I disagree about the mandatory ownership being draconian. After all, the entire idea of acquiring ownership is that you are assuming responsibility as an owner. Buying it only to sell it minutes later implies that you really weren't interested in the company.
We need to prevent treating the exchange markets like some huge gambling casino.
More like plasma heated almost to the point of fusion. The "bolt" travels through a heated corridor produced by the laser, shedding mass (and light) as it travels.
One thing that might be important to remember is that we see troopers shot and incapacitated, but sometimes they could be merely wounded. The other thing is that the armour might provide other functions such as a short-term environmental protection suit, HUD and communication links. The ironic part is that Mr. Scalzi probably added some of these functions to the colonial trooper uniforms in his Old Man's War books.
And you're right that the real purpose of the design was to dehumanise them. The heroes could shoot and mangle them with abandon, and the audience wouldn't feel pity.
I doubt that military devices would use the 802.11 frequencies, though they might use the same protocols.
Encryption also doesn't seem all that important to me, due to the fact that the A/V signal needs to be real-time, and problems with falsely paired cams and monitors ("Damnit, you took Kowalki's monitor! I can't see the image!"). Yet to a sophisticated OPFOR, it could be used to track your movements based on what you're looking at ("Ah, the Yankees are looking into the foyer. Detonate the bombs in three, two...").
From the article, I get the impression that what they are looking for is something that's not as heavy. I like the term "cam grenade", for example: sacrificing mobility for the ability to be tossed into a room or over a wall further than the Dragon Runner can be tossed.
But you're right: this is now an evolutionary request, not revolutionary. Though having a baseball-sized drone camera would be a game changer, since it could be used in new ways.
You know, basing the camera on a grenade form/body might be the best solution: forget about mobility and instead concentrate on making just a camera you can toss into a room.
I can imagine making it softball-sized, so that it would be easy to lob. Once the camera lands, it extends tripod legs to right itself. The camera can then pan in 360Â, maybe even with slight elevation controls as well. Moving the camera is done by hand, folding the legs back in so that the camera can be tossed into the next room (repeat until battery is drained).
It's possible that the camera will be tampered with, but the mere act of tampering will be usable info. Microphones can pick up voices, to tell the difference between a bad landing or if someone is trying to block the images. Also, anywhere you can toss the cam grenade, you can toss a shrapnel grenade to go with it: no need to make the cam grenade heavier with booby trap explosives.
Unlike an explosive hand grenade, the cam grenade won't kill hostages/civilians. This is important, as the marines' future missions won't allow for a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" mentality.
Consider that in many cases, the pranksters exploited the natural deference to authority, assuming the identity of a trusted source (police, fire department, and so on). By claiming an emergency situation, the pranksters further short-circuited normal behaviour. It's abuse of a social structure, really; all designed to prevent critical thinking and lowering the chance of the victim to recognise the scam and pull out.
It's already been mentioned here on Slashdot that people are highly susceptible to using certainty to judge how valid an argument is: if a flat earther were to hammer with his argument repeatedly against a scientist who lacked self-confidence, then the chances of the flat-Earther are actually pretty good. It's hard wired into us, and even we geeks have to work hard on questioning authority in our heads.
I would suggest a different analogy: staging a sit-in protest at a business, blocking the entrance in comparison to planting a bomb within the business and telling the authorities they have one hour to clear the building.
The difference? Both aim to disrupt business, but the sit-in is done in person, and those staging the sit-in want to be seen and put a human face on their action. The bomber prefers to remain anonymous, and tries to keep personal risk to a minimum.
I suggest that the greatest difference lies not in the "pranks" themselves, for there we argue merely about the intensity and how much is too much. Instead, the difference lies in how Sasha Baron Cohen personally put himself at risk, both as an actor and also as producer. He doesn't try to hide behind anonymity and thus those who feel harmed by his actions can petition him and demand compensation.
That is the greatest difference. The Pranknet members tried to abuse the anonymity of the Net and shirk all responsibility for their actions.
The "entertainment" argument is more a fig leaf than anything else. It was bullying, as the argument pointed out how small the audiences really were.
