Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
I'm working on a project that will use broadband services to deliver digital cable TV and internet services. In fact, I'm trying to wrap my head around the TS packet structure for the transform filter
I bet with HDTV around the corner it will really suck the photons down the fiber.
When it comes to the last mile though, I don't think even wavelets are going to be able to help you out.
My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing
You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;
Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!
Why should we have our freedom of expression quashed to make up for the idiocy of others?
I don't see it that way. The ability for a citizen to make "easy" copies of currency is not essential to freedom of expression. Note that people still can make copies of currency, it's just harder to do so.
Freedom of expression is limited (in the US) by the damage it may cause others. Being able to make easy perfect copies of currency could damage not only somebody who takes counterfeit currency for payment but could harm the economic viability of an economy.
The other methods you mentioned will certainly be implemented in time. The only problem most of the other methods you mentioned will require high tech methods to implement (i.e. the average small merchant will not purchase).
Freedom of expression will not be quashed by currency detecting printers
That's just it. Whoever gets stuck with a bad twenty is left holding the bag. We live in a world where scanners/printers are lightyears improved over what we had a couple years ago, and they continue to improve.
What this is designed to do is prevent the "casual counterfeiter" from being in business. Like the teenager who decides that he needs an extra "allowance" and prints off a couple of twenties. Before you know it all his freinds at school are doing it, and then their friends etc. etc.
Then there is a guy that decides that he'll just one off a twenty for dinner (as it's not going to hurt anybody). Human nature being what it is, he sees how easy it is and decides to "stick it to the government for all the bad things that it has done". So he prints out a hundred 20s next weekend.
Then you have those governments that are "hostile" to the US and decide to set up warehouses of printers churning out money so they can finance their terrorists activities against the US.
Before you know it you have a nation of counterfeiters and a destroyed currency. This means that the government has to issue a national id card for electronic cashless transactions. Privacy becomes zilch, as you have merchants refusing to accept cash (like many do not accept checks now (and this is increasing too)) because it's all counterfeit.
I do not see this stopping somebody from making a copy of something. If an artist needs an image of currency, I suggest that they become "old school" and pull out the pens and pencils and do a JS Boggs and draw one.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also enjoy the anonymity that paying with cash has to offer. But if copying money at home becomes easy then everybody starts doing it. Look at the history of our own money to see that this could happen. It would be history repeating itself. I would rather inconvenience the artist (and that's all this is, an inconvenience) than being forced with a national cash/id card.
I agree. I do not buy the "scammers will move to/are in other countries" arguement. I truly believe that if you were to send spammers to jail with a heavy sentence (especially the dozen that are responsible for 90% of the spam) a person's inbox would be very quiet.
I also believe most of them reside in the US. Sure there are a _couple_ of foreign spammers, but I bet they are extraditable.
Except all the ones in Nigeria - but maybe the government could get tough there if we threatened to withhold foreign aid, in which case we would see spammers put to death.
After the moon program closed down in the early 70's, the republican administration at the time (Nixon) did some research into what the next logical step would be: going to mars.
The number NASA came up with then was 300 to 400 billion dollars. And that was 1972 dollars too. Adjusting for inflation, a trillion dollars looks real cheap.
I'm sure you can get NASA to give you any fantasy you want. Instead of mars, we got the fantastic space shuttle that was going to replace all of the unmanned rockets to deliver satellites for companies and the military once a week.
Let me ask you this, is the shuttle deliverying satellites?
More delicious irony -- one of the biggest selling points NASA fanboys have been chattering off the top of their head is we need the shuttle to fix the hubble
Well, as you can see in the first link in the parent, that is no more. So much as the next space telescope is concerned, they are putting it in an orbit that is completely unreachable by the shuttle anyway.
I won't get into all the other fantastical promises made by NASA on the shuttle.
Was the shuttle program ever on budget? Not by a long shot.
How about the space station? I know they are going around and around and around in zero G.
What are they proving? That we can kleep a man a long time in space? The russians already did that with Mir.
The truth is the space station was "invented" to give the shuttle a purpose (which really never delivered on a fraction of the promises).
For the same reasons the shuttle was not useful, the space station really isn't either. At least the suttle could land.
Was the space station on budget? No way (and these are old numbers).
NASA has long said they could develope a cheap space plane to replace the shuttle. After billions of dollars, they have yet to do so
If this was a rap sheet for NASA, they would be in jail.
The fact is there is not a reason for a man to be in space There is no sane argument that can be made for it. Sure "it's neat", but we already went to the moon, and we already know we could go to mars -- it's a question of money which boils down to being financially responsible.
