.
The Navy SEALs are another matter entirely. They are an elite force, part of the Navy, which is responsible for the defence of our borders and seas -- a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED role of the Federal government (along with coining of money, regulation of interstate commerce, etc.). The Federal government has its place, and it's role is tightly restricted by the Constitution.
Not mutually exclusive?? Have you NEVER taken a page from history or even bothered to read the newspaper headlines? Either are flush with examples of the exclusitivity of the two. We have had to choose since the Federal Government starting ignoring fundamental components of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). Recent violations, just off the top of my head include: 1st amendment - Campaign Finance "Reform" which prohibits discussion of candidates within 60 days of election. 2nd - gun "control" (what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?) 4th - USA PATRIOT act - collecting library records, planting bugs/wiretaps/searching homes without notifying the owner, etc. 5th - Civil Asset Forfeiture. The police can take your property (money, car, home, etc.) without even charging you with a crime. No kidding. 6th - the imprisionment of American citizens in GitMo for an indefinite period of time, without being charged with a crime or brought to trial. 9th & 10th - The mere existence of the NSA. The Bill of Rights lists merely SOME, not ALL, of the rights of the people, but it clearly states that the Federal government cannot do anything unless it's expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't remember the clause allowing the creation of the National Security Agency.
I challenge you to explain how any of these items simultaneously increase my liberty and my safety, AC. I stand firm: The two are exclusive.
It seems to me that third party contract enforcement is the only way to go.
Not so fast there, Skippy. There is one significant difference between private parties and government; government can use force to get what it wants and private industry cannot. What you're promoting is granting a private party the authority to use force to further its interests. Not a good thing. Why? Picture the MPAA or their hired help with the authority to kick down your door and drag you off to interrogation if they suspect you've violated a term of your licensing agreement. Any questions?
What about harmonics? Any length of wire or any metallic structure in the vehicle's chassis will act as a tuned antenna and pick up (or create) harmonics. This is the real risk. A benign use of a particular frequency can create unintentional interference on another.
This so-called "solution" looks like more of a money-making scheme than a safety system to me.
"Novelty?" That's an unfair characterization of Brooks' work!
Braitenberg has written a 152 page book describing robots that he has thought about creating, using minimalist language and half-explanations which lack necessary detail. As you stated, the first several chapters are only a few pages long and can be understood by a 12-year-old, and the systems "described" in the later chapters may not be possible to implement.
Brooks, by comparison, has created REAL robots which do REAL work and he (and his graduate students) publish detailed papers which explain their methodology, technique and results in detail.
Compared to Braitenberg's book of "what if..." ideas, I suppose Brooks' approach is novel.
"no chapter on the death of the programmer?"
It'll be written right after they write the chapter about the death of their web server!
It's midnight on the east coast US, so I suppose that's mid-day in New Zealand. And right now, spring is dawning and the sun is shining down on the beaches. Yet thanks to us, some poor NZ slob is stuck in the mic.vuw.ac data center trying to get his poor underpowered web server back online. You can bet your life he's cursing the day CmdrTaco was born.
This moment brought to you by Slashdot.
"Judge Seitz also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Web is a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment,'"
Perhaps I should forward some spam to Judge Seitz. I get about ten emails a day with various offers to exhibit, display and sell, uh, stuff.
>>Apple has always had a very positive history of supporting homeschoolers
>A history for which you're rewarding them with your enduring good faith in return, seemingly.
Yes, I'm disappointed. Like the majority of Slashdot readers, my loyalty can be bought. Unlike most/. readers, I admit it.;)
"Out of curiosity, how does someone who home schools work things like tax exemption? Do you have to get it all back in April every year, or what? No, there are no deductions whatsoever. Every dollar spent on textbooks, supplemental classes at the University, field trips, equipment (software, calculators, lab supplies), etc. comes directly out of our family budget. There is no "reimbursement" or tax break of any sort available to us.
Do you have any ID that certifies your status as a home schooler? I'm not trying to explain this Aplpe thing away, just asking. "
Every state is different; some are much more controlling than others. My state has nothing in the way of ID cards, etc. Generally, proof of membership in a homeschool-related organization such as the HomeSchool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA.com) or a copy of the Notice of Intent which declares the homeschool to the state Department of Education is sufficient evidence for retailers that yes, you're a homeschooler.
http://www.apple.com/education/macosxforteachers/i ndex2.html "You must be a K-12 teacher currently employed in a public, private, or charter school to qualify for participation in this program.
This offer is limited to eligible K-12 teachers and is not available to resellers, institutions, home schools, non- teacher K-12 school employees, preservice/student teachers, or higher education faculty (including college of education faculty)."
