> A bigger show stopper is likely to be "where do I refuel it?"
Then the big show restarter would be "a gas station". Without the hydrogen booster, your car would run normally, like it did before the mod. If you run out of hydrogen on the road, your fuel economy drops, but the car will keep running. Then, you reload the hydrogen system when you get to wherever you can fill it.
Segue, indeed. The Segway is an invention, not a scientific discovery. Different rules apply. No laws of nature were harmed in the making of this device.
Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but she left the computer behind because it was trashed. When this fellow found that the computer proper worked correctly, why didn't he call her up and offer to return it to her, perhaps for use as a desktop system, instead of formatting the drive and using it himself? That's still her computer, and if it still works he's not very professional just to keep it. Remember, she left the Mac with them so they could discard it, so it's reasonable she'd want it back if she knew it worked.
> Well, those things you described I'd rather call exploits rather than cheats, since they exploit bugs in these programs (except that trade window thing, which is almost a bug in usability, but more social engineering, don't know about the function-key thing).
I can concede this.
Virg
P.S. the function key thing is an old social engineering thing in Diablo II. In this game, when your system drops the connection to the server (like a system crash), your avatar hangs around for thirty seconds or so before disappearing. Also, when you "go hostile" to another player, you must be in town, they are warned, and you can't attack them in town. So, the trick is that someone will walk up to you when you're outside the border of the town (a good hunting zone for newbies) and tell you, "if you hold down your Alt key and hit F1-F2-F3-F4-F5 you'll get 10,000 gold" or something else valuable. If you're dumb enough to do that, you'll find that Alt-F1, 2, 3 and 5 are meaningless, but Alt-F4 (the Windows "close program" hotkey) causes Diablo II to exit immediately. This leaves your immobile and defenseless avatar standing in the game for thirty seconds, which is long enough for the trickster to enter town, go hostile to you (you don't see the warning because you crashed your program), return and kill you to take all your stuff.
In the same way, he's wrong, and so are you. Strong protections protect against falsification of data input, but vanishingly few cheats in MMORPGs are data hacks. Most are processes completely legitimate to the code that take advantage of a flaw in the game design (a bug or a game fault, such as the Pindleskins problem in Diablo II) to allow a character to advance much more quickly, or procure much more power than is normal. Others are social engineering that allow people to sucker other people out of their power ("Let me look at that item in a trade window" or "F1-F2-F3-F4-F5 will give you ten thousand gold pieces!" or other such trickery). So, strong protections on the data stream are needed, but they don't protect against the large majority of cheats.
> I should mention that it's really amusing to see all these down-moderations, yet not one person has managed to list a single valid rebuttal to any of the points. "I disagree, but I don't know why!"
The reason you don't see a rebuttal to these points is that they're correct as they stand. The mistake you make (and Mr. Stein, for whom I have a great deal of respect, by the way) is (in his case) implying that these bad ideas have all been implemented by the U.S. culture and (in your case) believing him. In point 11, I agree that this socialized medical system would be a bad thing, but I disagree with his implication that this is the way things work now. In point 9, the immigration policy he describes is indeed horrible, but I remain unconvinced that it's accurate. I could go on, but you get my point. This doesn't fit "valid rebuttal to any of the points" strictly, but it does represent disagreement with his position.
> I thought the acting was abismal in the second one.
Well, it was second rate, perhaps (William Hurt actually did a good job keeping Leto close to the book) but it was not worse than (and in some places was much better than) the first film, with the notable exception that nobody could play Feyd better than Sting. Add the better production, and the fact that the extra time meant that one didn't need to know the book deeply to understand what the hell was going on, and you can get to "much better job" with only a little kindness.
Don't be too sad. They woefully screwed up Dune the first time out, but the remake (done over six hours, not two) did a much better job of it. Perhaps the SciFi channel will get hold of this one, too.
> Too bad, as is my frequent lament, the fiction section at my uni's multi-floor library could be stacked on the space left over on my desk RIGHT NOW.
