It was sad that a lot people at the time held onto the idea that color of skin or gender determined "personhood" vs. property. Many people who held on to these ideas were not ignorant individuals - I just find it stupifying how they could think like this.
I do find it interesting what ideas we hold on to today, which in the future will be found equally stupifying to others as to how we could have thought of them this way. I can't think of too many examples off-hand - homosexuality is one, for instance, that many are still grappling with - but many others (I hope) have "got it" by now.
That one example isn't a good one, though - I just can't think of one off hand that is equal to that older notion of "looks human, thinks human, walks human, talks human - must be *property*!" - it doesn't make any sense (then or now).
Perhaps you can enlighten me - what made them think this way? Can you reccommend any reading material or such that would put such ideas into proper perspective (that is, why at that time such ideas were considered "logical" and "right")?
You know, you are right. I think part of my ire about this ammendment stems from the implicit "freedom of expression" which the 1st Ammendment provides. However, it is never explicitly stated, so therefore the 18th wasn't in violation of any of the ammendments (explicitly).
One thing, though, the 18th had going for it was that it was passed "fair and square" - it used the process as it was designed to be passed (and again to be repealed). Unlike current and considered legislation, unfortunately.
I am not familiar with the EU's "European Charter of Fundamental Rights". With that said, something that strikes me a fundamental difference between this law and the first ammendment, is that it hasn't got language to the effect of "The government shall not..." - which is basically how the first ammendment (and indeed, most all of the other amendments) start off: "Congress shall make no law..."
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:
The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
Back when our Constitution was written, for example, most, if not all, of the limitations in the Bill of Rights did not apply to black people or women. At the time, these groups of people were not seen as "free men", but rather as chattel, or property - thus members of these groups were unfairly prosecuted and worse. Over time, though, our Constitution was changed, via the ammendment process, to include these groups as people became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
I could see such a process occurring again for hate speech - that is, an ammendment banning it. It would run counter the the first ammendment - but that hasn't, unfortunately, stopped things in the past (see the 18th Ammendment, for example).
What is more likely to occur is a similar "end-run" around our Constitution, much like both the DMCA and PATRIOT were rammed through - but first, they need to come up with a "boogyman" to allow for it (what that will be, is unknown)...
I am not saying that planes did not hit - we clearly saw on video planes hitting both towers (and they were jumbo jets). We also know that the PA plane was a jumbo jet as well (though there are conflicting stories as to why it crashed - there is the media's "heros saved the plane" version, which likely happened, that is they probably tried - then there are stories of possible missles from a fighter bringing the plane down).
As far as the pentagon - look at the facts, there are plenty of sites on the internet, that have speculations linked to actual news story archives (except in the cases where the story has been moved or deleted - I have seen this happen, read the story on the site, follow the link, it is there - it gets popular, then the reffered site off the speculation site pulls or moves the story). These stories show engines and other parts, in which case the engines are smaller than what is in a jumbo jet. Numerous witnesses report being flung about inside the building - this is more inline with a bomb or cruise missle, not a plane. The plane was supposed to have mostly crumpled in the outer wall area - photos of the pentagon show penetration all the way inward to some of the inner walls (lots of reinforced concrete walls and columns for an easily shatterable metal tube to penetrate - which is it?)...
Regardless, we have yet to see or hear what was on the black boxes - nobody has. There have been plenty of plane accidents in the past which reduced the aircraft to "tiny bits", but there has always been a black box left, or at least recognizable pieces of it. But in all these planes, none were found. Nobody is asking about it (well, except some people on the internet).
I don't know what the answers are. I certainly wonder about the actions which occurred. I am not saying none of this happenned - something most definitely did happen. What I am saying, though, is that there seems to be either misdirection or coverup over what really did happen. We already know this administration lies, or at least severely distorts the truth (ah, hell, who am I kidding - they are lying. Now, they are flopping back to the whole "War in Iraq because of Al Queda" - WTF about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Oh, I guess that was last weeks "waffling"...
Why do you think I am nuts? Because I question the lack of evidence? War is being perpetrated in my name as a citizen - I demand absolute proof of what happened. I, nor anybody else, has seen any of that proof - three years should be more than enough time to come up with it.
For small motors, a blocking diode is supposed to be used. I would say for all but really hefty motors. At some point, yes, more isolation would be needed - but for a simple robotic project, it won't be.