I'm really quite surprised at this snub. Apple has always had a very positive history of supporting homeschoolers, even offering institutional discounts to HS'ers. Until now, I suppose.
Yeah, but everytime Microsoft gives away/subsidizes MS software to Schools/Universities the whole Slashdot world erupts into riot. The cries of "Monopoly!" and "brainwashing students" and "conflict of interest" are plentiful.
Now Apple decides to give away their next-gen OS and everyone here thinks that's a great gesture.
Double standard? Definitely. Hypocrytical? It sure looks like it.
Re:Chainsaws, Fog Machines and Stage Lighting
on
Fun with Fog Generators
·
· Score: 5, Funny
4 broken windows, $350.00
Paint job to cover hate messages spray-painted onto the side of your roommate's car, $1800
Carpet cleaning to remove the smell of two-cycle oil from the living room, $85.00
Being known to your neighbors as "that Damned Nutcase at the end of the street" and forming a first-name relationship with the police... Priceless!
Although I agree that a longer warranty seems to indicate the manufacturer's faith in a high quality product, one does not guarantee the other. Consider the case of automobiles for a moment; Hyundai offers a much more comprehensive warranty than Toyota. Which is more reliable? Put another way, would you rather have a warranty you need, or a warranty you don't?
Why not use the "belt AND suspenders" approach? Hard drives are incredibly cheap, $1 per gigabyte, or less. Buy two 100gb drives, back up one to the other, and quit worrying.
it will alter the performance of power turbines, jet engines, medical instruments, cell phones and missile guidance systems.
Not so fast there. With the possible exception of the cell phone, none of the systems you've described have any application whatsoever to digital rights management and the idea that DRM code will "somehow" find its way into every IC / processor, even when such application is utterly useless and contrary to the design constraints (and adds substantial costs) is simply unfettered paranoia. Code doesn't just "appear" by itself and attempts to push meaningless extentions of technology into areas which may risk lives is not going to happen. I can assure you that Boeing's fuel management control systems are not built from parts purchased at pricewatch.com, the differential resonance processor in an MRI isn't a.Net Managed Code resource, and the Navy isn't sourcing on-board trajectory guidance modules from RadioShack catalogs. Legislation that attempts to make that happen isn't going to fly because it would cripple the very industries that rely on technology to succeed and form the heart of Western industry. Even the worst case, the one you've predicted, isn't that bad; we'll just do like we always have -- if they build a higher wall, we build a taller latter. It's simple, really.
Look, I don't want to dismiss your ideas outright. In fact, I share your feelings about DRM -- In its present form it only protects the rights of the corporations, not the rights of the consumer. (In that regard, it should be called "Digital Restrictions Management.") However, this article furthers the same "idea taken to an extreme" paranoia that made people worry whether their car would start Y2K morning.
So relax; take a deep breath and go find something substantial to worry about. There are enough big problems out there without sweating the details of something incredibly unlikely to affect the world in the way you've described.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the post's second paragraph?
If you haven't read it yet you might want to.
Maybe this guy should spin this off into a book,
Too late. Charles Petzold has already done it. See CODE. It should be on every geek's bookshelf.
>>We joked about subjecting our selves as ginuea pigs for him to practice on
I can't understand why it's necessary to practice on people, either for traditional "manual" tatooing or this robotic-style tatooing. Why not use a pork shoulder from the grocery butcher case, instead?
I regret I can't moderat this as "+1 Dude, I'm sorry."
So where does it end? Must we immediately ban gasoline, then? Four gallons = 1 stick of dynamite, after all, and we can't risk some nutcase getting ahold of such a dangerous weapon, can we?
Dangerous people in a free society can barely be identified, nevermind controlled. The solution then, certainly, is NOT to disarm the victims; Evil cannot be "banned" and these sort of laws only increases the criminal's effectiveness.
>>includes a 1700 mAh high capacity battery ;)
>Perhaps they meant "Mega" here as well?
We're talking about a PDA, not a portable Fermi proton-antiproton collider. It's "milli-amp hour," I'm certain.
"Actually, several of your items *decrease* both liberty and safety." ;)
That was my point; that they do not.
Nowhere does it say that it is everybody's right to bear arms. A well regulated militia is given that right. You, explicity, are not. This is not interpretation, this is what it says.