Of course it could. The good parts of it, at least. It's the Internet terminal, that allows you to surf to the Gutenberg Project site and get hold of some rousing good fiction. Give it a shot. You can even download most of the works and carry them around to read off your palmtop (you do have a palmtop, right?!?).
Unfortunately, I'm with the original author on this. When I pay massive money for a laptop, I expect massive performance. It would be one thing if it was configurable, and I could choose to run long or run hard, but in this case, I don't have a choice, and nobody mentions it when you lay down the dollars.
For my experience, there are quite a number of things you'd need power for:
1.) Working on a massive spreadsheet while you eat lunch. You don't need to work for four hours, you need to get it done in one.
2.) Building a presentation or graphic ad en route to a site. Again, my flights run about two hours of work time (can't use the laptop on takeoff/landing) so longer battery life is useless when held against getting the job done in the time allotted.
3.) Compiling code. When I run a build I'm killing time until it's done. It's cheaper to get it done faster and have a spare battery on hand than stand around (with five other overpaid workers) at a work site (where the nearest plug is 100 feet away) while some calculation happens.
So, there are a number of applications where speed trumps longevity, and if the computer is going to force me to choose long run over power run, at least they should tell me before a pay good money for a laptop that's going to do it.
Actually, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all times, and right on red requires a complete stop at the light before turning right. It's not like the red light can simply be ignored by right-turn drivers, and not stopping before turning earns the same citation as running the light straight through.
> > You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S
> Huh? Because they don't have the power to pass laws that affect other citizens of countries, they have the power to pass laws that affect citizens of other countries?
Confusing interpretation. What my statement says is that the U.S. Constitution protects the rights only of U.S. citizens/nationals, and therefore non-citizens cannot apply to it to protect their rights, except when they're within the jurisdiction of the U.S. itself.
> The federal government has only the powers granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. We have those rights anyway as humans, and ALL humans have those rights.
What a nice thought, but there's one important part of this left out. Without the force of law, the concept of human rights has no meaning. If you think it does, you should have a chat with someone living in China, or perhaps better in Tibet. Or try talking to a Kurd, or a Chechnyan, or someone who used to live in the U.S.S.R. for more insight. The Constitution does indeed grant rights to the citizenry of the U.S., by adding the force of law to the protection of those rights. It does not add that force of law to the protection of the rights of non-nationals outside the U.S..
> The Supreme Court has ruled that there are cases where an exemption to this exists (incitement to riot, for example), but these
exemptions are very limited and, quite simply, don't apply just because Ashcroft wants to claim that someone is a terrorist.
I think the word you want here is "shouldn't", because according to the way certain laws now read, the exemptions do apply to someone that Ashcroft says is a terrorist, and I'm in 100% agreement with you that that's a really, REALLY, REALLY bad thing. Still, in this case, at this time, the law does indeed apply, which sends me back to the statement I made earlier that the only legal approach to this case would be to attack the Constitutionality of preventing U.S. citizens access to the information, as opposed to trying to apply Constitutional protection to FARC members themselves.
> The Constitution grants powers to the government, and it's both assumed throughout and stated explicitly in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government doesn't have any power that hasn't been granted in the Constitution. If it's not permitted to the government, it's denied.
I have to argue that my original point is not wrong in the context addressed. The Tenth Amendment doesn't really apply here, since that Amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government doesn't usurp the rights of any state government or citizen, but it doesn't apply outside the sovereignty of the U.S. as a whole, since none of the Constitution applies to non-citizens living outside of U.S. territory (only treaties with the countries where the people discussed live or claim citizenship can do that). Your comment uses "government" and "federal government" interchangeably, but that's invalid here. Therefore, statements by FARC members who are Colombian citizens living in Colombia are not affected for better or worse by the U.S. Constitution in any way, and it's not a violation of any Constitutional right (in a legal sense, at least) if the U.S. government restricts it, since the U.S. Constitution cannot grant rights to Colombian citizens.
> In addition, the wording of the First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about citizenship.
