I recently bought a small Playschool (TM) plastic toy for my son in which plastic shapes such as squares, triangles, cylinders and stars are inserted through identically shaped holes in a small plastic ball. Since my son is 7 mo. old and cannot yet walk, he was missing the square piece, which was on my dresser. Being a smart lad, and not much given to griping to his local distributor (me) he forwent the proper channels and produced some wooden alphabet blocks which were lying nearby and, with a squeal of triumph to let me know of his accomplishment, promptly inserted all of the blocks into the toy.
I stood there in terror, knowing that his actions had just made me liable under US Law, for he had just contrived his very own solution to a problem at hand!
Simple fact: the web is centered around technology. The greater percentage of web use is technology related. English speaking countries, namely England and the United States lead the entire world in the development of technology (by volume, not by level of technology: Japan leads there). We also buy far more than any other country. So doesn't it make sence for the people creating the technology and using the technology would talk about it's creation and use in their own laguage? Doesn't it make sence that anyone wishing to break into this economy must learn to use our language to do so?
English is the defacto standard not because we arogant Americans made it so, but because all other countries did. I say keep the moronic fairness freaks out of free trade!
"Even after the first assembler is developed, it will require years, perhaps decades, of lab testing before a commercial product could reach the shelves."
Well that's just great. Maybee if they weren't so concerned with their patents and secrets then they would collaborate with the scientific community and we could have this technology in our boxes a little sooner.
I sure would be happy for a source of information like a book, website, or database (or all in one:) ) which allowed me to look up specs, pinouts and other technical information both hardware and software related to legacy computers.
This is really the kind of "history" most people are interested in. The kind which explains why we have to deal with BS standards and such.
Nothing ruined democracy in the United States.
There ISN'T a democracy in the United States, or at least there isn't supposed to be.
This country is a republic. What does that mean? It means that the only thing citizens are supposed to vote for is their leaders, not laws.
Somewhere I cannot recall now I heard this quote: "A true democracy will never work, for once the people learn they can vote themselves money, they will vote themselves out of a government." There has never been a more true statement! The only way democrats get into office at all is by buying votes from people by deed, liberal licencing (by this I mean making things legal which should not be), or by government programs such as healthcare or welfare.
Please do not think that I mean democrats are the only tyrants I see. I see the money behind the republican candidates as well as anyone. But the money behind the republicans is corporate (or private) money used for promotion of the candadates, and so does not fall into this discussion. What does make me angry is the "Pork Spending" that republicans are so famous for. They pay back their debts with tax dollars in the form of contracts.
In truth, the only hope I see for our country is the internet. A place where people can actually promote candidates other than those lauded by the parties. It will not happen soon, but it will happen. If people who have not written letters in years are suddenly writing hundreds of emails each week then people who have not voted in years will start voting if given the chance to do so online.
Maybee our bible teacher was right. Maybee God created us and us alone. Maybee there isn't anyone else out there because the whole thing was created for us.
I am not proud of the past of Christianity. Many of your postings are the idealism of the fallacies rampant in the bastardized world church. Let me explain myself and my views.
First off, I hold no banner to any recognized church. I am not Protestant or Catholic. I don't Hail Mary or kiss the feet of the infant Prague. I have never followed blindly any man's teachings. I question everything.
Your questions are fair and your observations are accurate. The church, as the world sees it portrayed on a crucifix or by the dude with the pointy hat (the pope) is a hypocritical lie. How can a man claim to be a pontificate of a church who's very Christ says "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven". (Matthew 23:9). And how can he forgive your sins in a confessional when the book, which they follow, says that only the blood of Christ can do this? No, your beliefs are founded if you look towards the established Catholic putrification of the word Christian.
And then, you turn to scrutinize the Protestants. The factionised bickering between sour old men who thump their chests and declare their interpretations to be the only true way to God is little better than the Catholic's open hypocrisy. Fat lazy Americans sit is gilded churches and hear sermons of sacrifice but have never tasted that bitter drink themselves. They shed tears for people they have never met nor care to for their heroic sacrifices in third world countries. They condemn the sinners at their work and in their neighborhood for drinking and smoking but don't see their own damnation for locking the gates of heaven to those people with their turned-up noses and disgusting hatred.
