Or ablative shielding, or maybe even spray dust down the anticipated threat axis. If the enemy laser emits visible light and you have an idea of the laser's frequency, maybe coat the dust particles with something of the same color, or spray multi-colored dust if you don't.
And as a defense, it might not be a bad idea to, somewhat, "coat the ship in movable parabolic lenses". Then when it detects an incoming laser, it can focus it back on the source and eliminate the threat.
Guns have been pretty reliable since they were invented. Guns probably won't last long as a primary weapon, but they will always have a place in combat. Energy weapons won't rule until we've figured out cold fusion. Until then, guns will remain as end-game deciders, if nothing else.
It's interesting to think, though, as we progress towards nanotechnology, that every piece of matter will be "thinking matter". So, then, "who wants to be the bullet?" (This was previously featured on Robot Chicken, where the robot built from five robots fires a bullet, and then it's built from four robots...)
White Gold Wielder FTW... I was thinking about this series the other day, recalling how sad it was that he was wandering the world with this power, but not many friends; and I did not recall the beginning. Thanks -- it makes more sense now, the emotions that I recall.
A question to your proposal: what if I publish a book in the 20-70 years period, which is a direct replica of the book except that I have introduced a single typo? (Or, perhaps, fixed a single typo in the original work.) It would be "derivative", but how would it be considered? I like your thought experiment about corporations as well, but I think the real answer is that we should remove personhood from them, and restrict it solely to those who have a beating heart etc. (Yes, I realize that the preceding argument is "machinist" (read "racist").)
To re-establish the aristocracy and it's permanent claims on resources. Family dynasty money.
Yeah, but which family? That's the sticking point. Once we determine which family, just lob random child porn viruses at their computers and turn them in. (Yes, I wish I was joking. Just as this entire topic was the result of someone thought-experimenting along the lines of Jonathan Swift, so too is my above suggestion; it is not a call to action, nor is it inducement of terrorism, but of course saying that it's not might mean that it is in this newspeak, so double-plus-good to our overlords, or something, which we would never use this tactic against.)
Copyright should be 5 years, penalties for violating copyright should be large enough to discourage willful copyright violations (i.e criminal, not civil). After 5 years, copyright is gone, want more money? do more work!
Agree for the most part, except about the criminal violations. If an act, after you wait sufficiently long time, is not a criminal act, then it should not be a criminal act if you do not wait sufficient time. But good luck getting the "hang 'em!" legislators to agree.
Huh? My boss wouldn't have access to view the photos on the account he doesn't know about, so he couldn't correlate.
The original concern was not one's employer; it was the social networks that do not allow duplicate accounts. That they would detect that one owned two accounts through various means available to them (like access to the photos in both the accounts).
And most donated books are not put into circulation, they are sold to raise money to buy the books they want.
Contrary to your statement, if I sell a book, I consider it "being put into circulation". Perhaps you meant "library circulation"? Because used books (and CDs, and movies, and computers, and cars, and other goods) definitely circulate through the population.
I don't see why it's so popular on Slashdot to hate people who believe in some sort of God. My faith teaches me to do nothing but good things, I may not always live my faith very well though.
I would say that the answer lies in the fact that most of the religions require "faith" as a requirement for the "belief". Whereas most of the people who frequent this forum know that "the scientific method" leads to "predictions about the future", which tend to be much more accurate than the predictions made by the God pushers.
As to your faith, as sibling pointed out you can be convinced that you're doing good things, even when you are e.g. killing other humans. And your final qualifier sums it up; you want to do good, but you aren't certain that you always do.
Not picking on you, please note, just reflecting your words. I tend to, as you say, "live and let live"; however, I also don't suffer fools, and will point out foolish communications (again, not saying that the above was such).
It's the "first past the post" system. It's a great way of raising the barrier for entry to keep minority interests out of the picture.
Agree with other sibling post, also wanted to add: they're not really "keeping minority interests out of the picture" (at least here in USistan); instead, they're ensuring the minority interests are pandered to (i.e., the 1%, instead of the 99%).
So I wonder who won? A mineral, or Meghna? (Yeah, yeah, hers ends with an "i" the Google just told me, ruining my joke for Radio Boston ears, which I'll post anyway.)
Mens rea (stands for "guilty mind") has been disappearing from the US court system, at least at a Federal level. The book "Three Felonies a Day" has some insight on the reasons for this.
Spending more resources than one needs in order to obtain a certain benefit is wasteful, is what I said. (I did not say it was inefficient exercise; I said it was inefficient in general.)
I'd hate to see research coming out recommending people do as little as possible.
Agree with other sibling. Personally, I'd hate to see research that says you should do more than is absolutely necessary; such research would be promoting inefficiency.
