As a number of Judges recently found out, lists like that aren't always kept up to date, and the people involved won't necessarily care that they're going after a VIP's son / daughter / grandson / granddaughter.
There will be "friendly-fire" at some point. So, the Legislators in question have to make a decision: do they roll the dice, and hope that when the friendly fire does happen, it won't be one of their family / friends who get hit, or do they take the safe approach, which while not as fiscally enticing, does mean they won't be getting a phone call at 3 AM telling them that their offspring are being sued for more then their worth?
And while these people do huff their own charisma like it's going out of style, who can guarantee that they'll still be in Office when the shit hits the fan? Senator Bob may not get re-elected for different reasons, and a few years down the line, the bill he voted for could catch his family / friends unaware. While ex-Senator Bob might still have a lot of influence and friends when he leaves Office, that doesn't mean a paid shark for the larger media is going to overwhelmingly care about a has-been, who may or may not be a challenge to him getting a very nice settlement.
Just how far out do you think this protection extends? Do in-laws count? And so on. It's a large risk, with a relatively small payoff. A few million in the form of a campaign donation now, which will be gone after it gets spent on re-election, or the embarrassment of seeing your 12-year old niece being interrogated in a courtroom because she really wanted to listen to Britney Spear's latest single.
On an off-note, does anyone knows how many Senators and Representatives have teenage children / grandchildren? And of those, how many own an iPod or some other media device? Since >95% of the younger population is engaged in some form of copyright violation... It would be quietly entertaining to see the Legislators catch their own offspring in the crossfire. And for the price of those fines, bad publicity, and court costs, which for copyright violations could be quite excessive, I imagine they won't be receiving any Christmas cards from family for a while.
Senator Bob gets a new yacht, but his grand-kid has a $300,000 fine for downloading the latest teeny-bopper album and loading it on his iPod...and if Senator Bob tries to convince the RIAA to drop the suit, the media will go into a frenzy pointing out the double-standard, and possibly sinking Senator Bob's chances at re-election.
The net is functionally neutral. No law needed for that to happen.
Companies that fucked with clients' access long-term tend to go bankrupt. It's just one of those things.
It's kind of hard to get more fair than the TCP/IP stack itself, which is relatively data / application agnostic. Sure, there's QoS and packet-shapers and shit you can do on the router level, but it's somewhat limited.
Sadly, there have been more than a few occasions where they haven't.
See, research requires a lot of reading about somewhat uninteresting subjects, and that makes many of the older congressmen tired. So, you get the young page to do the reading for you, and only really read the bills when the media is openly mocking your understanding of them ("Senator Bob apparently wants to bring back the institution of slavery -> More News at 10"). It's easier to just mandate something happen, and see if it comes to pass; if it does, then you can claim you had strong leadership skills, enabling it to happen; if it doesn't, you can quietly sweep it under the rug, and wait for the courts to nullify it. You don't need to know anything, and it's a lot less work.
If I had to make a decision on something I had no expertise in (for a large portion of the populace), I'd get some expertise in it. Go out, take some courses, spend a little or a lot of time in the industry, find out when someone is blowing smoke up my ass. Wouldn't issue a decision until I had done so, committee rules non-withstanding.
The only criteria for determining whether or not you are given the power to introduce bills to the federal legislature and produce a countable vote is a popularity contest.
Reminds me of the villain / hero paradox of storytelling. The audience sides with the villain, emotionally, exploring their darker impulses, right up until the hero shows up, when they switch sides, and as an act of redemption join in the emotional orgy that is the dispensing of the villain's punishment. Perhaps that's a part of the reason that a fair portion of the human race always searches for a darker, edgier, more twisted villain than the straight-lace variety; as society becomes more, *cough*, liberal (in the classic sense of the word), *cough*, with its acceptance of various behaviors, the forefront of what is / isn't acceptable is always being pushed further away. And then there's those people who prefers villains to be simply that, "a bad guy," no first name and rarely very complicated.
^_^. Two sides of the same coin. If you are complacent with the deterioration of your rights, then you are submissive to the usurped authority of those who are taking them away from you.
Think of it this way -> from the viewpoint of those who seize your rights, what difference is there between you submitting to their laughable authority versus being complacent as they deny you your ancestor's hard fought inheritance? None.