Then you, sir, cannot read well and niether do you understand history. The Federalist papers (as well as the anti-federalist writings) written by the authors of the Constitution document well the desire for an armed populace. "Well regulated" means well trained, and the "militia clause" states merely one need for an armed populace, not the only reason. It was (and it) well understood that the most effective ultimate measure against tyranny is a populace which cannot be led by force because it posesses the means to fight back. The Miller SCoTUS decision, often championed by anti-gun zealots because of its ban of certain types of weapons (such as sawn-off shotguns). The SCoTUS came to this decision not because they believed that firearm ownership was a collective right, but rather that a sawn-off shotgun was NOT MILITARILY USEFUL. In other words, if a firearm wasn't a useful militar weapon, it wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment. This is precisely why I find some recent laws such as the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (which is really just a ban on scary-looking rifles) a henious violation of not only the 2nd Amendment, but also of prior Supreme Court decisions.
Additionally, All of the the Bill of Rights specifically defines INDIVIDUAL rights, would you agree? Why then, according to your claim, is this not true for the 2nd Amendment? The BoR was written as an explicit guarantee of certain rights that could NEVER be eroded by lawmakers in the future. Time has proven this not to be the case. I understand your want for the 2nd Amendment to say other than it clearly does, but that does not make it so.
What about the FBI or ATF or frickin navy seals or CIA? You want to disband all of these?
Yes, because I want to live in a Constitional Republic, not a nation of "whatever." The FBI, a Federal police force, is not specified in the Constitution, therefore it is extraconstitional. Ditto for the CIA.
The ATF (more properly, the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) is part of the Department of the Treasury -- a Tax collection agency. When was the last time a BATF agent collected taxes? Yeah, right. They're a Federal police force. Disband them immediately.
The Navy SEALs are another matter entirely. They are an elite force, part of the Navy, which is responsible for the defence of our borders and seas -- a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED role of the Federal government (along with coining of money, regulation of interstate commerce, etc.). The Federal government has its place, and it's role is tightly restricted by the Constitution.
Not mutually exclusive?? Have you NEVER taken a page from history or even bothered to read the newspaper headlines? Either are flush with examples of the exclusitivity of the two.
We have had to choose since the Federal Government starting ignoring fundamental components of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). Recent violations, just off the top of my head include:
1st amendment - Campaign Finance "Reform" which prohibits discussion of candidates within 60 days of election.
2nd - gun "control" (what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?)
4th - USA PATRIOT act - collecting library records, planting bugs/wiretaps/searching homes without notifying the owner, etc.
5th - Civil Asset Forfeiture. The police can take your property (money, car, home, etc.) without even charging you with a crime. No kidding.
6th - the imprisionment of American citizens in GitMo for an indefinite period of time, without being charged with a crime or brought to trial.
9th & 10th - The mere existence of the NSA. The Bill of Rights lists merely SOME, not ALL, of the rights of the people, but it clearly states that the Federal government cannot do anything unless it's expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't remember the clause allowing the creation of the National Security Agency.
I challenge you to explain how any of these items simultaneously increase my liberty and my safety, AC. I stand firm: The two are exclusive.
Not so fast there, Skippy. There is one significant difference between private parties and government; government can use force to get what it wants and private industry cannot. What you're promoting is granting a private party the authority to use force to further its interests. Not a good thing. Why? Picture the MPAA or their hired help with the authority to kick down your door and drag you off to interrogation if they suspect you've violated a term of your licensing agreement. Any questions?
Don't just do something, stand there!
My, aren't we quite the optimist today?
Fox? More like SciFi (as in "Science FICTION") or the Comedy Channel.
What about harmonics? Any length of wire or any metallic structure in the vehicle's chassis will act as a tuned antenna and pick up (or create) harmonics. This is the real risk. A benign use of a particular frequency can create unintentional interference on another.
This so-called "solution" looks like more of a money-making scheme than a safety system to me.
Braitenberg has written a 152 page book describing robots that he has thought about creating, using minimalist language and half-explanations which lack necessary detail. As you stated, the first several chapters are only a few pages long and can be understood by a 12-year-old, and the systems "described" in the later chapters may not be possible to implement.
Brooks, by comparison, has created REAL robots which do REAL work and he (and his graduate students) publish detailed papers which explain their methodology, technique and results in detail.
Compared to Braitenberg's book of "what if..." ideas, I suppose Brooks' approach is novel.
Remember there are pro-abortion sites that advocate murder of unborn babies.
If you're so damned concerned about censorship, the removal of EITHER site should trouble you. Otherwise, you're just an activist hypocrite.
It'll be written right after they write the chapter about the death of their web server!
It's midnight on the east coast US, so I suppose that's mid-day in New Zealand. And right now, spring is dawning and the sun is shining down on the beaches. Yet thanks to us, some poor NZ slob is stuck in the mic.vuw.ac data center trying to get his poor underpowered web server back online. You can bet your life he's cursing the day CmdrTaco was born.
