In an article linked from one of mentioned articles, the same author argues that one possible outcome of the Park Hypothesis (space-faring civilizations choose not to colonize) is:
If a dominant civilization, or group of civilizations, bans colonization throughout the galaxy, then it will not take place, no matter how much other civilizations protest.
However, I don't understand how a non-colonizing civilization could be so dominant as to actually ban colonization by others. At best, a civilization wishing to colonize would ignore and go around the opposing civilization. At worst, it would apply its superior resources (from multiple colonies established before first contact) to destroy them.
Unless the tattoo is easily and cleanly removable, it would be a mistake to use on the general military population, since tattooed grunts couldn't aspire to covert ops (too easily identifiable).
One other item to consider when you've got a plug-in hybrid where 90+% of the trips don't need any gas at all: gasoline won't last forever in the tank. It can turn into sludge after a few months, and even additives won't make it last more than a year or so. Maybe not a problem for this vehicle, but something to be addressed if energy sources like batteries or hydrogen don't get good enough to replace the gastank entirely in next few decades.
If we were in the middle of World War III, the situation might be slightly different.
Off-topic, but I suspect we're already there. Much has been done in the name of the global war on terror that makes patent infringement look like jay-walking.
In particular, he concludes that work in non-democratic firms is nothing less than a form of "temporary voluntary slavery".
I haven't read this document, but it sounds to me like Dr. Ellerman doesn't understand what slavery really is if he thinks he can compare it to modern Western at-will work-for-hire arrangements. Nevermind that I consider "voluntary slavery" to be an oxymoron. The kind of historic (and modern) slavery practices which give the word "slavery" its powerful meaning always involve means and extents of control far beyond "do it this way or you're fired."
I wonder if companies like these could make their operations more efficient by caching the rips of their customers so the same CD need not be done twice. Sadly, the lessons of my.mp3.com should discourage them from anything like that.
There's a big difference between contactless power and wireless power. Wake me up when I can walk around town drawing power for my iPod from overhead lines.
The USB drive may simply be an add-on to the "keyless" ignition of the 2004 Prius: RFID authenticates with the ignition system when in close proximity. This way you've got a neat storage doodad, but the car will still run if your virus-ridden laptop reformats the USB drive.
Nonetheless, he says the exercise upset some cadets, who felt it exploited their inclination to follow an order from a colonel, no questions asked.
My initial response is that cadets needs to wise up about who's who when orders are given, but then I realized that it's probably a federal offense to impersonate a military officer in real life. The question then becomes whether it's illegal to impersonate an officer online. If so, the good/bad/good guys have gone too far.
Corporations are legally obliged to maximize shareholder value...
Precisely. The only way to relieve a corporation of that obligation is to get Congress to impose sanctions. That such sanctions are not currently in place indicates that the nation believes that engagement improves the lives of ordinary Chinese people. U.S. corporations are just the tools of that policy.
The one thing diesels tend to do poorly on is emissions, and California's emissions requirements are one reason automobile manufacturers are investing in hybrids. But even in the non-diesel arena, raw mileage isn't everything when it comes to this sort of thing: the Honda Insight gets much better mileage than the much heavier pre-2003 Toyota Prius, but the Prius has lower carbon emissions because the (very heavy) planetary gearing transmission lets it balance the load on the gasoline engine so that whenever it runs, it does so in the sweet spot to minimize pollutants.
Not to get too far afield of the topic, but I argue that the problem of a Congress that passes apparently unconstitutional laws and a Supreme Court that restricts apparent constitutional rights is wrapped up in checks-and-balances and constitutional interpretation. The words of the constitution never stand on their own: they always live under current interpretation. The USSC is charged with making consistent long-lasting interpretations and life appointments improve those attributes of the court decisions. The Congress is always the front-line of "what the people seem to want" and the USSC is the gatekeeper to prevent willy-nilly change. When we disagree with what the USSC considers willy-nilly, unconstitutional change is still possible (through the Amendment process), but it requires more people and a broader base of people to make it happen.
In the end, the US Constitution is all about ensuring the people get the civil society they want, but not so quickly that fads become ill-conceived law. If the Patriot Act stands indefinitely, it will be because a revised interpretation of the 4th and 6th amendments is what the people are really looking for.
The Patriot Act does not, of course, break the 4th or 6th amendments, though it may be incompatible with them. One of the many strengths of the United States Constitution is that it provides for a resolution to this kind of problem that is well short of overthrowing the government, specifically, appealling court decisions which involve the Patriot Act until a court is reached which has the scope to rule on that compatibility. Our responsibility, which we do not take lightly, is to avail ourselves of the remedies which exist under law before discarding law in favor of outright revolution.
A lesser nation might have devolved into chaos following a court ruling that decided a tight presidential race. But in the US, those that disagreed with the decision value the consitutional process too much to discard it when the outcome isn't to their liking.
I think it would be interesting if the pixels actually made an audible snap when they change. I don't have any visual disabilities, but it would seem that Braille offers no equivalent to the peripheral vision sighted people use to take full advantage of a large graphical display. Such snap sounds (if done subtly enough) could be a small step in that direction. A "multimedia experience" of sorts for the visually impaired.
Then again, Braille terminals may already have this: in the movie Sneakers the terminal used by Whistler was making sounds as it was updated, but that may have been artistic license by the director.
If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable.
If Philip Corwin's assessment is correct, then this bill is broad enough to terminate the computer business: most modern computers can be used to aid copyright infringement (if only to run the spreadsheets pirates use to count their ill-gotten gains) and the manufacturers know it, so they are also infringers.