Them -> "Oh, you aren't submitting to me, but merely being complacent as I take away your liberties? Well, whatever you tell yourself that helps you sleep at night." Functionally, they are identical.
The burden of all these extra security measures is beginning to exert a force on the economy. It's like watching the birth of a quantum singularity...interest followed by naked terror, as you realize that you can't outrun it (but not for lack of trying). I liken it to a particular episode of Stargate SG-1 (A Matter Of Time): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWpfr_0RmuM
The people of the US are like that team, running across the desert, knowing they are doomed.
On a separate note, the fact that the US people are so submissive to their rights being stolen from under them reminds me of Russians facing the Gulag; they don't try to escape, even though they could, they just go along with it because fighting against it does not occur to them.
They'll just claim it's a matter of national interest, and the whole intellectual property thing will be swept under the rug.
One of the naughties of the United States patent-process is that while it typically grants you protection for, say, 20 years (utility type), the United States reserves the right to break that protection if you have something they really want. In short, if you find the cure for HIV or Cancer, patent it, and the United States decides that its in their interest to break your patent, they can and will.
Probably a major reason that no one is truly interested in finding a cure for those diseases. They're too popular. If I found the cure tomorrow, and charge $100 per dose (a single dose being all that's required), by the end of the week there would be a national outcry of me getting rich off the plight of the poor. The US government would sweep in, pooh-pooh me about being a greedy bastard, while talking about setting a 'fair price,' making vain speeches to the populace in an attempt to garner more votes / good press, and BOOM, it's gone. And if not the US government, than any number of other governments out there, a number of whom have already done as much with other drugs / cures.
This is kind of the number reason, if I remember correctly, that the pharmaceutical industry isn't really looking for a cure. It's not a matter of selling treatments over cures, it's a matter of cures being purloined.
3D printer can make use of metals, as well as cells.
Can't always order up a liver transplant when you absolutely need one. And as time progresses, the likelihood of an astronaut becoming involved in a near fatal accident, and requiring an emergency organ transplant, while being incapable of surviving a descent through earth's atmosphere remains.
I like fail-safes. Does anyone else like fail-safes? I like fail-safes.
Indeed. But while the current generation of 3D printers may not be up to snuff, future generations remain a possibility.
What more, the usage of 3D printers isn't limited to cranking out new parts for broken pieces of the space station -> you could fabricate things you never thought to transport with you in the first place. On a ship heading towards the outer planets, at the current rate that our chemical propulsion allows, a 3D printer would be of tremendous use.
However, let's let them evolve a bit first before equipping them on ships / stations.
We all look forward to the day that nano-bots are capable of fabricating unheard of materials, but as my engineering friend from GE told me, they haven't found a way of getting to move anywhere, yet alone do anything supremely useful. Their method for moving the bots involved a magnet. If that doesn't make you laugh, it should.
And a fair number of components on the ISS can do with a consumer-grade replacement for the 72-hours or so it will take NASA / the Russian space agency to get a supply vehicle up to them with the space-grade part. And I am fairly certain that a bunch of trained astronauts have the wherewithal to fabricate a reasonable analogue for any number of components on the ISS in the event of an emergency (and probably wouldn't mind having a few more options before they start cannibalizing parts of the station for the materials / components they need).
Bear in mind that astronauts do tend to use regular laptops / cameras for a lot of their actual work in space.
In general, bring more than one 3D printer. Two smaller ones, and one larger one, with the smaller ones being able to make replacement parts for the larger one.
And put them on different parts of the station, in case a passing meteor (or out of control supply vehicle) sheers off a module or two. Put the large one closer to where you are going to build modules / transport things off station (so you don't need to pass through every module with your new, giant part), and put the other two somewhere useful, like a science / engineering lab, and the station's break room (in case they need a fork, or a coffee cup, or what have you).
How so? Mission control could have a printer on earth, and another on the space station. Tweak the part on earth until it matches the specifications they require, performing whatever tests are needed, then upload the design to the space station.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, however, what does the contract say?
As a number of Judges recently found out, lists like that aren't always kept up to date, and the people involved won't necessarily care that they're going after a VIP's son / daughter / grandson / granddaughter.
There will be "friendly-fire" at some point. So, the Legislators in question have to make a decision: do they roll the dice, and hope that when the friendly fire does happen, it won't be one of their family / friends who get hit, or do they take the safe approach, which while not as fiscally enticing, does mean they won't be getting a phone call at 3 AM telling them that their offspring are being sued for more then their worth?