Saying that it could be done for only 100 billion dollars is a bald faced lie, worthy of any other lie that a religious cult would propagate.
Saying that we could afford 90 billion dollars a year is to be blind to all the problems surrounding us now, like seniors having to choose between food and medicine. And don't mention that big lie of a medicare bill that just past too. Hell, to spend a trillion dollars because telepresence is a problem is freakin' insane when my senior citizen mother is about to cancel her health insurance because she can't afford it.
fsck the man on mars
Space travel fanboys need deprogramming, along with proper pharmaceuticals prescribed by a reputable shrink.
Now, you do realize there is a 2-hour radio delay between here and mars, correct? Just think of the agony of finding and picking up rocks, then bringing them home with a 2 hour delay.
Boy, if something were to go wrong, we couldn't help the astronaut. Even travelling at the speed of light.
...comes out to be about 90 billion a year
To think the nation can foot a "90 billion a year" bill for a man on mars not only shows dedication to a dream, but that it's a sadly misplaced dream.
We hand out more than that to the airlines, instead of making them change their business practices to make a profit.
The irony is delicious. Do you think Bush is going to do anything to change corporate welfare?
Twenty years ago that may have been the case. But it is extremely easy to imagine a robot with stereoscopic high definition cameras beaming data back to earth to virtual reality helmets.
Alot of space travel fanboys are going to say "it's not the same as being there."
Maybe not, but these people need to get a sense of reality. Former astronaut (and senator) John Glen estimates it will cost one trillion dollars
Does Bush have a sense of reality? "He wants to build like a space station on the moon, and then from the moon, he wants to launch people to Mars," David Letterman observed. "You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen? He's been drinking again."
Really though, it's like his other programs. He announces it, but only throws a token bone to fund it. He expects others down the line (as yet unknown how) to fund it, but he wants to take the credit early on. Smart politicing in a campaign year. The 1 billion a year extra for Bush's mars initiative is great if you are going to build the rocket out of paper mache' and not much else.
Incidentally, his father announced the exact same thing when he was president, so this is nothing new either. Look where that went.
Also, any number NASA gives you to accomplish something, multiply it by three to come up with the actual cost, as they never are able to keep a program on budget.
The only reason to go to mars would be because it's "neat" to go. But the reality many people decline to admit is that it would bankrupt this nation if we were to throw all the money at NASA that they would need to do it.
I say that we need to "make do" with "neat" robots.
And as congressman Barney Franks smartly noted "If they want romance, let them buy Danielle Steel books. It's much cheaper than going to Mars."
According to this story, the shuttle mission was cancelled because of NASA's new focus of going to mars, given to us by the vision of George W Bush.
While it would only take $40 million to service hubble, $3.5 million is alot easier to raise than the additional $38.5 million for hubble.
So the choice is not really between fix up Saturn V or service hubble but rather between man on mars or servicing hubble.
What would you rather have, a man on mars collecting samples (that may be done by a robot for a fraction of the cost) or all the scientific discoveries of the universe that are continuosly made by hubble?
It's a safe bet that because of George W. Bush "man on mars" initiative any Saturn V repairs are going to be completely off the radar as well, unless maybe you get a bunch of schoolchildren to toss in their dollars (as they did for the statue of liberty).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking for an easy distro for a senior citizen friend. I need to be able to put it on their desk and not worry that will have a hard time.
If it means that it has stupid K menu and stupid looking icons and crap, so be it.
Sometimes the N00Bs need to be reached down to (which represents a significant number of people).
I have came to the exact same conclusion you have. I'm an ex EE major that had a real hard time with the school grind.
If I wanted to I could go back and finish I now. But my heart is not in it anymore. Everything has changed from 15 years ago.
They have industrial technology degrees that look like a lot of fun, because you play in the machine shop a lot. But the job prospects are zero.
I think that nursing (as an earlier poster mentioned) is where its at -- if you can stand to be around sick people as a career. I don't think I can.
So, I'm looking for a way to slap together my old credits into a degree.
Needless to say, I can fulfill the science requirements that a liberal arts major suffocate with quite nicely.
I think that I would do it just to do it and finish it. It bugs me a little.
Better "cheesy" than nothing at all.
but the clowns the Dems are producing this year don't leave much choice
Dude, you don't know what a clown is. Everybody has a t-shirt.
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
I think that at this point, this is a sign that Dean has failed it.
Too bad, I would have enjoyed seeing him body slam Dubya WWE style.
An oscillation overthruster
The most critical part to the Fembot they are building.
Nerds everywhere are rejoicing.