I see these things in the church and it wrenches my heart. This isn't Christianity. This isn't the gospel. Christ would never have lead a crusade. Christ forbade Christians from judging others: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." (John 8:7). And again on the Sermon on the Mount: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." Christ's message was one of forgiveness, of sacrifice, and of love. Not a message of hatred or dispute.
Some of you refer to the posting "Rejoice, I have found Hank!" Many of you read this posting and laugh, seeing the parallels between it and the message of salvation. Yet you know that no man in his right mind would agree to "kiss Hanks ass." So doesn't it make you wonder why so many thousands agree to follow a God that they cannot see in person? Doesn't it make you wonder why so many will give so much of themselves for a Christ they have never met? The message of "Hank" has no power to change lives. There is no mercy and no forgiveness. You're heart doesn't tell you it is the truth. That is why you laugh.
There is always an answer if you care to look: "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets..." (Proverbs 1:20). That first book of proverbs is the guide to my personal life. In summary, it says that wisdom is to be found all around you. Yes, even in discussion groups on/. It points out that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." The Bible is a book written by men. Some (including me) believe that it was guided by God, but it was penned by men. The last words were written nearly two thousand years ago. No one, in all of history, has disproved a single word. Oh sure, some people can use differences in speech and failed interpretations to muddle the meaning of a passage or verse, but it has never been disproved. Even those poor translations disintegrate under observation and knowledgeable study.
Remember: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 14:1) Those of you who scoff at God and Christ are focusing on the things you have heard you will lose. You think you'll have to stop cursing, and drinking, and smoking, and having sex with whomever you please. Those things are unimportant. Salvation is about what you will gain, and you DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO GAIN IT. You don't have to be a missionary. You don't have to stop drinking. You don't have to stop having sex. You don't have to stand on a street corner with the bible and tell everyone that they are going to hell. All you have to do is believe. Less than that, all you have to do is accept the gift you know is there.
Part of Christian religion is the social and family structure endorsed by the Bible. Sothern Baptists and Catholics along with the vast majority of protistant denominations follow the bible when setting these standards. Women aren't allowed to be pastors or to hold leadership positions in the church becuase that is the defined structure. (see 1 Cor 14:34)
If you don't like this, then you need to get into the debate of freedom of religion. Should Christians be allowed the free exercise of religion? You can't change the Bible, you can only change the law. Be careful however, you start ripping up pieces of the Bill Of Rights you might loose something you can't ever get back.
I would not call this supportive. You wrote the code and the rules which it follows in it's evolution. Therefore, there is intelligent design in the evolution of your code.
If you REALLY want to prove your point, turn on your computer, wipe the bios and disk, and then wait for the first AI to grow itself spontaneously.
Now THAT would make be believe in spontaneous evolution!
I disagree with nothing you said. I didn't say that society would not have progressed without religion. I said that morality would not have progressed without religion.
Does society have benefits without religeon? Of course it does! I didn't say that we would degenerate into "...running naked in the woods fighting over scraps of food". I said that individual rights would suffer. Ultimate group benefit comes from select group sacrifice. Destruction of individuality is the logical end to perfect ideological atheism.
Keep in mind that cooperation and morality are NOT the same thing. An orgie requires group cooperation while morality is completely left behind.
Rather than ranting about things I did not say, take the time to bolster a real argument.
This view should be seriously considered from another aspect as well. If you discount God, and religion, know that society will discount morality. Already we progress as a world towards the acclimation of society above the individual.
I would give my life to save two. Most of you reading this would as well. There is a HUGE difference between a person giving their life and society deciding to take it. Point being: the evolution of society is far more important to our immediate concerns than the evolution of species. Who cares where we came from when where we are going is of far more concern to those living now and our children.
The natural progression of humanitarianism (the term I loosely use to sum societal belief that there is no God and only humanity and evolution matter) is Borg, or at least the ideology portrayed by Paramount.
