Why compare to obviously different cases (walking into someone's front door versus wireless networking)? The difference between clearly marked physical resources and wireless resources is a clear one, both ethically and legally.
The NH law would seem to inject some much needed personal responsibility into the equation. Somebody sitting at a cafe shouldn't be accused of breaking into an unsecured network across the street, unless they really do break some security.
"I remember on the discovery channel, as well as mr. wizard, that, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, more green house gasses and "ozone depleting" gasses were spewed into the atmosphere then man has produced in all of man-kind."
Then Mr. Wizard would be wrong. Chlorofluorocarbons, the chief ozone depleters, are man-made compounds that do not occur in nature, and certainly not in volcanoes. Because CFCs are nearly inert, they are able to persist in the atmosphere for weeks at a time -- long enough to be carried into the stratosphere, where hard ultraviolet light disassembles the molecules so that free atomic chlorine can interact directly with the ozone. One chlorine atom can destroy many, many ozone molecules (converting to regular molecular oxygen) before it finally bumps into something other than oxygen, reacts and gets taken out of the cycle.
Volcanoes do emit large amounts of molecular and atomic chlorine and related compounds, but those compounds are highly reactive. They readily interact with water, dust, and other atmospheric components in the troposphere until they are neturalized and bound up in mostly harmless compounds. They cannot persist the weeks and months required to be carried into the stratosphere.
As for greenhouse gasses, I couldn't really say how Mt. Pinatubo's carbon dioxide emissions compare to industrial emissions. But I can tell you that the slight global cooling caused by large emissions of dust and sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere caused _less_ CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere that year overall, due to suppression of biomass decomposition, particularly in the northern hemisphere.
I've also reviewed the DTI2015XLS on my site. It's a good product, although there are some concerns regarding game performance you'll want to think about before plunking down $1700 on this unit.
Tom also had a small mistake in his article. He suggests that you need to use the serial port on the monitor to get 3D stereo. Not true, the monitor can do stereo without the serial port, you just need to turn it on from the front panel buttons. So if you've got a favorite 3D application which supports side-by-side or alternate-frame stereo, just select that from the menu and view.
Tom's conclusions and my conclusions about the monitor are almost the same.
The old computer game MULE easily qualifies. It involves 2-4 players sent to colonize a planet -- buying plots of land and erecting farms, mines, or solar energy plants.
It can be played as a straight competition -- 4 players competing over limited land and physical resources. But it becomes clear after only a few sessions that your personal success is _enhanced_ by fostering the success of your colony-mates. Sell energy to a player with lots of mines, and h/she will be able to produce a lot of metal, sell it off-world, develop more mines and buy more of your energy.
Monopolize food supplies, and sell the food to your neighbors. Starve them, and they stop producing and run out of money, rendering your food valueless.
The game simulated the economies of scale -- tiles of like industries placed next to each produce more than tiles far from similar industry.
Ultimately, the game transcended the shallow goal of cut-throat self-interest, because the only way to retire stinking rich was to cooperate to build the best possible colony.
It was perhaps the best simulation of basic economics that has ever been produced.
Slashdot Mirror
Why compare to obviously different cases (walking into someone's front door versus wireless networking)? The difference between clearly marked physical resources and wireless resources is a clear one, both ethically and legally.
The NH law would seem to inject some much needed personal responsibility into the equation. Somebody sitting at a cafe shouldn't be accused of breaking into an unsecured network across the street, unless they really do break some security.
A spelling flame? Jeez.
Spelling flames went out of style back on USENET around 1988 or so...
No, wait, they went out of style on FIDONET before that.
No wait, they went out of style on Compuserve in 1982.
No, wait...
"I remember on the discovery channel, as well as mr. wizard, that, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, more green house gasses and "ozone depleting" gasses were spewed into the atmosphere then man has produced in all of man-kind."
Then Mr. Wizard would be wrong. Chlorofluorocarbons, the chief ozone depleters, are man-made compounds that do not occur in nature, and certainly not in volcanoes. Because CFCs are nearly inert, they are able to persist in the atmosphere for weeks at a time -- long enough to be carried into the stratosphere, where hard ultraviolet light disassembles the molecules so that free atomic chlorine can interact directly with the ozone. One chlorine atom can destroy many, many ozone molecules (converting to regular molecular oxygen) before it finally bumps into something other than oxygen, reacts and gets taken out of the cycle.
Volcanoes do emit large amounts of molecular and atomic chlorine and related compounds, but those compounds are highly reactive. They readily interact with water, dust, and other atmospheric components in the troposphere until they are neturalized and bound up in mostly harmless compounds. They cannot persist the weeks and months required to be carried into the stratosphere.
As for greenhouse gasses, I couldn't really say how Mt. Pinatubo's carbon dioxide emissions compare to industrial emissions. But I can tell you that the slight global cooling caused by large emissions of dust and sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere caused _less_ CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere that year overall, due to suppression of biomass decomposition, particularly in the northern hemisphere.
But I imagine Mr. Wizard didn't mention that.
http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/gas.html
I've also reviewed the DTI2015XLS on my site. It's a good product, although there are some concerns regarding game performance you'll want to think about before plunking down $1700 on this unit.
Tom also had a small mistake in his article. He suggests that you need to use the serial port on the monitor to get 3D stereo. Not true, the monitor can do stereo without the serial port, you just need to turn it on from the front panel buttons. So if you've got a favorite 3D application which supports side-by-side or alternate-frame stereo, just select that from the menu and view.
Tom's conclusions and my conclusions about the monitor are almost the same.
Rick R.
http://peripherals.about.com/
The old computer game MULE easily qualifies. It involves 2-4 players sent to colonize a planet -- buying plots of land and erecting farms, mines, or solar energy plants.
It can be played as a straight competition -- 4 players competing over limited land and physical resources. But it becomes clear after only a few sessions that your personal success is _enhanced_ by fostering the success of your colony-mates. Sell energy to a player with lots of mines, and h/she will be able to produce a lot of metal, sell it off-world, develop more mines and buy more of your energy.
Monopolize food supplies, and sell the food to your neighbors. Starve them, and they stop producing and run out of money, rendering your food valueless.
The game simulated the economies of scale -- tiles of like industries placed next to each produce more than tiles far from similar industry.
Ultimately, the game transcended the shallow goal of cut-throat self-interest, because the only way to retire stinking rich was to cooperate to build the best possible colony.
It was perhaps the best simulation of basic economics that has ever been produced.
Rick R.
peripherals.guide@about.com