To respond to your signature, and stay on-topic: to make doing a thing illegal, does not make it wrong to do it (or, the title of the book I read recently, "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong").
And, I somewhat disagree with your car analogy, merely because "[you] built an exact replica yourself" would take some time and resources. Making a copy of a song/movie takes significantly less time and resources (not zero, but approaching negligible).
This would be similar to "borrowing" a cow, using it to produce calves, then returning the cow and keeping the calves.
No. It's not like taking livestock and forcing them to reproduce and keeping the offspring. Unfortunately, it's not like anything we've experienced in the real world. It's making a copy, and not depriving the owner of any part of their property, including the temporary ability for their property to create offspring. It's completely different. There is no car analogy (apart from "you wouldn't download and copy this car" -- but you would; otherwise, you would be operating at a non-optimal efficiency, and who but the masters would want that in the general public?!!?!?).
(Now I've got Duran Duran in my head, but moving forward, you smell like you sound, and:) "I'll be Bach -- and you can be Beethoven!" (It helps if you say the first part like Governator, and the second part like you were just surprised.)
That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon
Just wanted to hang this off your post, although it's OT, it's definitely "News for Nerds": new laws will require US taxpayers to send in the forms that their investment banks send them. In other words, the US government will no longer accept "your word" that your purchase price was what it was; now, they require the investment houses to provide the government with purchase prices, and your report had damned well better match that, otherwise... well, you won't be paying more taxes while in prison, so perhaps this law will cause an implosion???
Have you heard the old electronic Coleco football winning noise, during the Supertramp song "The Logical Song"? It's around 3:23, just after the lyric "digital", which is somewhat difficult to hear. I really liked noticing that, way back in college.
I was thinking of efficiency in terms of freedom: allowing the maximum movements possible by the populace, as long as said movements do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. So, citizens should be free to consume whatever substances they choose, even if it results in their deaths, and take other risky actions as long as nobody else is harmed.
When I said "efficiency" I was thinking in terms of the impact on society of our existing prohibition laws, which drain the economy and prop up the violence in Mexico. Not "efficiency" in processing people according to the existing laws, but efficiency in terms of reducing those laws in order to reduce the friction that our laws apply to the populace's potential movements.
Slashdot Mirror
Or ablative shielding, or maybe even spray dust down the anticipated threat axis. If the enemy laser emits visible light and you have an idea of the laser's frequency, maybe coat the dust particles with something of the same color, or spray multi-colored dust if you don't.
And as a defense, it might not be a bad idea to, somewhat, "coat the ship in movable parabolic lenses". Then when it detects an incoming laser, it can focus it back on the source and eliminate the threat.
Guns have been pretty reliable since they were invented. Guns probably won't last long as a primary weapon, but they will always have a place in combat. Energy weapons won't rule until we've figured out cold fusion. Until then, guns will remain as end-game deciders, if nothing else.
It's interesting to think, though, as we progress towards nanotechnology, that every piece of matter will be "thinking matter". So, then, "who wants to be the bullet?" (This was previously featured on Robot Chicken, where the robot built from five robots fires a bullet, and then it's built from four robots...)
White Gold Wielder FTW... I was thinking about this series the other day, recalling how sad it was that he was wandering the world with this power, but not many friends; and I did not recall the beginning. Thanks -- it makes more sense now, the emotions that I recall.
A question to your proposal: what if I publish a book in the 20-70 years period, which is a direct replica of the book except that I have introduced a single typo? (Or, perhaps, fixed a single typo in the original work.) It would be "derivative", but how would it be considered? I like your thought experiment about corporations as well, but I think the real answer is that we should remove personhood from them, and restrict it solely to those who have a beating heart etc. (Yes, I realize that the preceding argument is "machinist" (read "racist").)
To re-establish the aristocracy and it's permanent claims on resources. Family dynasty money.
Yeah, but which family? That's the sticking point. Once we determine which family, just lob random child porn viruses at their computers and turn them in. (Yes, I wish I was joking. Just as this entire topic was the result of someone thought-experimenting along the lines of Jonathan Swift, so too is my above suggestion; it is not a call to action, nor is it inducement of terrorism, but of course saying that it's not might mean that it is in this newspeak, so double-plus-good to our overlords, or something, which we would never use this tactic against.)
Copyright should be 5 years, penalties for violating copyright should be large enough to discourage willful copyright violations (i.e criminal, not civil). After 5 years, copyright is gone, want more money? do more work!
Agree for the most part, except about the criminal violations. If an act, after you wait sufficiently long time, is not a criminal act, then it should not be a criminal act if you do not wait sufficient time. But good luck getting the "hang 'em!" legislators to agree.
Huh? My boss wouldn't have access to view the photos on the account he doesn't know about, so he couldn't correlate.