As morality fails (and let's face it: morality is maintained by spirituality) so does our society's resolve to protect that morality. Individual human rights are an aspect of morality. Look at the Roman civilization before the coming of Christ (son of god or not, it's fact that he was alive and that he did teach). Euthanasia, post-birth abortion (baby killing) and using minor criminals as live bate for wild animals in the coliseum were all socially accepted. A rich man could buy a poor mans life from his debtors (slavery). These things would never have been weeded from society without the morality imposed by Christianity. We are destroying that morality in America and across the globe. Partial-birth abortions are accepted. Are we so blind as to think that that will not go one step further to include full-birth terminations? A gasp of air in a baby's lungs is our only current distinction. What about unplugging someone on life support? Already we have included starving the brain-dead to death. This is only a tiny step away in practice from terminating the life of the insane, or God forbid: the disabled. Do we really think that our petty Bill-of-Rights will defend these people from a democratic society forced to pay for their upkeep? Remember: society has no morality. Society follows only law. And we all know the golden rule makes the law.
Remove religion from this equation and you damn humanity to another Third Reich. Only this time, it might be the only faction...
Unfortunately, prosthetics like these will not work for my wife. These prosthetics are powered by existing muscle fibre which pulls on steel "tendons" attached directly through the skin. My wife does not have these muscles because, unlike the man in the article, her limbs were not severed. Because the limbs never developed the muscles never grew. Therefore there is nothing to attach the prosthesis to. Besides, those are ugly and cumbersome. She has far more versatility and dexterity without clumsy prosthesis' like these. The tools I envision would be a virtually undistinguishable prosthesis. The "skin" would need to be replaceable silicon like that used by Hollywood makeup specialists. (Yes, I am aware that it would need to be replaced about once or twice a month because it ages.)
This particular story has a massive impact on me and my family.
My wife has no arms or legs. Her physical condition is a direct result of the anti-nausia drug Thalitimide. As such, her limbs never grew normally.
My question is, and always has been, if the technology exists today to record a sampling of the neural stimuli output by the brain, and likewise a sampling of the signals returned by the fingertip and muscle neurons, why has a solution not been created for a mechanical prosthetic controllable completely by the brain? (please excuse the run-on sentence:) ) All of the technological pieces seem to be in place to build such a prosthetic.
It isn't necessary to connect the device directly to the human bran (which is excessively risky.) Such a device could be connected (networked) to a nerual uplink which turned bio-electrical signals into digital pulses. These pulses could then be run through a specialized processor to control the actuation of servos and/or synthetic muscles. Feedback could likewise be tranlated by this or another processor and fed back to the uplink for conversion into a signal which matches the neural stimuli of the average human body. The total number of connections for the first prototype would not have to be more than 1 per synthetic muscle 5 for the finger tips, and 2 or 3 for each surface covering. This model could then be improved upon for each subsequent generation of the prosthesis. Don't misunderstand, I know that robotics hardly has a solution for the power generation necessary for such a device, but my wife drives an electric wheelchair which should certainly carry enough current to provider her with mechanical arms.
The only problem I face once this product is built is how do you argue with a woman who's arms can snap your spine like a kit-kat(tm).
I am in the process of building a 10 million dollar data center. My company is completely international, with locations all over the globe. For this reason, an international data center seems to be an optimal solution for us (details aside).
The question I would have, far more important than having your lines severed, is what if your IP(s) wind up on every single national filter across the globe? Where will that leave companies which are being hosted by you? China will almost certainly block access to your IP(s). What happens when the US government blocks access to your IP range bassed on a request from Metallica? (Pun intended.) Where does that leave your clients?
Also, how much of a data center can that fortress hold? Many data centers are massive, (Mine is relatively small, but still takes up a super-market sized building.
Last but not least, how do you intend to get the hardware? Some of the hardware I am ording falls under US export regulations. Surely those regulations would be extended to include the Principality of Sealand, especially since it is not subject to any agreements made by the EU to prevent high-powered computing from falling into terrorist hands.