A time machine, so they can go back to 1999, when goofy job titles and goofily-named companies were acceptable
sssshhh!! Nobody is supposed to know about the flux capacitor yet.
I'm working on a project that will use broadband services to deliver digital cable TV and internet services. In fact, I'm trying to wrap my head around the TS packet structure for the transform filter
I bet with HDTV around the corner it will really suck the photons down the fiber.
When it comes to the last mile though, I don't think even wavelets are going to be able to help you out.
of Windows does it take to become a knight?
It's not the quantity, but the quality
oh, wait....
slashdotters don't know 3 people each if you discount both parents and Mittens the cat. :(
Excuse me, I have two cats, and their names are not Mittens.
barcodes aren't RF sensitive.
If there is profit in it, your rights will be steamrolled.
First the cases will be tagged, then the products.
If WalMart cared about rights, they would pay employees what they owe them
FYI the sun is made out of hydrogen.
:)
For once, Obvious Guy isn't
My question is when will the RIAA start running out of money to do this sort of thing
You know the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "Terminator." It's like that;
Listen! And understand! That RIAA is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are sued!
All I can say is "May the Schwarz be with you."
Why should we have our freedom of expression quashed to make up for the idiocy of others?
I don't see it that way. The ability for a citizen to make "easy" copies of currency is not essential to freedom of expression. Note that people still can make copies of currency, it's just harder to do so.
Freedom of expression is limited (in the US) by the damage it may cause others. Being able to make easy perfect copies of currency could damage not only somebody who takes counterfeit currency for payment but could harm the economic viability of an economy.
The other methods you mentioned will certainly be implemented in time. The only problem most of the other methods you mentioned will require high tech methods to implement (i.e. the average small merchant will not purchase).
Freedom of expression will not be quashed by currency detecting printers
That's just it. Whoever gets stuck with a bad twenty is left holding the bag. We live in a world where scanners/printers are lightyears improved over what we had a couple years ago, and they continue to improve.
What this is designed to do is prevent the "casual counterfeiter" from being in business. Like the teenager who decides that he needs an extra "allowance" and prints off a couple of twenties. Before you know it all his freinds at school are doing it, and then their friends etc. etc.
Then there is a guy that decides that he'll just one off a twenty for dinner (as it's not going to hurt anybody). Human nature being what it is, he sees how easy it is and decides to "stick it to the government for all the bad things that it has done". So he prints out a hundred 20s next weekend.
Then you have those governments that are "hostile" to the US and decide to set up warehouses of printers churning out money so they can finance their terrorists activities against the US.
Before you know it you have a nation of counterfeiters and a destroyed currency. This means that the government has to issue a national id card for electronic cashless transactions. Privacy becomes zilch, as you have merchants refusing to accept cash (like many do not accept checks now (and this is increasing too)) because it's all counterfeit.
I do not see this stopping somebody from making a copy of something. If an artist needs an image of currency, I suggest that they become "old school" and pull out the pens and pencils and do a JS Boggs and draw one.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also enjoy the anonymity that paying with cash has to offer. But if copying money at home becomes easy then everybody starts doing it. Look at the history of our own money to see that this could happen. It would be history repeating itself. I would rather inconvenience the artist (and that's all this is, an inconvenience) than being forced with a national cash/id card.
So 6:30 must be their favorite time for these types of raids
Probably designed that way to catch people completely off guard and prevent them from destroying evidence.
You beat the filter
You have viagra for sale
Now taste the bullet
Seems they were hacked [valuepointmeds.biz]
Now they are slashdotted.....spam problem cured.
I agree. I do not buy the "scammers will move to/are in other countries" arguement. I truly believe that if you were to send spammers to jail with a heavy sentence (especially the dozen that are responsible for 90% of the spam) a person's inbox would be very quiet.
I also believe most of them reside in the US. Sure there are a _couple_ of foreign spammers, but I bet they are extraditable.
Except all the ones in Nigeria - but maybe the government could get tough there if we threatened to withhold foreign aid, in which case we would see spammers put to death.
After the moon program closed down in the early 70's, the republican administration at the time (Nixon) did some research into what the next logical step would be: going to mars.
The number NASA came up with then was 300 to 400 billion dollars. And that was 1972 dollars too. Adjusting for inflation, a trillion dollars looks real cheap.
I'm sure you can get NASA to give you any fantasy you want. Instead of mars, we got the fantastic space shuttle that was going to replace all of the unmanned rockets to deliver satellites for companies and the military once a week.
Let me ask you this, is the shuttle deliverying satellites?