The more glaring problem is that when making a movie, the millions spent are the producer's money. Pranknet caused millions in damages without recompensing those damaged, which would be the equivalent of a producer stiffing the entire workforce of a movie, from the actors down to the set builders.
Like the other who replied to your post, it's important to note that Sasha Baron Cohen did not engage in destruction of property or try to shirk responsibility for his actions. The PrankNet members showed little concern in this department, actually delighting in the damage they caused, believing themselves immune. The attitude of "they can't arrest me 'cause I live in Canada!" was seen more than once in the article.
I recommend reading the article again: the US law enforcement agencies really are treating these pranks as felonies, due to the damage done and the callous disregard of the victims. I could even see Canada extraditing the guy over this.
Actually, I think Salon's doing pretty good with their model, and Talking Points Memo is also turning a modest profit. The thing is, you won't make a huge profit with this model and THAT's what Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand. What he also doesn't seem to understand is that none of his offerings are "must-have", and hiding behind a paywall leaves him at a disadvantage when it comes to which news report all the bloggers will link to. That means no more steering eyeballs to his sites.
I think news will fall more and more into the donation model, much like many blogs are run. This means the end of the era as far as getting rich off of news goes, as currencies other than money eventually become important.
THAT is the geek attitude: read whatever strategy guides, "missing manuals" and other docs that will let you get the most out of the system, look at what works for others, and most of all don't be afraid to experiment!
I think if geeks approach the frustrations of marriage as any other geek problem, a lot of the anger evaporates in the desire to tinker and tweak, and solve the problem. The dark side of this is that geeks try to solve problems where there are none, and social tinkering and tweaking on a system that's otherwise running smoothly can quickly devolve into "nagging".
I think that's the trickiest part, but one geeks can cope with best: accepting change, and treating the relationship as permanent beta. We are better equipped to deal with problems than non-geeks: it's maintaining the sense of wonder and openness to new stuff that is important.
(And before the wag chime in: no, polyamory is not "being open to new stuff". It's old hat. Nyah. )
Ah, but those of use who own Macs don't get Mac:Office for free, and that's the kicker. Word is common OEM software even on cheap machines, even if the rest of Office is replaced by MS Works.
With a Mac, you actually have to consider plunking down cash for a version (and most users nowadays would rather buy iWork instead). That limits the market share of MS Word on the Mac platform.
This is because the PDF was designed to distribute documents to be printed at the endpoint, with no editing. It was supposed to be the next step up from Encapsulated PostScript, expanded to hold multiple pages in one file and provide identical appearances no matter which printer was used. I still have the original flyers for Acrobat 1.0 somewhere up in the attic, which gushed about creating once, and printing anywhere. Kerning was preserved by breaking text into sub-lines of text. Some programs can reassemble lines, but reassembling blocks is beyond them.
The original Adobe Acrobat users were supposed to be DTP professionals, to make it possible to send electronic proofs or to let people mail documents to the print shop without requiring the printer have the same version of QuarkXPress or having to give him a copy of the fonts. Those roots are what limit the PDF format today.
I have to take exception to the idea of Microsoft Word being good for writers. It actually seems more like overkill, getting in the way of actually writing at times. Several writers prefer instead to fall back on smaller shareware solutions such as Scrivener (Mac OS X). I would say Word's current strength lies not in excelling at any specific task, but being just good enough in almost all tasks that deal with writing.
It's an entire workshop of cheap tools that can be cantankerous, but they get the job done. Other applications may be well-crafted tools, but they are not as general-purpose as Word is. And since this workshop is already in your house, it's hard to justify going out and buying the high-quality tool.
My first thought was that it might have been set up by some overeager "investigative" television crew, hoping to catch security experts not following their own advice. My second thought was that they figured the chutzpah would be enough, that the attendees would be lulled into a false sense of security.
It happens in most countries, though it's referred to as "libel". German laws are somewhat more stringent, but it's the same concept. Germans also have been bombarded with tales of cyber-bullying in the media, so the public perception is at the moment skewed.