Actually, you will be worrying more about RF interference from the motors than back EMF (which is why you should put at least some caps across the motor terminals - if DC - if using steppers, they should be placed between the power supply rails).
The Gyration Gyromouse (also known as the "Gyropoint Gyromouse") can be had dead cheap from Ebay - $25 or 30 dollars in most cases. What is really slick about these off-table mice is that they essentially use a couple of cheap electronic gyros to sense yaw and pitch. So - what can you do with the insides from one of these things...?
Get yourself a nice HMD (or build one) - mount the gyromouse electronics on top - and now you have a dead simple sourceless 2DOF head tracker. A baseless (and/or wireless) joystick, and you could easily build an immersive virtual reality game system for your favorite first person shooter.
Cheap head tracking hardware is difficult to come by - multiple axis compass/tilt sensors for this application are not cheap - it is nice to see alternate devices on the market for VR and other immersive/augmented reality applications...
Not that I would ever give my liberty away, but if it means a few weeks of less rights for years of greater security I am all for it.
But you have given many of your liberties away, thanks to the PATRIOT Act and numerous other pieces of legislation (both recent and those during Clinton's reign) - several of your rights have been gone for YEARS now - do you feel safer, and more free? Huh?
So if the police search a house where they think there are drugs, but do not get a warrent, even if they find drugs that person can not be charged based on that evidence.
True in theory, but what happens in practice is far worse. Even if the search was illegal (and with the PATRIOT Act's "sneak-and-peek" warrants - you will never know), your life is turned upside down. I have seen a house after it was "raided" (with a proper warrant, I might add) - cabinet doors ripped off the hinges, holes busted in the walls and ceiling, carpet ripped up, etc - searches aren't all "proper and nice" like you see on TV (hell, if you watch enough COPS, you sometimes do see what happens in a real search, but rarely). Your property is destroyed. Some of it may be taken. You have to go to court and fight to get it back (if there wasn't a warrant). Even if there was a warrant, and you are later found innocent of any charges - it is hell to get your property back, if you ever do. Typically, when you do, it is smashed or otherwise damaged.
This isn't the work of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - this is tyrannical in so many ways. If you can't see this, you are blind.
First, right after 9/11 there was a mad rush to figure out what happened and if it could happen again.
Funny thing - that isn't what I remember. I remember our President sitting there on his ass reading to kids after hearing about the second plane hitting. He didn't get an angry look, he didn't look fearful (good thing), he didn't look dismayed, he didn't look agitated in any way. He just sat there continuing to read. This was at least 15-30 minutes (according to various timelines I have seen) after the both planes had hit, and two others were known to be on thier way. The Vice-President was nearly bodily carried out by the Secret Service to a bunker as our President sat there getting the news - then he just kept on reading.
It almost seemed like it didn't surprise him - like he knew more than he was letting on. It was also curious how later that day (and several times in the following weeks) he made mention of seeing the first plane hit the WTC - even though video of this wasn't available until the following day, September 12!!!
Oh, and where is the forensic evidence and investigation on why and how the towers fell? They carted away the steel and the rest of the building faster than anything I have seen! Where are the parts of the planes that hit (something had to be left - what about the black boxes)? Why haven't we the people heard or gotten vetted transcripts of those tapes?
Finally, what the heck happenned at the Pentagon? Why were the pictures of the plane's engines showing engines much smaller than what is on an actual 757? Why do they look like engines from a small fighter plane or cruise missle? What was that fleeting image from the security camera that flashed by immediately before the Pentagon was struck (it didn't have the profile of a jumbo jet, that is a certainty)?
Why is it that nobody in the mainstream media or otherwise are asking these questions? I want answers, real answers. At this point, I don't care who did it - I just want the truth. That truth may be mundane, or it may be absolutely frightening - but damnit, I am an adult, and I can deal with the facts.
Have you heard about how you can bury large coils underneath overhead high-voltage lines, and "tap" the electricity - basically setting up a large air-gap transformer?
With RF, it is basically the same thing - the antenna feeds into a coil tuned to a certain frequency, this AC signal is filtered out and amplified (very simple explanation - in practice it is much more complex) - to form the sound or video signal.
Now, the electric company has a way to detect coils buried under their lines, and they will get you for stealing power, as well. In theory (but not in practice), a radio or a satellite company could tell how many users were listening, based on the the amount of power being pulled from their system...