This moment brought to you by Slashdot.
"Judge Seitz also rejected plaintiffs' claim that the Web is a 'place of exhibition, display, and a sales establishment,'"
Perhaps I should forward some spam to Judge Seitz. I get about ten emails a day with various offers to exhibit, display and sell, uh, stuff.
>A history for which you're rewarding them with your enduring good faith in return, seemingly.
Yes, I'm disappointed. Like the majority of Slashdot readers, my loyalty can be bought. Unlike most
"Out of curiosity, how does someone who home schools work things like tax exemption? Do you have to get it all back in April every year, or what?
No, there are no deductions whatsoever. Every dollar spent on textbooks, supplemental classes at the University, field trips, equipment (software, calculators, lab supplies), etc. comes directly out of our family budget. There is no "reimbursement" or tax break of any sort available to us.
Do you have any ID that certifies your status as a home schooler? I'm not trying to explain this Aplpe thing away, just asking. "
Every state is different; some are much more controlling than others. My state has nothing in the way of ID cards, etc. Generally, proof of membership in a homeschool-related organization such as the HomeSchool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA.com) or a copy of the Notice of Intent which declares the homeschool to the state Department of Education is sufficient evidence for retailers that yes, you're a homeschooler.
"You must be a K-12 teacher currently employed in a public, private, or charter school to qualify for participation in this program. This offer is limited to eligible K-12 teachers and is not available to resellers, institutions, home schools, non- teacher K-12 school employees, preservice/student teachers, or higher education faculty (including college of education faculty)."
I'm really quite surprised at this snub. Apple has always had a very positive history of supporting homeschoolers, even offering institutional discounts to HS'ers. Until now, I suppose.
Thanks for nothing, Apple.
Yeah, but everytime Microsoft gives away/subsidizes MS software to Schools/Universities the whole Slashdot world erupts into riot. The cries of "Monopoly!" and "brainwashing students" and "conflict of interest" are plentiful.
Now Apple decides to give away their next-gen OS and everyone here thinks that's a great gesture.
Double standard? Definitely. Hypocrytical? It sure looks like it.
Paint job to cover hate messages spray-painted onto the side of your roommate's car, $1800
Carpet cleaning to remove the smell of two-cycle oil from the living room, $85.00
Being known to your neighbors as "that Damned Nutcase at the end of the street" and forming a first-name relationship with the police... Priceless!
That's surprising, considering that the content is the same.
Although I agree that a longer warranty seems to indicate the manufacturer's faith in a high quality product, one does not guarantee the other. Consider the case of automobiles for a moment; Hyundai offers a much more comprehensive warranty than Toyota. Which is more reliable? Put another way, would you rather have a warranty you need, or a warranty you don't?
Why not use the "belt AND suspenders" approach? Hard drives are incredibly cheap, $1 per gigabyte, or less. Buy two 100gb drives, back up one to the other, and quit worrying.
Don't just do something, stand there!
"...against Tivo this upcoming holiday season."
I don't understand. Microsoft, uh, I mean Slate, told me that TiVO was dead.
Not so fast there. With the possible exception of the cell phone, none of the systems you've described have any application whatsoever to digital rights management and the idea that DRM code will "somehow" find its way into every IC / processor, even when such application is utterly useless and contrary to the design constraints (and adds substantial costs) is simply unfettered paranoia. Code doesn't just "appear" by itself and attempts to push meaningless extentions of technology into areas which may risk lives is not going to happen. I can assure you that Boeing's fuel management control systems are not built from parts purchased at pricewatch.com, the differential resonance processor in an MRI isn't a .Net Managed Code resource, and the Navy isn't sourcing on-board trajectory guidance modules from RadioShack catalogs. Legislation that attempts to make that happen isn't going to fly because it would cripple the very industries that rely on technology to succeed and form the heart of Western industry. Even the worst case, the one you've predicted, isn't that bad; we'll just do like we always have -- if they build a higher wall, we build a taller latter. It's simple, really.
Look, I don't want to dismiss your ideas outright. In fact, I share your feelings about DRM -- In its present form it only protects the rights of the corporations, not the rights of the consumer. (In that regard, it should be called "Digital Restrictions Management.") However, this article furthers the same "idea taken to an extreme" paranoia that made people worry whether their car would start Y2K morning.
So relax; take a deep breath and go find something substantial to worry about. There are enough big problems out there without sweating the details of something incredibly unlikely to affect the world in the way you've described.