I think the media conglomerates have played a major role, in first hyping tales of online child pornography to create a feeling of crisis, now in pushing stories of online addiction and cyber-bullying. I have a sneaking suspicion that they see the internet as competition, as breaking the grip they had on media, that they see censorship laws as helping them retain their role as gatekeepers.
I think most Germans haven't really considered what they are getting into by allowing the government decide what you can see or not. They don't realise how this places them in the same boat as the Iranians and the Chinese, trusting too much that the government won't accidentally block legitimate content. Others who don't have an online connection (like my in-laws) think the internet is a big scary threat anyways, so any sort of censorship is a Good Thing. They still have the "as long as it doesn't affect me" mentality.
Agreed. I can't think of any organic food that is advertised as "healthier" as much as "better". It's assumed that it means better tasting, and that it's more sustainable methods used. Some farmers even claim that organic crops are more profitable due to lower production costs, though Monsanto and the other chemical giants may scream bloody murder about jobs lost if they can't sell their expensive pesticides any more.
I thought the benefits of organic crops were more indirect: the food is more or less the same, but the impact on the environment is lesser due to less pesticides and herbicides bleeding off into rivers, less antibiotics used in the meat, and so on. Little to no direct health benefits to the individual consumer, but rather to the consumer's larger community. Same reason why I buy free-range eggs and refuse to buy battery farm eggs: some savings aren't worth the cost.
Oh, and taste. Something about the care organic farmers take more than actual difference in chemicals, I guess, but taste is taste.
If you're so averse to working, you could take over the stocking the Zunes.
Seriously, though, Microsoft doesn't sell computers. They sell pre-loads to OEM manufacturers, and a tiny bit of their software is sold retail. And no, the XBox 360 doesn't count as selling computers.
"The producers would like to note that due to military treaties, the Joke as presented in this forum as well as all documentaries is merely an approximation. The Royal Army Comedy Force refused to give us a copy, as the risk of joke proliferation is considered too great."
After all, imagine if a spammer got a hold of it...
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree about the mandatory ownership being draconian. After all, the entire idea of acquiring ownership is that you are assuming responsibility as an owner. Buying it only to sell it minutes later implies that you really weren't interested in the company.
We need to prevent treating the exchange markets like some huge gambling casino.
More like plasma heated almost to the point of fusion. The "bolt" travels through a heated corridor produced by the laser, shedding mass (and light) as it travels.
One thing that might be important to remember is that we see troopers shot and incapacitated, but sometimes they could be merely wounded. The other thing is that the armour might provide other functions such as a short-term environmental protection suit, HUD and communication links. The ironic part is that Mr. Scalzi probably added some of these functions to the colonial trooper uniforms in his Old Man's War books.
And you're right that the real purpose of the design was to dehumanise them. The heroes could shoot and mangle them with abandon, and the audience wouldn't feel pity.
I doubt that military devices would use the 802.11 frequencies, though they might use the same protocols.
Encryption also doesn't seem all that important to me, due to the fact that the A/V signal needs to be real-time, and problems with falsely paired cams and monitors ("Damnit, you took Kowalki's monitor! I can't see the image!"). Yet to a sophisticated OPFOR, it could be used to track your movements based on what you're looking at ("Ah, the Yankees are looking into the foyer. Detonate the bombs in three, two...").
From the article, I get the impression that what they are looking for is something that's not as heavy. I like the term "cam grenade", for example: sacrificing mobility for the ability to be tossed into a room or over a wall further than the Dragon Runner can be tossed.
But you're right: this is now an evolutionary request, not revolutionary. Though having a baseball-sized drone camera would be a game changer, since it could be used in new ways.
You know, basing the camera on a grenade form/body might be the best solution: forget about mobility and instead concentrate on making just a camera you can toss into a room.
I can imagine making it softball-sized, so that it would be easy to lob. Once the camera lands, it extends tripod legs to right itself. The camera can then pan in 360Â, maybe even with slight elevation controls as well. Moving the camera is done by hand, folding the legs back in so that the camera can be tossed into the next room (repeat until battery is drained).