A personal website is not the same as a public newspaper. While it is true that it is publicly available, it is not publicly distributed.
This small detail makes a huge difference in deciding if what this child did can be construed as Libel. My website is not a magazine, or a newspaper. The things which I put in it are for the enjoyment of myself, and a few hundred of my internet friends. I do not have the benefit of running my pages through a legal department to make sure I'm not offending anyone. As a matter of fact, as a representation of what I think and feel I want to be able to say anything I please on my personal site.
If I want to be a racist biggot or a tree-hugging hippy thats MY business!!! I am putting it on my website so that everyone who goes there knows what I think.
A newspaper or magazine is a public information source which is distributed. Because of it's use, it falls under a different class of publication than a personal webpage.
At some point, libel must be redefined to be applicable only to distributed publications. If this does not happen then the internet will be destroyed by this and other limitations on free speech.
Thank you all for your responses and I am especially surprised and happy to find that no-one was offended.
I would like to add, that the Anime (and I do wish I had remembered the names) which I had watched contained to real nudity. It only contained mature situations (somewhere between PG-13 and R).
Another point would be the seeming support of pedophilia. I have studied Japanese and Oriental culture and although pedophilia is against the law, it is an intense part of their culture. I have noticed that even the softest Anime (such as Pokemon) depicts girls in very short cheer-leader skirts and tight button-up sweater tops, emphasizing both their sexuality and their obvious youth. Has anyone done research on possible adverse effects of depicting women in this light? Arent we, as a society, attempting to evolve into a culture which does not revolve around male sex? Does this not upset the progress we are slowly making?
I have seen many of the movies which were recommended, and I have set myself to rent and view the rest. And while the plots improve greatly, the depiction of women barely does. Yes, they have some brains. But they are still primarally depicted as sex objects (even if dangerous or untouchable ones).
Slashdot Mirror
I recently bought a small Playschool (TM) plastic toy for my son in which plastic shapes such as squares, triangles, cylinders and stars are inserted through identically shaped holes in a small plastic ball. Since my son is 7 mo. old and cannot yet walk, he was missing the square piece, which was on my dresser. Being a smart lad, and not much given to griping to his local distributor (me) he forwent the proper channels and produced some wooden alphabet blocks which were lying nearby and, with a squeal of triumph to let me know of his accomplishment, promptly inserted all of the blocks into the toy.
I stood there in terror, knowing that his actions had just made me liable under US Law, for he had just contrived his very own solution to a problem at hand!
I now nervously await my cease and desist letter.
Simple fact: the web is centered around technology. The greater percentage of web use is technology related. English speaking countries, namely England and the United States lead the entire world in the development of technology (by volume, not by level of technology: Japan leads there). We also buy far more than any other country. So doesn't it make sence for the people creating the technology and using the technology would talk about it's creation and use in their own laguage? Doesn't it make sence that anyone wishing to break into this economy must learn to use our language to do so?
English is the defacto standard not because we arogant Americans made it so, but because all other countries did. I say keep the moronic fairness freaks out of free trade!
"Even after the first assembler is developed, it will require years, perhaps decades, of lab testing before a commercial product could reach the shelves."
Well that's just great. Maybee if they weren't so concerned with their patents and secrets then they would collaborate with the scientific community and we could have this technology in our boxes a little sooner.
I sure would be happy for a source of information like a book, website, or database (or all in one :) ) which allowed me to look up specs, pinouts and other technical information both hardware and software related to legacy computers.
This is really the kind of "history" most people are interested in. The kind which explains why we have to deal with BS standards and such.
Nothing ruined democracy in the United States.
There ISN'T a democracy in the United States, or at least there isn't supposed to be.
This country is a republic. What does that mean? It means that the only thing citizens are supposed to vote for is their leaders, not laws.
Somewhere I cannot recall now I heard this quote: "A true democracy will never work, for once the people learn they can vote themselves money, they will vote themselves out of a government." There has never been a more true statement! The only way democrats get into office at all is by buying votes from people by deed, liberal licencing (by this I mean making things legal which should not be), or by government programs such as healthcare or welfare.