Not Really
More delicious irony -- one of the biggest selling points NASA fanboys have been chattering off the top of their head is we need the shuttle to fix the hubble
Well, as you can see in the first link in the parent, that is no more. So much as the next space telescope is concerned, they are putting it in an orbit that is completely unreachable by the shuttle anyway.
I won't get into all the other fantastical promises made by NASA on the shuttle.
Was the shuttle program ever on budget? Not by a long shot.
How about the space station? I know they are going around and around and around in zero G.
What are they proving? That we can kleep a man a long time in space? The russians already did that with Mir.
The truth is the space station was "invented" to give the shuttle a purpose (which really never delivered on a fraction of the promises).
For the same reasons the shuttle was not useful, the space station really isn't either. At least the suttle could land.
Was the space station on budget?
No way (and these are old numbers).
NASA has long said they could develope a cheap space plane to replace the shuttle. After billions of dollars, they have yet to do so
If this was a rap sheet for NASA, they would be in jail.
The fact is there is not a reason for a man to be in space There is no sane argument that can be made for it. Sure "it's neat", but we already went to the moon, and we already know we could go to mars -- it's a question of money which boils down to being financially responsible.
Saying that it could be done for only 100 billion dollars is a bald faced lie, worthy of any other lie that a religious cult would propagate.
Saying that we could afford 90 billion dollars a year is to be blind to all the problems surrounding us now, like seniors having to choose between food and medicine. And don't mention that big lie of a medicare bill that just past too. Hell, to spend a trillion dollars because telepresence is a problem is freakin' insane when my senior citizen mother is about to cancel her health insurance because she can't afford it.
fsck the man on mars
Space travel fanboys need deprogramming, along with proper pharmaceuticals prescribed by a reputable shrink.
I am convinced of this.
Get over your hatred for Bush.
...comes out to be about 90 billion a year
Heh, I guess that makes me "unpatriotic."
Now, you do realize there is a 2-hour radio delay between here and mars, correct? Just think of the agony of finding and picking up rocks, then bringing them home with a 2 hour delay.
Boy, if something were to go wrong, we couldn't help the astronaut. Even travelling at the speed of light.
To think the nation can foot a "90 billion a year" bill for a man on mars not only shows dedication to a dream, but that it's a sadly misplaced dream.
We hand out more than that to the airlines, instead of making them change their business practices to make a profit.
The irony is delicious. Do you think Bush is going to do anything to change corporate welfare?
Twenty years ago that may have been the case. But it is extremely easy to imagine a robot with stereoscopic high definition cameras beaming data back to earth to virtual reality helmets.
Alot of space travel fanboys are going to say "it's not the same as being there."
Maybe not, but these people need to get a sense of reality. Former astronaut (and senator) John Glen estimates it will cost one trillion dollars
Does Bush have a sense of reality? "He wants to build like a space station on the moon, and then from the moon, he wants to launch people to Mars," David Letterman observed. "You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen? He's been drinking again."
Really though, it's like his other programs. He announces it, but only throws a token bone to fund it. He expects others down the line (as yet unknown how) to fund it, but he wants to take the credit early on. Smart politicing in a campaign year. The 1 billion a year extra for Bush's mars initiative is great if you are going to build the rocket out of paper mache' and not much else.
Incidentally, his father announced the exact same thing when he was president, so this is nothing new either. Look where that went.
Also, any number NASA gives you to accomplish something, multiply it by three to come up with the actual cost, as they never are able to keep a program on budget.
The only reason to go to mars would be because it's "neat" to go. But the reality many people decline to admit is that it would bankrupt this nation if we were to throw all the money at NASA that they would need to do it.
I say that we need to "make do" with "neat" robots.
And as congressman Barney Franks smartly noted "If they want romance, let them buy Danielle Steel books. It's much cheaper than going to Mars."
According to this story, the shuttle mission was cancelled because of NASA's new focus of going to mars, given to us by the vision of George W Bush.
While it would only take $40 million to service hubble, $3.5 million is alot easier to raise than the additional $38.5 million for hubble.
So the choice is not really between fix up Saturn V or service hubble but rather between man on mars or servicing hubble.
What would you rather have, a man on mars collecting samples (that may be done by a robot for a fraction of the cost) or all the scientific discoveries of the universe that are continuosly made by hubble?
It's a safe bet that because of George W. Bush "man on mars" initiative any Saturn V repairs are going to be completely off the radar as well, unless maybe you get a bunch of schoolchildren to toss in their dollars (as they did for the statue of liberty).
If I were an astromoner, I'd be pretty mad too.
It looks like that at the link you posted the current prices are shown. It says prices are for contracts after the first.