> What would you do with a GPL scientific paper -- change some things
Add things, most likely: commentary, analysis, corrections... One might also produce a corrected version of a paper.
>...and put your own name on it?
Add your name so as to take credit for your changes? Of course. Or do you labor under the delusion that the GPL permits one to take credit for the work of others?
It isn't the "ceiling" that matters most. It's achieving orbital velocity. However, the vehicle was a modified ICBM, with a second stage added. As it appears that it is the second stage that failed the accident does not reflect on the reliability of Russian ICBMs.
The simple bureaucratic solution (my last choice) is to outlaw depeering and set up a regulatory process to force companies to treat each other "fairly" so that the little guys don't get trampled in behemoth fights.
About the worst possible thing for the little guys. Regulators prefer to deal with behemoths.
> But brute force aside, what about the extremely long range of > these sniper rifles?
So the one sniper in 1000 who is armed with such a thing has to be dealt with by other methods. This will be effective against the usual sniper: some dude armed with an issue rifle behind a bush 200m out.
> Even with a high-zoom camera I doubt that the robot would catch > the puff of smoke...
The bit about the smoke is the imagining of the doofus headline writer.
> Nothing that's relying on audio is practical. From 800 meters...
Look. 99% of the time a "sniper" isn't some Olympic-class sharpshooter firing his 50 cal. Browning at you from 800m. It's just some dude armed with whatever his army issued him popping at you from behind a bush 200m out.
> Yeah it does buy a bit of time, but if the robot is away from the > sniper, well, the sniper has no reason to shot, if it finds a > reason to shot, say a person, and the robot is away, it's purpose, > preventing human lives from being lost, is sort of defeated.
Snipers often miss. Even when they don't, with this system they get off only one shot before coming under fire themselves. That's a huge improvement over taking several casualties, being pinned down for half an hour, and having the sniper sneak of before you can locate him.
The Redowl does (as well as infra-red and some sort of image recognition), but others might not. Anti-artillery systems (we had them in Vietnam and they weren't new then) use radar. Anti-sniper systems could use lidar or millimeter-wave radar.
Of course not. There is this thing called "smokeless powder". They are relying on sound, infra-red, and pattern recognition.
Fine, target with a gun on a pivot, string, and a mirror so you're not next to that gun. Or, if you've got them, cheap video cameras like webcams
And miss most of your shots.
Change weapon purchase/development from AK-47s to IEDs, mortars, grenades, and bomb belts. Etc.
All of which reduces their freedom of action and consumes their resources. Snipers had been able to get off several shots and then sneak away quietly in the confusion while the enemy was trying figure where the fire is coming from. Now they will have to fire one shot and run like hell with everyone looking in their direction.
> as for the money matter... I classify THAT as DRM
I don't see the connection. It's my copier: how is my renting it to you DRM? You're using my paper, my toner and my electricity and putting wear on my machine: why should I not get paid?
> Or am I just twisting logic a bit too far there?
Yes. You own the copy (the piece of plastic: that's the copy). You do not own the copyright. You have the legal right to dispose of the copy (a copy is a tangible object) as you see fit. You do not have the legal right to create more copies (except transient copies incidental to use).
> That is why we are supposed to have rights (I dunno, I read in some > ancient texts people used to have them?); so that your plumbing > company can't install a camera in your bathroom to make sure no one > but you is using the toilet they installed for you (they should buy > their own!!).
As far as I know such a contract would be completely legal. It isn't done (and there is no need for a law against it) because no one would agree to it.
> The "If you don't like it, don't buy it" philosophy would be fine > in a free market, but we don't have a free market. We live in a > market dominated by the MPAA, who has nearly full say in the > crafting the laws that govern how the market works.
Neither the members of the MPAA nor the members of the RIAA sell anything that anyone needs. There are plenty of other sources of entertainment. If you were really as outraged as you act you would use them and avoid DRM completely. If any significant number of consumers did likewise DRM would disappear.
If you didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it. The fact is most consumers neither know nor care about DRM and most of the Slashdotters who whine about it don't care enough to do the obvious thing.
> OK, not a solution for everybody. And besides, the musical skills > you mention are certainly work acquiring. But there are passable > technological substitutes.
Like me, the OP appears to be looking for technological learning tools, not technological subsitutes for learning.
> Anyway, I'm a music minor so maybe I am too much of a purist.
You are.
> Knowing "how music works" is essential for singing it -- the notes > on the page aren't randomly generated, you know. Therefore, knowing > something about music theory would also help you. More than some > computer program, anyway.
What's wrong with using the computer as a learning tool? Like the OP, I would like to learn to read music (he's farther along than I am). With the program I am looking for, I could enter bits of notation and see if it means what I think it does. Why would that not be helpful?
When I last looked into this a year or so ago the available tools were either so buggy as to be useless or excessively complex for my purpose (or, in some cases, both)
Slashdot Mirror
> ...and now, after sorting all this, think about EMP the bag.