Please do not think that I mean democrats are the only tyrants I see. I see the money behind the republican candidates as well as anyone. But the money behind the republicans is corporate (or private) money used for promotion of the candadates, and so does not fall into this discussion. What does make me angry is the "Pork Spending" that republicans are so famous for. They pay back their debts with tax dollars in the form of contracts.
In truth, the only hope I see for our country is the internet. A place where people can actually promote candidates other than those lauded by the parties. It will not happen soon, but it will happen. If people who have not written letters in years are suddenly writing hundreds of emails each week then people who have not voted in years will start voting if given the chance to do so online.
Maybee our bible teacher was right. Maybee God created us and us alone. Maybee there isn't anyone else out there because the whole thing was created for us.
Of course, this isn't a viable opinion, is it?
J D Sallen has posted how he feels about the ruling by quoting I Cor. 5:6 & 6:17.
Not truely scripture in-context but it gets the point accross.
I am not proud of the past of Christianity. Many of your postings are the idealism of the fallacies rampant in the bastardized world church. Let me explain myself and my views.
/. It points out that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." The Bible is a book written by men. Some (including me) believe that it was guided by God, but it was penned by men. The last words were written nearly two thousand years ago. No one, in all of history, has disproved a single word. Oh sure, some people can use differences in speech and failed interpretations to muddle the meaning of a passage or verse, but it has never been disproved. Even those poor translations disintegrate under observation and knowledgeable study.
First off, I hold no banner to any recognized church. I am not Protestant or Catholic. I don't Hail Mary or kiss the feet of the infant Prague. I have never followed blindly any man's teachings. I question everything.
Your questions are fair and your observations are accurate. The church, as the world sees it portrayed on a crucifix or by the dude with the pointy hat (the pope) is a hypocritical lie. How can a man claim to be a pontificate of a church who's very Christ says "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven". (Matthew 23:9). And how can he forgive your sins in a confessional when the book, which they follow, says that only the blood of Christ can do this? No, your beliefs are founded if you look towards the established Catholic putrification of the word Christian.
And then, you turn to scrutinize the Protestants. The factionised bickering between sour old men who thump their chests and declare their interpretations to be the only true way to God is little better than the Catholic's open hypocrisy. Fat lazy Americans sit is gilded churches and hear sermons of sacrifice but have never tasted that bitter drink themselves. They shed tears for people they have never met nor care to for their heroic sacrifices in third world countries. They condemn the sinners at their work and in their neighborhood for drinking and smoking but don't see their own damnation for locking the gates of heaven to those people with their turned-up noses and disgusting hatred.
I see these things in the church and it wrenches my heart. This isn't Christianity. This isn't the gospel. Christ would never have lead a crusade. Christ forbade Christians from judging others: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." (John 8:7). And again on the Sermon on the Mount: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." Christ's message was one of forgiveness, of sacrifice, and of love. Not a message of hatred or dispute.
Some of you refer to the posting "Rejoice, I have found Hank!" Many of you read this posting and laugh, seeing the parallels between it and the message of salvation. Yet you know that no man in his right mind would agree to "kiss Hanks ass." So doesn't it make you wonder why so many thousands agree to follow a God that they cannot see in person? Doesn't it make you wonder why so many will give so much of themselves for a Christ they have never met? The message of "Hank" has no power to change lives. There is no mercy and no forgiveness. You're heart doesn't tell you it is the truth. That is why you laugh.
There is always an answer if you care to look: "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets..." (Proverbs 1:20). That first book of proverbs is the guide to my personal life. In summary, it says that wisdom is to be found all around you. Yes, even in discussion groups on
Remember: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalms 14:1) Those of you who scoff at God and Christ are focusing on the things you have heard you will lose. You think you'll have to stop cursing, and drinking, and smoking, and having sex with whomever you please. Those things are unimportant. Salvation is about what you will gain, and you DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO GAIN IT. You don't have to be a missionary. You don't have to stop drinking. You don't have to stop having sex. You don't have to stand on a street corner with the bible and tell everyone that they are going to hell. All you have to do is believe. Less than that, all you have to do is accept the gift you know is there.