The original concern was not one's employer; it was the social networks that do not allow duplicate accounts. That they would detect that one owned two accounts through various means available to them (like access to the photos in both the accounts).
And most donated books are not put into circulation, they are sold to raise money to buy the books they want.
Contrary to your statement, if I sell a book, I consider it "being put into circulation". Perhaps you meant "library circulation"? Because used books (and CDs, and movies, and computers, and cars, and other goods) definitely circulate through the population.
I don't see why it's so popular on Slashdot to hate people who believe in some sort of God. My faith teaches me to do nothing but good things, I may not always live my faith very well though.
I would say that the answer lies in the fact that most of the religions require "faith" as a requirement for the "belief". Whereas most of the people who frequent this forum know that "the scientific method" leads to "predictions about the future", which tend to be much more accurate than the predictions made by the God pushers.
As to your faith, as sibling pointed out you can be convinced that you're doing good things, even when you are e.g. killing other humans. And your final qualifier sums it up; you want to do good, but you aren't certain that you always do.
Not picking on you, please note, just reflecting your words. I tend to, as you say, "live and let live"; however, I also don't suffer fools, and will point out foolish communications (again, not saying that the above was such).
It's the "first past the post" system. It's a great way of raising the barrier for entry to keep minority interests out of the picture.
Agree with other sibling post, also wanted to add: they're not really "keeping minority interests out of the picture" (at least here in USistan); instead, they're ensuring the minority interests are pandered to (i.e., the 1%, instead of the 99%).
So you think the concept of "minimum" has no place outside video games? It is you, sir, who is deluded.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)
So I wonder who won? A mineral, or Meghna? (Yeah, yeah, hers ends with an "i" the Google just told me, ruining my joke for Radio Boston ears, which I'll post anyway.)
Mens rea (stands for "guilty mind") has been disappearing from the US court system, at least at a Federal level. The book "Three Felonies a Day" has some insight on the reasons for this.
Spending more resources than one needs in order to obtain a certain benefit is wasteful, is what I said. (I did not say it was inefficient exercise; I said it was inefficient in general.)
I'd hate to see research coming out recommending people do as little as possible.
Agree with other sibling. Personally, I'd hate to see research that says you should do more than is absolutely necessary; such research would be promoting inefficiency.
To respond to your signature, and stay on-topic: to make doing a thing illegal, does not make it wrong to do it (or, the title of the book I read recently, "It's Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong").
And, I somewhat disagree with your car analogy, merely because "[you] built an exact replica yourself" would take some time and resources. Making a copy of a song/movie takes significantly less time and resources (not zero, but approaching negligible).
Voice recognition? I agree that it's probably silly.
Exactly -- just pick up the mouse and say, "Computer, ..."
This would be similar to "borrowing" a cow, using it to produce calves, then returning the cow and keeping the calves.
No. It's not like taking livestock and forcing them to reproduce and keeping the offspring. Unfortunately, it's not like anything we've experienced in the real world. It's making a copy, and not depriving the owner of any part of their property, including the temporary ability for their property to create offspring. It's completely different. There is no car analogy (apart from "you wouldn't download and copy this car" -- but you would; otherwise, you would be operating at a non-optimal efficiency, and who but the masters would want that in the general public?!!?!?).
Meh, you've seen one...
(Now I've got Duran Duran in my head, but moving forward, you smell like you sound, and:) "I'll be Bach -- and you can be Beethoven!" (It helps if you say the first part like Governator, and the second part like you were just surprised.)
That said, new law that will be coming into effect very soon
Just wanted to hang this off your post, although it's OT, it's definitely "News for Nerds": new laws will require US taxpayers to send in the forms that their investment banks send them. In other words, the US government will no longer accept "your word" that your purchase price was what it was; now, they require the investment houses to provide the government with purchase prices, and your report had damned well better match that, otherwise ... well, you won't be paying more taxes while in prison, so perhaps this law will cause an implosion???
Have you heard the old electronic Coleco football winning noise, during the Supertramp song "The Logical Song"? It's around 3:23, just after the lyric "digital", which is somewhat difficult to hear. I really liked noticing that, way back in college.
Yeah, when it jogs past you...
Yeah, so the more words idea was the one. :)
I was thinking of efficiency in terms of freedom: allowing the maximum movements possible by the populace, as long as said movements do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. So, citizens should be free to consume whatever substances they choose, even if it results in their deaths, and take other risky actions as long as nobody else is harmed.
When I said "efficiency" I was thinking in terms of the impact on society of our existing prohibition laws, which drain the economy and prop up the violence in Mexico. Not "efficiency" in processing people according to the existing laws, but efficiency in terms of reducing those laws in order to reduce the friction that our laws apply to the populace's potential movements.
I hope I'm clearer, but I worry that I'm not.
"Please do not dictate how I should destroy my children's futures..."