As I noted, the amount of power pulled per radio/reciever is very tiny compared to the power of the transmitter - but you are pulling a small amount of power, and the company is paying for that (now, one could argue that the power is free from satellites, since they likely use RTGs or solar panels and batteries for the transmitters)...
You are "stealing" something, when you choose to actively intercept the signal - you are "stealing" power. Every time you use an antenna, you are using a wireless power transmission service (sure, it isn't the world-wide power system Tesla envisioned, but it is his "radio" system). A few milliwatts sucked here means (if all wattage of the satellite/transmitter is used up) that a "legit" user can't get the signal (or they get the signal and the rest goes to crap). Now, personally, I don't think any transmitter is ever "maxed out" - those things are huge (and for geosync orbit distances, they have to be) - but technically, you are stealing power (I have always wondered if you could build a multi-antenna system and suck out enough power from the ambient RF that permeates our world to do something like charge a few batteries - and whether anyone would care?)...
You want to know what assembly is, and how it works, and why? You want to really know how a cpu works? I am going to boil it down here for ya (note, this is the basics - real CPU tech is even further advanced, but this description is good enough to get your feet wet):
A computer is nothing more than a very fast player piano, and nothing less.
Simple, huh? But it is understanding this that is key. First off, how a player piano works: there is a reel of paper, the "roll", upon which is impressed, via a series of holes, one for each key, and a few for pedals - the notes which will be played. It is pulled past a row of vacuum air valves by a clockwork or electric motor. This same motor drives the pumps for the air system, when a hole passes, the note is played - how long the hole is determines how long the note is held down for. Other holes determine how long the pedals are held for. The roll of paper unrolls at a constant rate. I believe there were "operator" knobs to set this rate for various rolls, as instructed on the rolls.
And that is how one of the Victorian-era programmable machines worked. This is all a computer really is. This is how a CPU works.
Imagine the roll of paper with its holes, each "row" on the roll being one "address" in this very long (but finite) amount of "memory". At each address, or "row" of holes, is encoded an "instruction", consisting of a bit pattern, that is read by the "CPU" (the valve system), which "executes" the command to the rest of the "system" (keys and pedals). Then on to the next "row"...
This is how a CPU works, and it is how assembly works. The CPU has a bunch of address space, and it is mapped to the addresses to which the memory can be instructed to read or write. The clock on the system causes the CPU to advance states in the system, which increments an address counter, typically called the "instruction pointer" or IP. This pointer is set to a value indicating the starting address of the code. When the CPU is told to "run" the code, the instruction pointer is advanced one address at a time by the clock. At each point, the CPU reads the data at that address. Let's say each opcode in assembly for our fictional CPU is one byte in length. Some of these opcodes say that the next byte might be data, or the next two bytes are data, or no bytes are data (the next byte is another opcode). Each of these codes causes the CPU to read the instruction, switch logic gates via electricity in the electronics so that a logic path changes to read the next bytes as needed and assign them to whereever (other memory, a register, a pointer). Some of these opcodes may be jump (JMP) instructions, in which the next byte or so represents an address to which to set the instruction pointer (thus, unconditional branching). Other opcodes may indicate conditional branching, in which the processing the CPU does for such an opcode reads certain flags, memory areas, or registers, and then jumps (or not jump) to the specified address based on the boolean outcome of the comparison.
You should now be able to see how stringing a series of opcodes (bytes) and data (more bytes) together, with the CPU stepping through it, electronically and electrically reconfiguring itself to shuffle data (which is represented by electrical logic states, like +5V=1, 0V=0, in electronic circuits - it goes deep, very deep). Name the opcodes according to what they do, and how many bytes afterward are "arguments", and there is how a CPU works, at the basic level. Just like a player piano.
All the CPU is doing is slogging through a whole mess of bytes and interpreting them to electronically re-arrange itself to perform calculations. There are further refinements of this - my explanation of how a CPU and assembler works is only a very basic one (I can't write a book for ya, can I?). One such refinement (and incrediblely, none other than Charles Babbage implemented a form of it in his plans for the Analytical Engine) is the concept of "microcode". Microcode is essentially assembler for which the CPU is pr
I understand what you are saying - I don't believe there ever was a time where there was zero corruption or incompetency in our government. Indeed, it seems that as soon as you bring government and politics into a social situation (ie, a large group feels the need for governing), you get the power mongers and corruption.