No. Just snip out the RFID tags and put them in your neighbor's trash.
> ...use your trusty Dremel to drill a small hole through the chip...
Overkill. A hammer will suffice.
> What would you do with a GPL scientific paper -- change some things
...and put your own name on it?
Add things, most likely: commentary, analysis, corrections... One might also produce a corrected version of a paper.
>
Add your name so as to take credit for your changes? Of course. Or do you labor under the delusion that the GPL permits one to take credit for the work of others?
It isn't the "ceiling" that matters most. It's achieving orbital velocity. However, the vehicle was a modified ICBM, with a second stage added. As it appears that it is the second stage that failed the accident does not reflect on the reliability of Russian ICBMs.
They are only using ICBMs for the lower stage. The complicated stuff is generally in the upper stage and the payload.
I assume that they already use some sort of a communications buss, though.
It was the upper stage that failed, not the ICBM lower stage. Russian rockets are generally quite reliable.
If you force all snipers to use special equipment you eliminate most of them.
> But brute force aside, what about the extremely long range of
> these sniper rifles?
So the one sniper in 1000 who is armed with such a thing has to be dealt with by other methods. This will be effective against the usual sniper: some dude armed with an issue rifle behind a bush 200m out.
> Even with a high-zoom camera I doubt that the robot would catch
> the puff of smoke...
The bit about the smoke is the imagining of the doofus headline writer.
> Nothing that's relying on audio is practical. From 800 meters...
Look. 99% of the time a "sniper" isn't some Olympic-class sharpshooter firing his 50 cal. Browning at you from 800m. It's just some dude armed with whatever his army issued him popping at you from behind a bush 200m out.
> Some little kid makes a loud noise or is near a discharging weapon
> and gets his brains blown out.
Right. And that could happen with a robot, too.
> People make decisions.
Wrong ones, frequently.
> What if the robot is shot?
Then a man wasn't. And the other robot will have located the sniper.
> Yeah it does buy a bit of time, but if the robot is away from the
> sniper, well, the sniper has no reason to shot, if it finds a
> reason to shot, say a person, and the robot is away, it's purpose,
> preventing human lives from being lost, is sort of defeated.
Snipers often miss. Even when they don't, with this system they get off only one shot before coming under fire themselves. That's a huge improvement over taking several casualties, being pinned down for half an hour, and having the sniper sneak of before you can locate him.
> you couldn't use sound to detect the bullet
The Redowl does (as well as infra-red and some sort of image recognition), but others might not. Anti-artillery systems (we had them in Vietnam and they weren't new then) use radar. Anti-sniper systems could use lidar or millimeter-wave radar.
> as for the money matter... I classify THAT as DRM
I don't see the connection. It's my copier: how is my renting it to you DRM? You're using my paper, my toner and my electricity and putting wear on my machine: why should I not get paid?
> Or am I just twisting logic a bit too far there?
Yes. You own the copy (the piece of plastic: that's the copy). You do not own the copyright. You have the legal right to dispose of the copy (a copy is a tangible object) as you see fit. You do not have the legal right to create more copies (except transient copies incidental to use).
> That is why we are supposed to have rights (I dunno, I read in some
> ancient texts people used to have them?); so that your plumbing
> company can't install a camera in your bathroom to make sure no one
> but you is using the toilet they installed for you (they should buy
> their own!!).
As far as I know such a contract would be completely legal. It isn't done (and there is no need for a law against it) because no one would agree to it.
> The "If you don't like it, don't buy it" philosophy would be fine
> in a free market, but we don't have a free market. We live in a
> market dominated by the MPAA, who has nearly full say in the
> crafting the laws that govern how the market works.
Neither the members of the MPAA nor the members of the RIAA sell anything that anyone needs. There are plenty of other sources of entertainment. If you were really as outraged as you act you would use them and avoid DRM completely. If any significant number of consumers did likewise DRM would disappear.
> Remove signal decoding hardware/software from cheap device
You are going to modify an integrated circuit? Right.
If you didn't buy it they wouldn't sell it. The fact is most consumers neither know nor care about DRM and most of the Slashdotters who whine about it don't care enough to do the obvious thing.
Paper.
> OK, not a solution for everybody. And besides, the musical skills
> you mention are certainly work acquiring. But there are passable
> technological substitutes.
Like me, the OP appears to be looking for technological learning tools, not technological subsitutes for learning.
> Anyway, I'm a music minor so maybe I am too much of a purist.
You are.
> Knowing "how music works" is essential for singing it -- the notes
> on the page aren't randomly generated, you know. Therefore, knowing
> something about music theory would also help you. More than some
> computer program, anyway.
What's wrong with using the computer as a learning tool? Like the OP, I would like to learn to read music (he's farther along than I am). With the program I am looking for, I could enter bits of notation and see if it means what I think it does. Why would that not be helpful?
When I last looked into this a year or so ago the available tools were either so buggy as to be useless or excessively complex for my purpose (or, in some cases, both)
Putting a curse on the CIO sometimes helps.