Again, that doesn't matter. You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S. with the caveat that it cannot restrict the speech (in a "both directions" sense) of U.S. citizens. The distinction of citizenship is defined by the sovereignty of the U.S., not by the Constitution.
The thing you keep failing to address is simple. U.S. laws and the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens/nationals and those residing on U.S. soil. Colombians living in Colombia do not have to abide by the Constitution, but they are also not afforded any legal protection by it.
I got a chuckle from this, but there's one nit to pick. I would have had to tell that someone what the warrant was for to get into hot water. Saying that the Feds showed up (without commenting on the object of the search) is not by itself sufficient to get nailed.
If you wish to get technical, then you'll have to argue the other side of the issue. The Constitution is expressly restrictive in nature about non-declared issues. That is, the Constitution does not need to allow for something, it needs to forbid something before that something is considered unconstitutional. Restricting the speech of non-Americans is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, so it's allowed until a law or Amendment forbids it. Your approach in this case would have to be that the U.S. government is interfering with the rights of U.S. citizens to receive this information, if you wanted to fight on Constitutional grounds.
> t doesn't say "No person subject to an order under this section shall disclose . .." does it. I say "no person" means "no person" and if a reporter discloses an investigation he's subject to this clause and has to rely on the First Amendment to over-ride it.
You're right, but your statement is irrelevant to the point. We're not discussing the investigation, we're discussing the thing. For example, I have a tape of bin Laden's latest speech. The FBI demands that I produce it. I run a copy and give it to them. Now, the PATRIOT Act states that I'm forbidden to tell anybody that they asked for the tape, or that they have it. The Act says nothing about what I do with the tape. I can say, "look, I have a tape of bin Laden, and here it is for your viewing pleasure" and as long as I don't tell anyone that the FBI asked for or has it, the Act does not forbid my broadcasting it.
So, yes, overinterpretation is the problem, at least for you.
> And if you combine the freedom o organise with the principle of equality before the law you can easily see that even members of FARC (as well as the organisation itself is covered by the freedom of speach.
Why would members of a Colombian group (who are presumably Colombian citizens) be protected by the U.S. Constitution, exactly?
You have to be careful to read the section exactly as it says, so as not to overextend the idea of what it does. The section quoted says that the FBI can demand production of any or all media necessary for an investigation, and the owner of the media isn't allowed to tell any unnecessary parties about the request. In real life, this means that if you had a video of bin Laden, the FBI could demand it, and you can't tell anybody that they demanded it. This section would not, however, prevent you from copying the tape, nor would it prevent you from airing it on TV (if you were a reporter). You can't announce that the FBI has a copy of the tape, but you can announce that you have it, and you can show it. It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.
> Why do people copy, or want to copy, proprietary software illegally when they can legally obtain copies of Free and Open Source software more easily (without doing cracks etc.), usually free of cost, and without risking fines or imprisonment?
Because it's hard to resell freeware? This guy was convicted of redistribution, but most software pirates who work on this level are reselling cut-rate dupes of commercial programs.
I owe an apology, or at least a "8)" on my first comment. The "child" part was to point out that I was referring to you as young, not old, but it turned out to be more patronizing than I meant, so I accept your zerbert in good faith.
> You are correct. However, the original poster spoke as if it was a recent occurance, not 10 years ago. my bad.
I agree. He did. I defend myself here with this equation:
5.25" + "recent" = {null set} (1)
which I find to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.
> Just the thought of it brings me horrid memories of my 1x cdr (and taking over an hour to burn a cd).
You had a burner? Well, you were lucky. I just had a box. No, just a box. My little brother would sit in it, and hold up a chalkboard with the sums, and...
Slashdot Mirror
> A bigger show stopper is likely to be "where do I refuel it?"
Then the big show restarter would be "a gas station". Without the hydrogen booster, your car would run normally, like it did before the mod. If you run out of hydrogen on the road, your fuel economy drops, but the car will keep running. Then, you reload the hydrogen system when you get to wherever you can fill it.
Virg
Segue, indeed. The Segway is an invention, not a scientific discovery. Different rules apply. No laws of nature were harmed in the making of this device.