But I do believe that in the past (long distant past - perhaps before Lincoln), there were more Statesmen than there were corrupt/incompetant government officials - the balance has long since tipped.
It's easy to come up with scenarios that sound like invasions of privacy, but it's hard to actually implement those scenarios. Cameras watching for criminal behavior don't help you to do any of this, not really. You still need somebody to watch what those cameras see.
Are you really incapable of seeing where this is going?
The cost for computer processing power and data storage is very, very low. If there are enough cameras installed, to track you anywhere out in public, from place to place - coupled with a large computer installation with big data stores (think the size of the Google data server farm for surveillance purposes), along with facial recognition software (it doesn't matter if it works or not - either way hurts) - all of this trained, following you watching you as you go inside a store or something (computer system watches you go in, switches over to monitoring purchases from that store, or to the cameras inside even!), then watching you leave. All the while recording info of where you are at with snapshots being stored in the data store.
It is, or will be, trivial in the grand scheme of things to implement all of this - and who will be watching: computers, flagging this and that - for possible future "looking into" (hmm, possibly allowing you to "be convicted" of a crime in the future, for actions which were legal before in the past - think about that)...
We are living in a dystopian society - right now, today. The bad thing about it is that it seems more like Robocop than Bladerunner (not that the latter is better than the former)...
The problem is the fact that current facial recognition software has a better chance of identifying someone as a "terrorist" or "criminal" when they actually aren't - ie, a "false positive". You now, as an innocent person, might have to try to prove you aren't a terrorist (instead of there being an assumption of innocence). But they have you on camera - and the computer/database says you are a terrorist (because, you know, computers and databases are perfect and infallible, and there are never bugs with software, and everyone enters data perfectly into a database, and no one could ever hack into our system and change it, and...ooh, shiny...)
What consitutes abuse of a camera? Looking at things that I could see just walking down the street? This may be ineffective for terrorism or crime, but I don't see that it could hurt.
The problem is, these cameras don't see things you can see "just walking down the street" - unless they are installed at eye level. They are typically installed at "rooftop" level (at the very least, well above eye level).
If you knew anything about prisons, you would know why constant surveillance hurts a supposedly free society. We have the freedom of speech and assembly (people forget that last part) - who is to say that these cameras with face recog software couldn't be used to build a database of who you meet and when (ie, a semi-automated "friendster"), building up a network of aquaintences. Perhaps one of those in the net is involved in bad things, a few "hops" on the network away - could that knowledge of the friend net be used to implicate you in something you have no clue about? The stupid thing is, most people have no clue about network theory nor current concepts in it - they don't know about hubs and super-nodes, which connect fringes to inner parts - leading all of us (most of us - there are islands) to be at most 6-7 hops to many famous (and infamous) people, if we only knew the links - in many cases even fewer hops are necessary. We don't know this, and don't act about it - because we don't have, nor can easily make, the database needed to track this (imagine the power someone could wield if they had this database - a big enough and connected surveillance camera network could build this).
It is certainly a better use of funds than the DOJ redefining what consitutes torture, or imprisoning US citizens without trial.
The DOJ has already redefined what constitutes torture, and has already imprisoned US citizens without trial - surveillance cameras are but one more step along the road to tyrrany.
Maybe we could divert some terrorism money to schools on the grounds that well educated people are more likely to spot terrorist activity.
Well educated people are more likely to spot terrorist activity? Are you speaking of people educated to spot terrorists, or educated in general? How do you get an education spotting terrorists? How do you look at someone and say "He's a terrorist - look at his funny clothes!".
Hmm - how about Ronald Reagon? He wasn't an idiot - I remember him as being fairly intelligent and well spoken when he was President. However, did you know that while he was an actor that he helped with identifying possible "communists" in the acting community - yeah, he was one of those "spys" for communistic leanings. This isn't a lie - it is history. To think that "we the people" elected him (I don't know if this was known at the time he was elected or not, though - it certainly isn't common knowledge today), arguably paving the way to getting Shrub "elected". Substitute "terrorist" for "communist" above - still seems to work. Damn, worked so well, no more Communists in America! They must be all in those retraining camps along the edge of town...
Quit listening to your TV and think - we are not at war, and have yet to be at war. Congress has NOT DECLARED WAR - they are the only elected body who can declare war, as defined by our Constitution.
Cool - so you could get a video of your attack as a souvenier, I suppose?! Honestly - they will watch you get attacked, raped, killed, whatever - and still not have a good picture of the guy doing it (even if they have a perfect picture, who cares), he runs off, you a f-ed up (or dead)...