Actually, the real risk is for those with deep pockets: manufacturers and servicers of VCRs (and similar equipment). They would become infringers with lots of money. Since they would be easy and obvious targets, they would stop providing those products/services.
Slashdot Mirror
Comment:
Sig:Unless the tattoo is easily and cleanly removable, it would be a mistake to use on the general military population, since tattooed grunts couldn't aspire to covert ops (too easily identifiable).
I've never heard of the original, but Planescape Torment 2: The Poop sounds like a winner to me.
One other item to consider when you've got a plug-in hybrid where 90+% of the trips don't need any gas at all: gasoline won't last forever in the tank. It can turn into sludge after a few months, and even additives won't make it last more than a year or so. Maybe not a problem for this vehicle, but something to be addressed if energy sources like batteries or hydrogen don't get good enough to replace the gastank entirely in next few decades.
Looks like the only thing they know it does is cause people who are already too thin to get thinner.
WXYZConsulting.com registered to a Yi Zhang, eh? Probably co-founded it with Wilfred Xylem. Sounds fishy to me...
OK, maybe I'm just missing an acronym/typo somewhere, but "pen testing?" Will the worms come through my Mont Blanc?
Off-topic, but I suspect we're already there. Much has been done in the name of the global war on terror that makes patent infringement look like jay-walking.
Plus we'd have been prepared 360 million years early for thinking in hexadecimal. Just think, no more "GB is one billion bytes" crap!
I haven't read this document, but it sounds to me like Dr. Ellerman doesn't understand what slavery really is if he thinks he can compare it to modern Western at-will work-for-hire arrangements. Nevermind that I consider "voluntary slavery" to be an oxymoron. The kind of historic (and modern) slavery practices which give the word "slavery" its powerful meaning always involve means and extents of control far beyond "do it this way or you're fired."
I wonder if companies like these could make their operations more efficient by caching the rips of their customers so the same CD need not be done twice. Sadly, the lessons of my.mp3.com should discourage them from anything like that.
There's a big difference between contactless power and wireless power. Wake me up when I can walk around town drawing power for my iPod from overhead lines.
The USB drive may simply be an add-on to the "keyless" ignition of the 2004 Prius: RFID authenticates with the ignition system when in close proximity. This way you've got a neat storage doodad, but the car will still run if your virus-ridden laptop reformats the USB drive.
My initial response is that cadets needs to wise up about who's who when orders are given, but then I realized that it's probably a federal offense to impersonate a military officer in real life. The question then becomes whether it's illegal to impersonate an officer online. If so, the good/bad/good guys have gone too far.
Precisely. The only way to relieve a corporation of that obligation is to get Congress to impose sanctions. That such sanctions are not currently in place indicates that the nation believes that engagement improves the lives of ordinary Chinese people. U.S. corporations are just the tools of that policy.
The one thing diesels tend to do poorly on is emissions, and California's emissions requirements are one reason automobile manufacturers are investing in hybrids. But even in the non-diesel arena, raw mileage isn't everything when it comes to this sort of thing: the Honda Insight gets much better mileage than the much heavier pre-2003 Toyota Prius, but the Prius has lower carbon emissions because the (very heavy) planetary gearing transmission lets it balance the load on the gasoline engine so that whenever it runs, it does so in the sweet spot to minimize pollutants.
$390 to present a paper, and that price includes "coffee breaks?" Who's scamming whom, here?
All I can think of is the scene where Uhura is re-learning English and trying to pronounce "blue" on her own:
Not to get too far afield of the topic, but I argue that the problem of a Congress that passes apparently unconstitutional laws and a Supreme Court that restricts apparent constitutional rights is wrapped up in checks-and-balances and constitutional interpretation. The words of the constitution never stand on their own: they always live under current interpretation. The USSC is charged with making consistent long-lasting interpretations and life appointments improve those attributes of the court decisions. The Congress is always the front-line of "what the people seem to want" and the USSC is the gatekeeper to prevent willy-nilly change. When we disagree with what the USSC considers willy-nilly, unconstitutional change is still possible (through the Amendment process), but it requires more people and a broader base of people to make it happen.
In the end, the US Constitution is all about ensuring the people get the civil society they want, but not so quickly that fads become ill-conceived law. If the Patriot Act stands indefinitely, it will be because a revised interpretation of the 4th and 6th amendments is what the people are really looking for.
The Patriot Act does not, of course, break the 4th or 6th amendments, though it may be incompatible with them. One of the many strengths of the United States Constitution is that it provides for a resolution to this kind of problem that is well short of overthrowing the government, specifically, appealling court decisions which involve the Patriot Act until a court is reached which has the scope to rule on that compatibility. Our responsibility, which we do not take lightly, is to avail ourselves of the remedies which exist under law before discarding law in favor of outright revolution.
A lesser nation might have devolved into chaos following a court ruling that decided a tight presidential race. But in the US, those that disagreed with the decision value the consitutional process too much to discard it when the outcome isn't to their liking.
I think it would be interesting if the pixels actually made an audible snap when they change. I don't have any visual disabilities, but it would seem that Braille offers no equivalent to the peripheral vision sighted people use to take full advantage of a large graphical display. Such snap sounds (if done subtly enough) could be a small step in that direction. A "multimedia experience" of sorts for the visually impaired.
Then again, Braille terminals may already have this: in the movie Sneakers the terminal used by Whistler was making sounds as it was updated, but that may have been artistic license by the director.
I think you're thinking of Pinpressions.
Actually, the real risk is for those with deep pockets: manufacturers and servicers of VCRs (and similar equipment). They would become infringers with lots of money. Since they would be easy and obvious targets, they would stop providing those products/services.