Carry on.
Virg
Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but she left the computer behind because it was trashed. When this fellow found that the computer proper worked correctly, why didn't he call her up and offer to return it to her, perhaps for use as a desktop system, instead of formatting the drive and using it himself? That's still her computer, and if it still works he's not very professional just to keep it. Remember, she left the Mac with them so they could discard it, so it's reasonable she'd want it back if she knew it worked.
Virg
> Well, those things you described I'd rather call exploits rather than cheats, since they exploit bugs in these programs (except that trade window thing, which is almost a bug in usability, but more social engineering, don't know about the function-key thing).
I can concede this.
Virg
P.S. the function key thing is an old social engineering thing in Diablo II. In this game, when your system drops the connection to the server (like a system crash), your avatar hangs around for thirty seconds or so before disappearing. Also, when you "go hostile" to another player, you must be in town, they are warned, and you can't attack them in town. So, the trick is that someone will walk up to you when you're outside the border of the town (a good hunting zone for newbies) and tell you, "if you hold down your Alt key and hit F1-F2-F3-F4-F5 you'll get 10,000 gold" or something else valuable. If you're dumb enough to do that, you'll find that Alt-F1, 2, 3 and 5 are meaningless, but Alt-F4 (the Windows "close program" hotkey) causes Diablo II to exit immediately. This leaves your immobile and defenseless avatar standing in the game for thirty seconds, which is long enough for the trickster to enter town, go hostile to you (you don't see the warning because you crashed your program), return and kill you to take all your stuff.
> While most of RealMyst was merely slow-ish, the Rime Age was downright glacial.
I hope you did this on purpose. It was damn funny.
Virg
In the same way, he's wrong, and so are you. Strong protections protect against falsification of data input, but vanishingly few cheats in MMORPGs are data hacks. Most are processes completely legitimate to the code that take advantage of a flaw in the game design (a bug or a game fault, such as the Pindleskins problem in Diablo II) to allow a character to advance much more quickly, or procure much more power than is normal. Others are social engineering that allow people to sucker other people out of their power ("Let me look at that item in a trade window" or "F1-F2-F3-F4-F5 will give you ten thousand gold pieces!" or other such trickery). So, strong protections on the data stream are needed, but they don't protect against the large majority of cheats.
Virg
> I should mention that it's really amusing to see all these down-moderations, yet not one person has managed to list a single valid rebuttal to any of the points. "I disagree, but I don't know why!"
The reason you don't see a rebuttal to these points is that they're correct as they stand. The mistake you make (and Mr. Stein, for whom I have a great deal of respect, by the way) is (in his case) implying that these bad ideas have all been implemented by the U.S. culture and (in your case) believing him. In point 11, I agree that this socialized medical system would be a bad thing, but I disagree with his implication that this is the way things work now. In point 9, the immigration policy he describes is indeed horrible, but I remain unconvinced that it's accurate. I could go on, but you get my point. This doesn't fit "valid rebuttal to any of the points" strictly, but it does represent disagreement with his position.
Virg
> I thought the acting was abismal in the second one.
Well, it was second rate, perhaps (William Hurt actually did a good job keeping Leto close to the book) but it was not worse than (and in some places was much better than) the first film, with the notable exception that nobody could play Feyd better than Sting. Add the better production, and the fact that the extra time meant that one didn't need to know the book deeply to understand what the hell was going on, and you can get to "much better job" with only a little kindness.
Virg
Don't be too sad. They woefully screwed up Dune the first time out, but the remake (done over six hours, not two) did a much better job of it. Perhaps the SciFi channel will get hold of this one, too.
Virg
> Too bad, as is my frequent lament, the fiction section at my uni's multi-floor library could be stacked on the space left over on my desk RIGHT NOW.
Of course it could. The good parts of it, at least. It's the Internet terminal, that allows you to surf to the Gutenberg Project site and get hold of some rousing good fiction. Give it a shot. You can even download most of the works and carry them around to read off your palmtop (you do have a palmtop, right?!?).