...and you still are no more safe than you were before.
Do you think our representatives are not corrupt? If not, why not?
I don't think all of our "representatives" are corrupt - in fact, I know that there are a couple out there who seem to be upstanding people, on the side of the people.
But it seems like the vast majority care not one iota for the people who elected them, nor the rest of the country in general. If they did:
The DMCA wouldn't exist or it would be for the people, not the corporations
The PATRIOT Act would have been read and debated rationally, for at least a week, before being signed into law on a kneejerk
They would question how the PATRIOT Act just seemed to be waiting in the wings, despite being several hundred pages long
Government funds for stem-cell research would still be available
The "War on Drugs" would be seen as the failure it is
We might finally have an investigation into what really happened on 9/11 - ie, how did Bush know about the first plane on video when video of it hadn't been released until well after the second plane hit? Will we ever get the answers?
...the list could go on and on...
Are these actions (or lack of action) anything indicative of representatives who represent the people? I cannot see how it can be...
I agree that homebrew STMs are not anywhere near the level that would enable them to assemble machines or proteins (at whatever slow pace) from atoms. I further agree that this is not likely to be the case for a very long time (heh, they are having too many problems with resolution and vibration issues to image graphite atoms effectively). But at some point, it will happen - maybe not in our lifetimes, but someday it will. Saying otherwise would be like a person in the 1940's arguing that a person at home would never be able to build a computer from parts...
Slashdot Mirror
Why didn't you go with multi-port in-wall switches/hubs? Cost?
I do find it interesting what ideas we hold on to today, which in the future will be found equally stupifying to others as to how we could have thought of them this way. I can't think of too many examples off-hand - homosexuality is one, for instance, that many are still grappling with - but many others (I hope) have "got it" by now.
That one example isn't a good one, though - I just can't think of one off hand that is equal to that older notion of "looks human, thinks human, walks human, talks human - must be *property*!" - it doesn't make any sense (then or now).
Perhaps you can enlighten me - what made them think this way? Can you reccommend any reading material or such that would put such ideas into proper perspective (that is, why at that time such ideas were considered "logical" and "right")?
One thing, though, the 18th had going for it was that it was passed "fair and square" - it used the process as it was designed to be passed (and again to be repealed). Unlike current and considered legislation, unfortunately.
This a fact that most people (even most Americans, sadly) do not seem to understand, and why much of the various "human rights" laws and such by various other "governing" bodies, like the EU and UN, are fundamentally flawed:
The United State's Constitutional Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, instead it seekes to limit our government from violating rights we intrinsically have because we are (supposedly, though eroding every day, it seems) "free men" - the rights we were "born with". That isn't to say our Constitution is "etched in stone" - it can and does change with time.
Back when our Constitution was written, for example, most, if not all, of the limitations in the Bill of Rights did not apply to black people or women. At the time, these groups of people were not seen as "free men", but rather as chattel, or property - thus members of these groups were unfairly prosecuted and worse. Over time, though, our Constitution was changed, via the ammendment process, to include these groups as people became more "enlightened" as to who was a person (sad, but true).
I could see such a process occurring again for hate speech - that is, an ammendment banning it. It would run counter the the first ammendment - but that hasn't, unfortunately, stopped things in the past (see the 18th Ammendment, for example).
What is more likely to occur is a similar "end-run" around our Constitution, much like both the DMCA and PATRIOT were rammed through - but first, they need to come up with a "boogyman" to allow for it (what that will be, is unknown)...
As far as the pentagon - look at the facts, there are plenty of sites on the internet, that have speculations linked to actual news story archives (except in the cases where the story has been moved or deleted - I have seen this happen, read the story on the site, follow the link, it is there - it gets popular, then the reffered site off the speculation site pulls or moves the story). These stories show engines and other parts, in which case the engines are smaller than what is in a jumbo jet. Numerous witnesses report being flung about inside the building - this is more inline with a bomb or cruise missle, not a plane. The plane was supposed to have mostly crumpled in the outer wall area - photos of the pentagon show penetration all the way inward to some of the inner walls (lots of reinforced concrete walls and columns for an easily shatterable metal tube to penetrate - which is it?)...