That's Christianity.
That's God.
That's Simple.
Part of Christian religion is the social and family structure endorsed by the Bible. Sothern Baptists and Catholics along with the vast majority of protistant denominations follow the bible when setting these standards. Women aren't allowed to be pastors or to hold leadership positions in the church becuase that is the defined structure. (see 1 Cor 14:34)
If you don't like this, then you need to get into the debate of freedom of religion. Should Christians be allowed the free exercise of religion? You can't change the Bible, you can only change the law. Be careful however, you start ripping up pieces of the Bill Of Rights you might loose something you can't ever get back.
I would not call this supportive. You wrote the code and the rules which it follows in it's evolution. Therefore, there is intelligent design in the evolution of your code.
If you REALLY want to prove your point, turn on your computer, wipe the bios and disk, and then wait for the first AI to grow itself spontaneously.
Now THAT would make be believe in spontaneous evolution!
I disagree with nothing you said. I didn't say that society would not have progressed without religion. I said that morality would not have progressed without religion.
Does society have benefits without religeon? Of course it does! I didn't say that we would degenerate into "...running naked in the woods fighting over scraps of food". I said that individual rights would suffer. Ultimate group benefit comes from select group sacrifice. Destruction of individuality is the logical end to perfect ideological atheism.
Keep in mind that cooperation and morality are NOT the same thing. An orgie requires group cooperation while morality is completely left behind.
Rather than ranting about things I did not say, take the time to bolster a real argument.
This view should be seriously considered from another aspect as well. If you discount God, and religion, know that society will discount morality. Already we progress as a world towards the acclimation of society above the individual.
I would give my life to save two. Most of you reading this would as well. There is a HUGE difference between a person giving their life and society deciding to take it. Point being: the evolution of society is far more important to our immediate concerns than the evolution of species. Who cares where we came from when where we are going is of far more concern to those living now and our children.
The natural progression of humanitarianism (the term I loosely use to sum societal belief that there is no God and only humanity and evolution matter) is Borg, or at least the ideology portrayed by Paramount.
As morality fails (and let's face it: morality is maintained by spirituality) so does our society's resolve to protect that morality. Individual human rights are an aspect of morality. Look at the Roman civilization before the coming of Christ (son of god or not, it's fact that he was alive and that he did teach). Euthanasia, post-birth abortion (baby killing) and using minor criminals as live bate for wild animals in the coliseum were all socially accepted. A rich man could buy a poor mans life from his debtors (slavery). These things would never have been weeded from society without the morality imposed by Christianity. We are destroying that morality in America and across the globe. Partial-birth abortions are accepted. Are we so blind as to think that that will not go one step further to include full-birth terminations? A gasp of air in a baby's lungs is our only current distinction. What about unplugging someone on life support? Already we have included starving the brain-dead to death. This is only a tiny step away in practice from terminating the life of the insane, or God forbid: the disabled. Do we really think that our petty Bill-of-Rights will defend these people from a democratic society forced to pay for their upkeep? Remember: society has no morality. Society follows only law. And we all know the golden rule makes the law.
Remove religion from this equation and you damn humanity to another Third Reich. Only this time, it might be the only faction...
All together now: "Heil Unimatrix One!"
Unfortunately, prosthetics like these will not work for my wife. These prosthetics are powered by existing muscle fibre which pulls on steel "tendons" attached directly through the skin. My wife does not have these muscles because, unlike the man in the article, her limbs were not severed. Because the limbs never developed the muscles never grew. Therefore there is nothing to attach the prosthesis to. Besides, those are ugly and cumbersome. She has far more versatility and dexterity without clumsy prosthesis' like these. The tools I envision would be a virtually undistinguishable prosthesis. The "skin" would need to be replaceable silicon like that used by Hollywood makeup specialists. (Yes, I am aware that it would need to be replaced about once or twice a month because it ages.)
It's the first Sci-Fi movie in 5 years that I didn't have to fight with my wife to get to watch.
Of course, I didn't want to watch it...