Virg
It'll comfort you to know that sighting the Moon landing sites is being done as a resolution test, not to disprove conspiracy theorists.
Virg
You dolt, the shots would come from Earth. They'd be downblouse shots.
Fool.
Virg
Unfortunately, I'm with the original author on this. When I pay massive money for a laptop, I expect massive performance. It would be one thing if it was configurable, and I could choose to run long or run hard, but in this case, I don't have a choice, and nobody mentions it when you lay down the dollars.
For my experience, there are quite a number of things you'd need power for:
1.) Working on a massive spreadsheet while you eat lunch. You don't need to work for four hours, you need to get it done in one.
2.) Building a presentation or graphic ad en route to a site. Again, my flights run about two hours of work time (can't use the laptop on takeoff/landing) so longer battery life is useless when held against getting the job done in the time allotted.
3.) Compiling code. When I run a build I'm killing time until it's done. It's cheaper to get it done faster and have a spare battery on hand than stand around (with five other overpaid workers) at a work site (where the nearest plug is 100 feet away) while some calculation happens.
So, there are a number of applications where speed trumps longevity, and if the computer is going to force me to choose long run over power run, at least they should tell me before a pay good money for a laptop that's going to do it.
Virg
> > There is a common house cat killing penguins in antarctica.
> Bill Gates left Fluffums out to roam again?
Not Rome, Antarctica. Jeez, people, learn your geography.
Virg
Send us a picture of your arrest record, or maybe a mug shot.
Virg
Actually, drivers must yield to pedestrians at all times, and right on red requires a complete stop at the light before turning right. It's not like the red light can simply be ignored by right-turn drivers, and not stopping before turning earns the same citation as running the light straight through.
Virg
> > You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S
> Huh? Because they don't have the power to pass laws that affect other citizens of countries, they have the power to pass laws that affect citizens of other countries?
Confusing interpretation. What my statement says is that the U.S. Constitution protects the rights only of U.S. citizens/nationals, and therefore non-citizens cannot apply to it to protect their rights, except when they're within the jurisdiction of the U.S. itself.
> The federal government has only the powers granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. We have those rights anyway as humans, and ALL humans have those rights.
What a nice thought, but there's one important part of this left out. Without the force of law, the concept of human rights has no meaning. If you think it does, you should have a chat with someone living in China, or perhaps better in Tibet. Or try talking to a Kurd, or a Chechnyan, or someone who used to live in the U.S.S.R. for more insight. The Constitution does indeed grant rights to the citizenry of the U.S., by adding the force of law to the protection of those rights. It does not add that force of law to the protection of the rights of non-nationals outside the U.S..
> The Supreme Court has ruled that there are cases where an exemption to this exists (incitement to riot, for example), but these exemptions are very limited and, quite simply, don't apply just because Ashcroft wants to claim that someone is a terrorist.
I think the word you want here is "shouldn't", because according to the way certain laws now read, the exemptions do apply to someone that Ashcroft says is a terrorist, and I'm in 100% agreement with you that that's a really, REALLY, REALLY bad thing. Still, in this case, at this time, the law does indeed apply, which sends me back to the statement I made earlier that the only legal approach to this case would be to attack the Constitutionality of preventing U.S. citizens access to the information, as opposed to trying to apply Constitutional protection to FARC members themselves.
Virg
> The Constitution grants powers to the government, and it's both assumed throughout and stated explicitly in the Tenth Amendment that the federal government doesn't have any power that hasn't been granted in the Constitution. If it's not permitted to the government, it's denied.
I have to argue that my original point is not wrong in the context addressed. The Tenth Amendment doesn't really apply here, since that Amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government doesn't usurp the rights of any state government or citizen, but it doesn't apply outside the sovereignty of the U.S. as a whole, since none of the Constitution applies to non-citizens living outside of U.S. territory (only treaties with the countries where the people discussed live or claim citizenship can do that). Your comment uses "government" and "federal government" interchangeably, but that's invalid here. Therefore, statements by FARC members who are Colombian citizens living in Colombia are not affected for better or worse by the U.S. Constitution in any way, and it's not a violation of any Constitutional right (in a legal sense, at least) if the U.S. government restricts it, since the U.S. Constitution cannot grant rights to Colombian citizens.