Regardless, we have yet to see or hear what was on the black boxes - nobody has. There have been plenty of plane accidents in the past which reduced the aircraft to "tiny bits", but there has always been a black box left, or at least recognizable pieces of it. But in all these planes, none were found. Nobody is asking about it (well, except some people on the internet).
I don't know what the answers are. I certainly wonder about the actions which occurred. I am not saying none of this happenned - something most definitely did happen. What I am saying, though, is that there seems to be either misdirection or coverup over what really did happen. We already know this administration lies, or at least severely distorts the truth (ah, hell, who am I kidding - they are lying. Now, they are flopping back to the whole "War in Iraq because of Al Queda" - WTF about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Oh, I guess that was last weeks "waffling"...
Why do you think I am nuts? Because I question the lack of evidence? War is being perpetrated in my name as a citizen - I demand absolute proof of what happened. I, nor anybody else, has seen any of that proof - three years should be more than enough time to come up with it.
Actually, you will be worrying more about RF interference from the motors than back EMF (which is why you should put at least some caps across the motor terminals - if DC - if using steppers, they should be placed between the power supply rails).
Get yourself a nice HMD (or build one) - mount the gyromouse electronics on top - and now you have a dead simple sourceless 2DOF head tracker. A baseless (and/or wireless) joystick, and you could easily build an immersive virtual reality game system for your favorite first person shooter.
Cheap head tracking hardware is difficult to come by - multiple axis compass/tilt sensors for this application are not cheap - it is nice to see alternate devices on the market for VR and other immersive/augmented reality applications...
Because that is what they are for...
You say:
Not that I would ever give my liberty away, but if it means a few weeks of less rights for years of greater security I am all for it.
But you have given many of your liberties away, thanks to the PATRIOT Act and numerous other pieces of legislation (both recent and those during Clinton's reign) - several of your rights have been gone for YEARS now - do you feel safer, and more free? Huh?
So if the police search a house where they think there are drugs, but do not get a warrent, even if they find drugs that person can not be charged based on that evidence.
True in theory, but what happens in practice is far worse. Even if the search was illegal (and with the PATRIOT Act's "sneak-and-peek" warrants - you will never know), your life is turned upside down. I have seen a house after it was "raided" (with a proper warrant, I might add) - cabinet doors ripped off the hinges, holes busted in the walls and ceiling, carpet ripped up, etc - searches aren't all "proper and nice" like you see on TV (hell, if you watch enough COPS, you sometimes do see what happens in a real search, but rarely). Your property is destroyed. Some of it may be taken. You have to go to court and fight to get it back (if there wasn't a warrant). Even if there was a warrant, and you are later found innocent of any charges - it is hell to get your property back, if you ever do. Typically, when you do, it is smashed or otherwise damaged.
This isn't the work of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" - this is tyrannical in so many ways. If you can't see this, you are blind.
Funny thing - that isn't what I remember. I remember our President sitting there on his ass reading to kids after hearing about the second plane hitting. He didn't get an angry look, he didn't look fearful (good thing), he didn't look dismayed, he didn't look agitated in any way. He just sat there continuing to read. This was at least 15-30 minutes (according to various timelines I have seen) after the both planes had hit, and two others were known to be on thier way. The Vice-President was nearly bodily carried out by the Secret Service to a bunker as our President sat there getting the news - then he just kept on reading.
It almost seemed like it didn't surprise him - like he knew more than he was letting on. It was also curious how later that day (and several times in the following weeks) he made mention of seeing the first plane hit the WTC - even though video of this wasn't available until the following day, September 12!!!
Oh, and where is the forensic evidence and investigation on why and how the towers fell? They carted away the steel and the rest of the building faster than anything I have seen! Where are the parts of the planes that hit (something had to be left - what about the black boxes)? Why haven't we the people heard or gotten vetted transcripts of those tapes?
Finally, what the heck happenned at the Pentagon? Why were the pictures of the plane's engines showing engines much smaller than what is on an actual 757? Why do they look like engines from a small fighter plane or cruise missle? What was that fleeting image from the security camera that flashed by immediately before the Pentagon was struck (it didn't have the profile of a jumbo jet, that is a certainty)?
Why is it that nobody in the mainstream media or otherwise are asking these questions? I want answers, real answers. At this point, I don't care who did it - I just want the truth. That truth may be mundane, or it may be absolutely frightening - but damnit, I am an adult, and I can deal with the facts.
Unfortunately, we will probably NEVER KNOW...
Assumming they aren't shipped off for a one-way vacation to Gitmo first...