And while these people do huff their own charisma like it's going out of style, who can guarantee that they'll still be in Office when the shit hits the fan? Senator Bob may not get re-elected for different reasons, and a few years down the line, the bill he voted for could catch his family / friends unaware. While ex-Senator Bob might still have a lot of influence and friends when he leaves Office, that doesn't mean a paid shark for the larger media is going to overwhelmingly care about a has-been, who may or may not be a challenge to him getting a very nice settlement.
Just how far out do you think this protection extends? Do in-laws count? And so on. It's a large risk, with a relatively small payoff. A few million in the form of a campaign donation now, which will be gone after it gets spent on re-election, or the embarrassment of seeing your 12-year old niece being interrogated in a courtroom because she really wanted to listen to Britney Spear's latest single.
A sure sign that the bill should be nuked.
On an off-note, does anyone knows how many Senators and Representatives have teenage children / grandchildren? And of those, how many own an iPod or some other media device? Since >95% of the younger population is engaged in some form of copyright violation... It would be quietly entertaining to see the Legislators catch their own offspring in the crossfire. And for the price of those fines, bad publicity, and court costs, which for copyright violations could be quite excessive, I imagine they won't be receiving any Christmas cards from family for a while.
Senator Bob gets a new yacht, but his grand-kid has a $300,000 fine for downloading the latest teeny-bopper album and loading it on his iPod...and if Senator Bob tries to convince the RIAA to drop the suit, the media will go into a frenzy pointing out the double-standard, and possibly sinking Senator Bob's chances at re-election.
Whether the profile is for a handset or a tethered handset is irrelevant. The service being sold is unlimited data.
Agreed. It's a Friday night, and I want to feel dirty.
Spill.
The net is functionally neutral. No law needed for that to happen.
Companies that fucked with clients' access long-term tend to go bankrupt. It's just one of those things.
It's kind of hard to get more fair than the TCP/IP stack itself, which is relatively data / application agnostic. Sure, there's QoS and packet-shapers and shit you can do on the router level, but it's somewhat limited.
Entertaining.
So, we need someone with a lot of money to convince various congressmen to vote in their own best interest. Good luck with that one.
Let's try not electing anyone, and see what happens.
You know, a year or two of not having any sort of government, just to see what would happen.
Sadly, there have been more than a few occasions where they haven't.
See, research requires a lot of reading about somewhat uninteresting subjects, and that makes many of the older congressmen tired. So, you get the young page to do the reading for you, and only really read the bills when the media is openly mocking your understanding of them ("Senator Bob apparently wants to bring back the institution of slavery -> More News at 10"). It's easier to just mandate something happen, and see if it comes to pass; if it does, then you can claim you had strong leadership skills, enabling it to happen; if it doesn't, you can quietly sweep it under the rug, and wait for the courts to nullify it. You don't need to know anything, and it's a lot less work.
Yes, I was going to say.
If I had to make a decision on something I had no expertise in (for a large portion of the populace), I'd get some expertise in it. Go out, take some courses, spend a little or a lot of time in the industry, find out when someone is blowing smoke up my ass. Wouldn't issue a decision until I had done so, committee rules non-withstanding.
Not in America, no, you don't.
The only criteria for determining whether or not you are given the power to introduce bills to the federal legislature and produce a countable vote is a popularity contest.
Perhaps, but you can only extort money for fixing the problem so long as the victim actually has money. And we're running out it fast.
Gruesome.
Reminds me of the villain / hero paradox of storytelling. The audience sides with the villain, emotionally, exploring their darker impulses, right up until the hero shows up, when they switch sides, and as an act of redemption join in the emotional orgy that is the dispensing of the villain's punishment. Perhaps that's a part of the reason that a fair portion of the human race always searches for a darker, edgier, more twisted villain than the straight-lace variety; as society becomes more, *cough*, liberal (in the classic sense of the word), *cough*, with its acceptance of various behaviors, the forefront of what is / isn't acceptable is always being pushed further away. And then there's those people who prefers villains to be simply that, "a bad guy," no first name and rarely very complicated.
^_^. Two sides of the same coin. If you are complacent with the deterioration of your rights, then you are submissive to the usurped authority of those who are taking them away from you.