This particular story has a massive impact on me and my family.
:) ) All of the technological pieces seem to be in place to build such a prosthetic.
My wife has no arms or legs. Her physical condition is a direct result of the anti-nausia drug Thalitimide. As such, her limbs never grew normally.
My question is, and always has been, if the technology exists today to record a sampling of the neural stimuli output by the brain, and likewise a sampling of the signals returned by the fingertip and muscle neurons, why has a solution not been created for a mechanical prosthetic controllable completely by the brain? (please excuse the run-on sentence
It isn't necessary to connect the device directly to the human bran (which is excessively risky.) Such a device could be connected (networked) to a nerual uplink which turned bio-electrical signals into digital pulses. These pulses could then be run through a specialized processor to control the actuation of servos and/or synthetic muscles. Feedback could likewise be tranlated by this or another processor and fed back to the uplink for conversion into a signal which matches the neural stimuli of the average human body. The total number of connections for the first prototype would not have to be more than 1 per synthetic muscle 5 for the finger tips, and 2 or 3 for each surface covering. This model could then be improved upon for each subsequent generation of the prosthesis. Don't misunderstand, I know that robotics hardly has a solution for the power generation necessary for such a device, but my wife drives an electric wheelchair which should certainly carry enough current to provider her with mechanical arms.
The only problem I face once this product is built is how do you argue with a woman who's arms can snap your spine like a kit-kat(tm).
I am in the process of building a 10 million dollar data center. My company is completely international, with locations all over the globe. For this reason, an international data center seems to be an optimal solution for us (details aside).
The question I would have, far more important than having your lines severed, is what if your IP(s) wind up on every single national filter across the globe? Where will that leave companies which are being hosted by you? China will almost certainly block access to your IP(s). What happens when the US government blocks access to your IP range bassed on a request from Metallica? (Pun intended.) Where does that leave your clients?
Also, how much of a data center can that fortress hold? Many data centers are massive, (Mine is relatively small, but still takes up a super-market sized building.
Last but not least, how do you intend to get the hardware? Some of the hardware I am ording falls under US export regulations. Surely those regulations would be extended to include the Principality of Sealand, especially since it is not subject to any agreements made by the EU to prevent high-powered computing from falling into terrorist hands.
A personal website is not the same as a public newspaper. While it is true that it is publicly available, it is not publicly distributed.
This small detail makes a huge difference in deciding if what this child did can be construed as Libel. My website is not a magazine, or a newspaper. The things which I put in it are for the enjoyment of myself, and a few hundred of my internet friends. I do not have the benefit of running my pages through a legal department to make sure I'm not offending anyone. As a matter of fact, as a representation of what I think and feel I want to be able to say anything I please on my personal site.
If I want to be a racist biggot or a tree-hugging hippy thats MY business!!! I am putting it on my website so that everyone who goes there knows what I think.
A newspaper or magazine is a public information source which is distributed. Because of it's use, it falls under a different class of publication than a personal webpage.
At some point, libel must be redefined to be applicable only to distributed publications. If this does not happen then the internet will be destroyed by this and other limitations on free speech.
Thank you all for your responses and I am especially surprised and happy to find that no-one was offended.
I would like to add, that the Anime (and I do wish I had remembered the names) which I had watched contained to real nudity. It only contained mature situations (somewhere between PG-13 and R).
Another point would be the seeming support of pedophilia. I have studied Japanese and Oriental culture and although pedophilia is against the law, it is an intense part of their culture. I have noticed that even the softest Anime (such as Pokemon) depicts girls in very short cheer-leader skirts and tight button-up sweater tops, emphasizing both their sexuality and their obvious youth. Has anyone done research on possible adverse effects of depicting women in this light? Arent we, as a society, attempting to evolve into a culture which does not revolve around male sex? Does this not upset the progress we are slowly making?
I have seen many of the movies which were recommended, and I have set myself to rent and view the rest. And while the plots improve greatly, the depiction of women barely does. Yes, they have some brains. But they are still primarally depicted as sex objects (even if dangerous or untouchable ones).