It's possible that the camera will be tampered with, but the mere act of tampering will be usable info. Microphones can pick up voices, to tell the difference between a bad landing or if someone is trying to block the images. Also, anywhere you can toss the cam grenade, you can toss a shrapnel grenade to go with it: no need to make the cam grenade heavier with booby trap explosives.
Unlike an explosive hand grenade, the cam grenade won't kill hostages/civilians. This is important, as the marines' future missions won't allow for a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" mentality.
Consider that in many cases, the pranksters exploited the natural deference to authority, assuming the identity of a trusted source (police, fire department, and so on). By claiming an emergency situation, the pranksters further short-circuited normal behaviour. It's abuse of a social structure, really; all designed to prevent critical thinking and lowering the chance of the victim to recognise the scam and pull out.
It's already been mentioned here on Slashdot that people are highly susceptible to using certainty to judge how valid an argument is: if a flat earther were to hammer with his argument repeatedly against a scientist who lacked self-confidence, then the chances of the flat-Earther are actually pretty good. It's hard wired into us, and even we geeks have to work hard on questioning authority in our heads.
I would suggest a different analogy: staging a sit-in protest at a business, blocking the entrance in comparison to planting a bomb within the business and telling the authorities they have one hour to clear the building.
The difference? Both aim to disrupt business, but the sit-in is done in person, and those staging the sit-in want to be seen and put a human face on their action. The bomber prefers to remain anonymous, and tries to keep personal risk to a minimum.
I suggest that the greatest difference lies not in the "pranks" themselves, for there we argue merely about the intensity and how much is too much. Instead, the difference lies in how Sasha Baron Cohen personally put himself at risk, both as an actor and also as producer. He doesn't try to hide behind anonymity and thus those who feel harmed by his actions can petition him and demand compensation.
That is the greatest difference. The Pranknet members tried to abuse the anonymity of the Net and shirk all responsibility for their actions.
The "entertainment" argument is more a fig leaf than anything else. It was bullying, as the argument pointed out how small the audiences really were.
The more glaring problem is that when making a movie, the millions spent are the producer's money. Pranknet caused millions in damages without recompensing those damaged, which would be the equivalent of a producer stiffing the entire workforce of a movie, from the actors down to the set builders.
Like the other who replied to your post, it's important to note that Sasha Baron Cohen did not engage in destruction of property or try to shirk responsibility for his actions. The PrankNet members showed little concern in this department, actually delighting in the damage they caused, believing themselves immune. The attitude of "they can't arrest me 'cause I live in Canada!" was seen more than once in the article.
I recommend reading the article again: the US law enforcement agencies really are treating these pranks as felonies, due to the damage done and the callous disregard of the victims. I could even see Canada extraditing the guy over this.
Actually, I think Salon's doing pretty good with their model, and Talking Points Memo is also turning a modest profit. The thing is, you won't make a huge profit with this model and THAT's what Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand. What he also doesn't seem to understand is that none of his offerings are "must-have", and hiding behind a paywall leaves him at a disadvantage when it comes to which news report all the bloggers will link to. That means no more steering eyeballs to his sites.
I think news will fall more and more into the donation model, much like many blogs are run. This means the end of the era as far as getting rich off of news goes, as currencies other than money eventually become important.
I tried pulling the plug on my work laptop, but it just switched to battery power.
THAT is the geek attitude: read whatever strategy guides, "missing manuals" and other docs that will let you get the most out of the system, look at what works for others, and most of all don't be afraid to experiment!
In other words, he shouldn't trust the "missing manual" books but instead perform some dry runs and see what works?
I say treat marriage as a poorly documented system that is open for modding.
I think if geeks approach the frustrations of marriage as any other geek problem, a lot of the anger evaporates in the desire to tinker and tweak, and solve the problem. The dark side of this is that geeks try to solve problems where there are none, and social tinkering and tweaking on a system that's otherwise running smoothly can quickly devolve into "nagging".
I think that's the trickiest part, but one geeks can cope with best: accepting change, and treating the relationship as permanent beta. We are better equipped to deal with problems than non-geeks: it's maintaining the sense of wonder and openness to new stuff that is important.