Think of it this way -> from the viewpoint of those who seize your rights, what difference is there between you submitting to their laughable authority versus being complacent as they deny you your ancestor's hard fought inheritance? None.
Them -> "Oh, you aren't submitting to me, but merely being complacent as I take away your liberties? Well, whatever you tell yourself that helps you sleep at night." Functionally, they are identical.
The average person would not perceive a drop in the oxygen content of the air they breathe; that does not mean it isn't affecting them.
In other news, what you don't know really can kill you. ^_^
The burden of all these extra security measures is beginning to exert a force on the economy. It's like watching the birth of a quantum singularity...interest followed by naked terror, as you realize that you can't outrun it (but not for lack of trying). I liken it to a particular episode of Stargate SG-1 (A Matter Of Time): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWpfr_0RmuM
The people of the US are like that team, running across the desert, knowing they are doomed.
On a separate note, the fact that the US people are so submissive to their rights being stolen from under them reminds me of Russians facing the Gulag; they don't try to escape, even though they could, they just go along with it because fighting against it does not occur to them.
Professional liars are always surprised to find others in the same industry as themselves.
They'll just claim it's a matter of national interest, and the whole intellectual property thing will be swept under the rug.
One of the naughties of the United States patent-process is that while it typically grants you protection for, say, 20 years (utility type), the United States reserves the right to break that protection if you have something they really want. In short, if you find the cure for HIV or Cancer, patent it, and the United States decides that its in their interest to break your patent, they can and will.
Probably a major reason that no one is truly interested in finding a cure for those diseases. They're too popular. If I found the cure tomorrow, and charge $100 per dose (a single dose being all that's required), by the end of the week there would be a national outcry of me getting rich off the plight of the poor. The US government would sweep in, pooh-pooh me about being a greedy bastard, while talking about setting a 'fair price,' making vain speeches to the populace in an attempt to garner more votes / good press, and BOOM, it's gone. And if not the US government, than any number of other governments out there, a number of whom have already done as much with other drugs / cures.
This is kind of the number reason, if I remember correctly, that the pharmaceutical industry isn't really looking for a cure. It's not a matter of selling treatments over cures, it's a matter of cures being purloined.
I must have missed that part of the movie.
3D printer can make use of metals, as well as cells.
Can't always order up a liver transplant when you absolutely need one. And as time progresses, the likelihood of an astronaut becoming involved in a near fatal accident, and requiring an emergency organ transplant, while being incapable of surviving a descent through earth's atmosphere remains.
I like fail-safes. Does anyone else like fail-safes? I like fail-safes.
Indeed. But while the current generation of 3D printers may not be up to snuff, future generations remain a possibility.
What more, the usage of 3D printers isn't limited to cranking out new parts for broken pieces of the space station -> you could fabricate things you never thought to transport with you in the first place. On a ship heading towards the outer planets, at the current rate that our chemical propulsion allows, a 3D printer would be of tremendous use.
However, let's let them evolve a bit first before equipping them on ships / stations.
3D printers.
We all look forward to the day that nano-bots are capable of fabricating unheard of materials, but as my engineering friend from GE told me, they haven't found a way of getting to move anywhere, yet alone do anything supremely useful. Their method for moving the bots involved a magnet. If that doesn't make you laugh, it should.
And a fair number of components on the ISS can do with a consumer-grade replacement for the 72-hours or so it will take NASA / the Russian space agency to get a supply vehicle up to them with the space-grade part. And I am fairly certain that a bunch of trained astronauts have the wherewithal to fabricate a reasonable analogue for any number of components on the ISS in the event of an emergency (and probably wouldn't mind having a few more options before they start cannibalizing parts of the station for the materials / components they need).
Bear in mind that astronauts do tend to use regular laptops / cameras for a lot of their actual work in space.
;-)
In general, bring more than one 3D printer. Two smaller ones, and one larger one, with the smaller ones being able to make replacement parts for the larger one.
And put them on different parts of the station, in case a passing meteor (or out of control supply vehicle) sheers off a module or two. Put the large one closer to where you are going to build modules / transport things off station (so you don't need to pass through every module with your new, giant part), and put the other two somewhere useful, like a science / engineering lab, and the station's break room (in case they need a fork, or a coffee cup, or what have you).
How so? Mission control could have a printer on earth, and another on the space station. Tweak the part on earth until it matches the specifications they require, performing whatever tests are needed, then upload the design to the space station.