With RF, it is basically the same thing - the antenna feeds into a coil tuned to a certain frequency, this AC signal is filtered out and amplified (very simple explanation - in practice it is much more complex) - to form the sound or video signal.
Now, the electric company has a way to detect coils buried under their lines, and they will get you for stealing power, as well. In theory (but not in practice), a radio or a satellite company could tell how many users were listening, based on the the amount of power being pulled from their system...
As I noted, the amount of power pulled per radio/reciever is very tiny compared to the power of the transmitter - but you are pulling a small amount of power, and the company is paying for that (now, one could argue that the power is free from satellites, since they likely use RTGs or solar panels and batteries for the transmitters)...
You are "stealing" something, when you choose to actively intercept the signal - you are "stealing" power. Every time you use an antenna, you are using a wireless power transmission service (sure, it isn't the world-wide power system Tesla envisioned, but it is his "radio" system). A few milliwatts sucked here means (if all wattage of the satellite/transmitter is used up) that a "legit" user can't get the signal (or they get the signal and the rest goes to crap). Now, personally, I don't think any transmitter is ever "maxed out" - those things are huge (and for geosync orbit distances, they have to be) - but technically, you are stealing power (I have always wondered if you could build a multi-antenna system and suck out enough power from the ambient RF that permeates our world to do something like charge a few batteries - and whether anyone would care?)...
Hell, we have had to start to make sure our dog is out of the room, period - even spelling "WALK" is recognized...
A computer is nothing more than a very fast player piano, and nothing less.
Simple, huh? But it is understanding this that is key. First off, how a player piano works: there is a reel of paper, the "roll", upon which is impressed, via a series of holes, one for each key, and a few for pedals - the notes which will be played. It is pulled past a row of vacuum air valves by a clockwork or electric motor. This same motor drives the pumps for the air system, when a hole passes, the note is played - how long the hole is determines how long the note is held down for. Other holes determine how long the pedals are held for. The roll of paper unrolls at a constant rate. I believe there were "operator" knobs to set this rate for various rolls, as instructed on the rolls.
And that is how one of the Victorian-era programmable machines worked. This is all a computer really is. This is how a CPU works.
Imagine the roll of paper with its holes, each "row" on the roll being one "address" in this very long (but finite) amount of "memory". At each address, or "row" of holes, is encoded an "instruction", consisting of a bit pattern, that is read by the "CPU" (the valve system), which "executes" the command to the rest of the "system" (keys and pedals). Then on to the next "row"...
This is how a CPU works, and it is how assembly works. The CPU has a bunch of address space, and it is mapped to the addresses to which the memory can be instructed to read or write. The clock on the system causes the CPU to advance states in the system, which increments an address counter, typically called the "instruction pointer" or IP. This pointer is set to a value indicating the starting address of the code. When the CPU is told to "run" the code, the instruction pointer is advanced one address at a time by the clock. At each point, the CPU reads the data at that address. Let's say each opcode in assembly for our fictional CPU is one byte in length. Some of these opcodes say that the next byte might be data, or the next two bytes are data, or no bytes are data (the next byte is another opcode). Each of these codes causes the CPU to read the instruction, switch logic gates via electricity in the electronics so that a logic path changes to read the next bytes as needed and assign them to whereever (other memory, a register, a pointer). Some of these opcodes may be jump (JMP) instructions, in which the next byte or so represents an address to which to set the instruction pointer (thus, unconditional branching). Other opcodes may indicate conditional branching, in which the processing the CPU does for such an opcode reads certain flags, memory areas, or registers, and then jumps (or not jump) to the specified address based on the boolean outcome of the comparison.
You should now be able to see how stringing a series of opcodes (bytes) and data (more bytes) together, with the CPU stepping through it, electronically and electrically reconfiguring itself to shuffle data (which is represented by electrical logic states, like +5V=1, 0V=0, in electronic circuits - it goes deep, very deep). Name the opcodes according to what they do, and how many bytes afterward are "arguments", and there is how a CPU works, at the basic level. Just like a player piano.
All the CPU is doing is slogging through a whole mess of bytes and interpreting them to electronically re-arrange itself to perform calculations. There are further refinements of this - my explanation of how a CPU and assembler works is only a very basic one (I can't write a book for ya, can I?). One such refinement (and incrediblely, none other than Charles Babbage implemented a form of it in his plans for the Analytical Engine) is the concept of "microcode". Microcode is essentially assembler for which the CPU is pr
But I do believe that in the past (long distant past - perhaps before Lincoln), there were more Statesmen than there were corrupt/incompetant government officials - the balance has long since tipped.