(And before the wag chime in: no, polyamory is not "being open to new stuff". It's old hat. Nyah. )
Ah, but those of use who own Macs don't get Mac:Office for free, and that's the kicker. Word is common OEM software even on cheap machines, even if the rest of Office is replaced by MS Works.
With a Mac, you actually have to consider plunking down cash for a version (and most users nowadays would rather buy iWork instead). That limits the market share of MS Word on the Mac platform.
This is because the PDF was designed to distribute documents to be printed at the endpoint, with no editing. It was supposed to be the next step up from Encapsulated PostScript, expanded to hold multiple pages in one file and provide identical appearances no matter which printer was used. I still have the original flyers for Acrobat 1.0 somewhere up in the attic, which gushed about creating once, and printing anywhere. Kerning was preserved by breaking text into sub-lines of text. Some programs can reassemble lines, but reassembling blocks is beyond them.
The original Adobe Acrobat users were supposed to be DTP professionals, to make it possible to send electronic proofs or to let people mail documents to the print shop without requiring the printer have the same version of QuarkXPress or having to give him a copy of the fonts. Those roots are what limit the PDF format today.
I have to take exception to the idea of Microsoft Word being good for writers. It actually seems more like overkill, getting in the way of actually writing at times. Several writers prefer instead to fall back on smaller shareware solutions such as Scrivener (Mac OS X). I would say Word's current strength lies not in excelling at any specific task, but being just good enough in almost all tasks that deal with writing.
It's an entire workshop of cheap tools that can be cantankerous, but they get the job done. Other applications may be well-crafted tools, but they are not as general-purpose as Word is. And since this workshop is already in your house, it's hard to justify going out and buying the high-quality tool.
My first thought was that it might have been set up by some overeager "investigative" television crew, hoping to catch security experts not following their own advice. My second thought was that they figured the chutzpah would be enough, that the attendees would be lulled into a false sense of security.
It happens in most countries, though it's referred to as "libel". German laws are somewhat more stringent, but it's the same concept. Germans also have been bombarded with tales of cyber-bullying in the media, so the public perception is at the moment skewed.
I think the media conglomerates have played a major role, in first hyping tales of online child pornography to create a feeling of crisis, now in pushing stories of online addiction and cyber-bullying. I have a sneaking suspicion that they see the internet as competition, as breaking the grip they had on media, that they see censorship laws as helping them retain their role as gatekeepers.
I think most Germans haven't really considered what they are getting into by allowing the government decide what you can see or not. They don't realise how this places them in the same boat as the Iranians and the Chinese, trusting too much that the government won't accidentally block legitimate content. Others who don't have an online connection (like my in-laws) think the internet is a big scary threat anyways, so any sort of censorship is a Good Thing. They still have the "as long as it doesn't affect me" mentality.
Agreed. I can't think of any organic food that is advertised as "healthier" as much as "better". It's assumed that it means better tasting, and that it's more sustainable methods used. Some farmers even claim that organic crops are more profitable due to lower production costs, though Monsanto and the other chemical giants may scream bloody murder about jobs lost if they can't sell their expensive pesticides any more.
I thought the benefits of organic crops were more indirect: the food is more or less the same, but the impact on the environment is lesser due to less pesticides and herbicides bleeding off into rivers, less antibiotics used in the meat, and so on. Little to no direct health benefits to the individual consumer, but rather to the consumer's larger community. Same reason why I buy free-range eggs and refuse to buy battery farm eggs: some savings aren't worth the cost.
Oh, and taste. Something about the care organic farmers take more than actual difference in chemicals, I guess, but taste is taste.
If you're so averse to working, you could take over the stocking the Zunes.
Seriously, though, Microsoft doesn't sell computers. They sell pre-loads to OEM manufacturers, and a tiny bit of their software is sold retail. And no, the XBox 360 doesn't count as selling computers.
"The producers would like to note that due to military treaties, the Joke as presented in this forum as well as all documentaries is merely an approximation. The Royal Army Comedy Force refused to give us a copy, as the risk of joke proliferation is considered too great."
After all, imagine if a spammer got a hold of it...