> In addition, the wording of the First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about citizenship.
Again, that doesn't matter. You must remember that laws passed by congress do not hold any sway outside the U.S. and in reverse, congress can indeed pass laws that restrict speech outside the U.S. with the caveat that it cannot restrict the speech (in a "both directions" sense) of U.S. citizens. The distinction of citizenship is defined by the sovereignty of the U.S., not by the Constitution.
The thing you keep failing to address is simple. U.S. laws and the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens/nationals and those residing on U.S. soil. Colombians living in Colombia do not have to abide by the Constitution, but they are also not afforded any legal protection by it.
Virg
I got a chuckle from this, but there's one nit to pick. I would have had to tell that someone what the warrant was for to get into hot water. Saying that the Feds showed up (without commenting on the object of the search) is not by itself sufficient to get nailed.
Virg
If you wish to get technical, then you'll have to argue the other side of the issue. The Constitution is expressly restrictive in nature about non-declared issues. That is, the Constitution does not need to allow for something, it needs to forbid something before that something is considered unconstitutional. Restricting the speech of non-Americans is not explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, so it's allowed until a law or Amendment forbids it. Your approach in this case would have to be that the U.S. government is interfering with the rights of U.S. citizens to receive this information, if you wanted to fight on Constitutional grounds.
Virg
> t doesn't say "No person subject to an order under this section shall disclose . . ." does it. I say "no person" means "no person" and if a reporter discloses an investigation he's subject to this clause and has to rely on the First Amendment to over-ride it.
You're right, but your statement is irrelevant to the point. We're not discussing the investigation, we're discussing the thing. For example, I have a tape of bin Laden's latest speech. The FBI demands that I produce it. I run a copy and give it to them. Now, the PATRIOT Act states that I'm forbidden to tell anybody that they asked for the tape, or that they have it. The Act says nothing about what I do with the tape. I can say, "look, I have a tape of bin Laden, and here it is for your viewing pleasure" and as long as I don't tell anyone that the FBI asked for or has it, the Act does not forbid my broadcasting it.
So, yes, overinterpretation is the problem, at least for you.
Virg
> And if you combine the freedom o organise with the principle of equality before the law you can easily see that even members of FARC (as well as the organisation itself is covered by the freedom of speach.
Why would members of a Colombian group (who are presumably Colombian citizens) be protected by the U.S. Constitution, exactly?
Virg
You have to be careful to read the section exactly as it says, so as not to overextend the idea of what it does. The section quoted says that the FBI can demand production of any or all media necessary for an investigation, and the owner of the media isn't allowed to tell any unnecessary parties about the request. In real life, this means that if you had a video of bin Laden, the FBI could demand it, and you can't tell anybody that they demanded it. This section would not, however, prevent you from copying the tape, nor would it prevent you from airing it on TV (if you were a reporter). You can't announce that the FBI has a copy of the tape, but you can announce that you have it, and you can show it. It's the request and knowledge of the investigation that the law is designed to supress, not the evidence itself.
Virg
> Why do people copy, or want to copy, proprietary software illegally when they can legally obtain copies of Free and Open Source software more easily (without doing cracks etc.), usually free of cost, and without risking fines or imprisonment?
Because it's hard to resell freeware? This guy was convicted of redistribution, but most software pirates who work on this level are reselling cut-rate dupes of commercial programs.
Virg
> You are correct. However, the original poster spoke as if it was a recent occurance, not 10 years ago. my bad.
I agree. He did. I defend myself here with this equation:which I find to be true in the overwhelming majority of cases.
> Just the thought of it brings me horrid memories of my 1x cdr (and taking over an hour to burn a cd).
You had a burner? Well, you were lucky. I just had a box. No, just a box. My little brother would sit in it, and hold up a chalkboard with the sums, and...
Virg