Are you really incapable of seeing where this is going?
The cost for computer processing power and data storage is very, very low. If there are enough cameras installed, to track you anywhere out in public, from place to place - coupled with a large computer installation with big data stores (think the size of the Google data server farm for surveillance purposes), along with facial recognition software (it doesn't matter if it works or not - either way hurts) - all of this trained, following you watching you as you go inside a store or something (computer system watches you go in, switches over to monitoring purchases from that store, or to the cameras inside even!), then watching you leave. All the while recording info of where you are at with snapshots being stored in the data store.
It is, or will be, trivial in the grand scheme of things to implement all of this - and who will be watching: computers, flagging this and that - for possible future "looking into" (hmm, possibly allowing you to "be convicted" of a crime in the future, for actions which were legal before in the past - think about that)...
We are living in a dystopian society - right now, today. The bad thing about it is that it seems more like Robocop than Bladerunner (not that the latter is better than the former)...
Think about it.
The problem is, these cameras don't see things you can see "just walking down the street" - unless they are installed at eye level. They are typically installed at "rooftop" level (at the very least, well above eye level).
If you knew anything about prisons, you would know why constant surveillance hurts a supposedly free society. We have the freedom of speech and assembly (people forget that last part) - who is to say that these cameras with face recog software couldn't be used to build a database of who you meet and when (ie, a semi-automated "friendster"), building up a network of aquaintences. Perhaps one of those in the net is involved in bad things, a few "hops" on the network away - could that knowledge of the friend net be used to implicate you in something you have no clue about? The stupid thing is, most people have no clue about network theory nor current concepts in it - they don't know about hubs and super-nodes, which connect fringes to inner parts - leading all of us (most of us - there are islands) to be at most 6-7 hops to many famous (and infamous) people, if we only knew the links - in many cases even fewer hops are necessary. We don't know this, and don't act about it - because we don't have, nor can easily make, the database needed to track this (imagine the power someone could wield if they had this database - a big enough and connected surveillance camera network could build this).
It is certainly a better use of funds than the DOJ redefining what consitutes torture, or imprisoning US citizens without trial.
The DOJ has already redefined what constitutes torture, and has already imprisoned US citizens without trial - surveillance cameras are but one more step along the road to tyrrany.
Maybe we could divert some terrorism money to schools on the grounds that well educated people are more likely to spot terrorist activity.
Well educated people are more likely to spot terrorist activity? Are you speaking of people educated to spot terrorists, or educated in general? How do you get an education spotting terrorists? How do you look at someone and say "He's a terrorist - look at his funny clothes!".
Hmm - how about Ronald Reagon? He wasn't an idiot - I remember him as being fairly intelligent and well spoken when he was President. However, did you know that while he was an actor that he helped with identifying possible "communists" in the acting community - yeah, he was one of those "spys" for communistic leanings. This isn't a lie - it is history. To think that "we the people" elected him (I don't know if this was known at the time he was elected or not, though - it certainly isn't common knowledge today), arguably paving the way to getting Shrub "elected". Substitute "terrorist" for "communist" above - still seems to work. Damn, worked so well, no more Communists in America! They must be all in those retraining camps along the edge of town...
I guess we have the best gov't money can buy...
This poster is *very* insightful and needs to be modded to "5" - what he says is very pertinent and true. Good job, funkdid!
Have we forgotten so quickly...?
...and you still are no more safe than you were before.
I don't think all of our "representatives" are corrupt - in fact, I know that there are a couple out there who seem to be upstanding people, on the side of the people.
But it seems like the vast majority care not one iota for the people who elected them, nor the rest of the country in general. If they did:
Are these actions (or lack of action) anything indicative of representatives who represent the people? I cannot see how it can be...
I agree that homebrew STMs are not anywhere near the level that would enable them to assemble machines or proteins (at whatever slow pace) from atoms. I further agree that this is not likely to be the case for a very long time (heh, they are having too many problems with resolution and vibration issues to image graphite atoms effectively). But at some point, it will happen - maybe not in our lifetimes, but someday it will. Saying otherwise would be like a person in the 1940's arguing that a person at home would never be able to build a computer from parts...