Oh fucking please. Why would the PM meet with anyone at anytime with any amount of notice about DRM. It's a non-issue to him and the majority of the people of earth. Meeting with the PM is the last thing you do, after you've gotten the world on your side. Now if he'd tried to meet with a MP that has a private member's bill coming up and isn't sure what issue he should address, that'd be sensible. The FSF are fuckin' morons, don't even know how to work the political process.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but copyright has nothing to do with it. If I want to take BSD-like licensed code, port it to Linux and GPL it, I am free to do so.
Can you please execute 'ldd' on the binary for us and post the output? I have no desire to download this stuff but would like to know what dependencies it has.
although I agree with you, let me tell you the reasons why California congressmen will say the "no shoot human" gun is not the same as an outright ban on guns. There's:
hunting
target shooting
pest extermination
Of course, they won't introduce guns right away that can't shoot humans. At first they'll make it so the guns can't shoot police officers. After all, why should you ever be allowed to shoot at a police officer right? Then they'll expand that to soldiers. After all, only illegal combatants use civilian weapons to shoot at military personal. Then maybe they'll add a facial age measure device to the gun, so you can never accidently shoot a child. Then maybe women. Then everyone. Maybe you'll have to call a 1800 number to ask for permission to use your gun if you want to defend your home. And let's not forget the massive police force we'll need to make sure the only guns available are the ones with these sensors.
Ok, obsurd rant over. That's stupid and it will never happen right? Because people will stand up and be counted to defend their right to bare arms. But what does that mean, "arms"? Does it mean just guns? Surely it doesn't. It means whatever weapons deemed necessary to overthrow a corrupt government. And if that government has a powerful robot police force then surely it means having your own robots to overthrow it if need be.
Just to keep this on topic. Suppose you have a robot police force that was so damn effective that you didn't need to defend yourself or "enforce justice" as you put it. What would be the point of having an armed populous then? Don't bother answering me. I know the answer. I just want you to think about terms like "justice" before you throw them around willy nilly.
There are already laws that have been passed which mandate all new handguns be fitted with this biometric recognition stuff.. I forget what state, let's, oh, I don't know, California.
Asimov's rules were always applied to intelligent robots. No-one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that a hammer should have a sensor to recognise if it is hitting a nail or a thumb and refuse to obey the "command" of its operator if it is targetting the latter. The purpose of Asimov's three rules was to prevent himself from falling into the trap of writing yet another Frankenstein story. That said, I believe there are some proponents of handgun biometrics that believe guns should override the commands of their operators if the operator is not authorized to use it. In the future you may not be able to (legally) purchase a handgun that will fire on a human being.
It's called geology, and if you actually ever speak to a geologist in your life, as them how well they can do their job with rovers and satelite photos.
I think the biggest lesson learned from the X-Prize is that it isn't all about the technical challenges. You also have to solve the legal challenges. Allowing challengers to carry ballast instead of paying passengers into space was a mistake. The X-Prize should have forced competitors to carry living, breathing, payying customers into space, then they would have had to content with and conquer the legal issues, not just the technical ones. And it would have ment that space rides were available immediately after the challenge was won, because who would be so silly to go to all that trouble to win the challenge and then not take money from the people lining up to fly.
See, the scary part about natural gas is that it is stored in your moving-at-high-speed vehicle under pressure. So if you puncture the tank, and you're lucky enough not to cause a spark doing so, your car will still blow up into little pieces as the shrapnel tears it apart.
It may be *more* profitable to fly 11, but it certainly isn't unprofitable to fly 1. Unless you think it cost Rutan $200k per launch, which is just crazy.
As for the jerk comment, don't take my comment out of context. What I said was that even if you put a dozen barriers up and charged an obscene amount of money you'd still make a profit. For a passenger to make it through that kind of filter they would have to be unusually determined, and when people like that are put into regular, not challenging, situations, they typically behave like jerks.
Then it's my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that Rutan had no right to claim a win for the X-Prize in that case. The purpose of the prize was to encourage the development of a vehicle that could be used for space tourism. Obviously that's not Rutan's fault, the X-Prize rules should have been more specific, but if Virgin Galactic starts making flights some time soon, everything will be forgiven.
Here's a really novel idea about how Rutan could make money: offer black sky flights on Spaceship One. According to the Virgin Galactic web page they go for about US$200,000 each. At that price you'd expect Rutan would have started flights two weeks after he won the X-Prize. What'd he do instead? He put Spaceship One in the Smithsonian. WTF? The old Spaceship One FAQ (prior to the X-Prize win) has this to say:
How much will it cost to get a ride into space? Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.
Establishing an airliner? WTF? Seriously dude, require your passenger to aquire a pilot's license, do the minimum required number of flight hours and designate them as a co-pilot. Then get them to sign a waiver as long as you're arm and you'll still have enough rich jerks with $200k each lining up to keep you flying two flights a day, every day, for the next five years.
Speaking of five years, when will Virgin Galatic be offering flights? Who the hell knows. Their web site says:
By the end of the decade, Virgin Galactic - the most exciting development in the story of modern space history - is planning to make it possible for almost anyone to visit the final frontier at an affordable price.
Surely they don't mean US$200k, so how long will it take to go from that to an "affordable" price? 5 years? Can't be, that would mean they have already started flights. 3 years? Sweet, so they'll start flying next year? Don't count on it.
You're certainly right about the shuttle program, it's a black hole, but let's not bag the whole concept of humans in space ok? If we were to send just one geologist to Mars he could do more science than any of the robots that have been sent their in the first hour of his arrival. That said, manned space flight shouldn't be about science. It should be about conquering and colonizing a new frontier.
Hopefully soon, commercial space flight will focus more on the exploitation of space resources than pure science and we'll really start to see the worth of manned space flight. Then maybe governments can get out of the business of creating launch vehicles and just fund the pure research to use commercially available launch vehicles.
Because the winner of the X-Prize just took the money and then went on speaking tours. If Rutan had actually started offering black sky flights after he won the X-Prize we'd see some motivation by others to offer similar flights. Instead, everything is trying to come up with their own stunt to best Spaceship-One.
Slashdot Mirror
You vote the fucker into power, that's democracy. If you don't like it, vote for someone else. If there's no-one worth voting for, run yourself.
What's your problem?
Kinda makes you feel a little fatalistic when you consider that groups like the FSF feel they are above "lobbying". Thank god for the EFF.
Oh fucking please. Why would the PM meet with anyone at anytime with any amount of notice about DRM. It's a non-issue to him and the majority of the people of earth. Meeting with the PM is the last thing you do, after you've gotten the world on your side. Now if he'd tried to meet with a MP that has a private member's bill coming up and isn't sure what issue he should address, that'd be sensible. The FSF are fuckin' morons, don't even know how to work the political process.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, but copyright has nothing to do with it. If I want to take BSD-like licensed code, port it to Linux and GPL it, I am free to do so.
Can you please execute 'ldd' on the binary for us and post the output? I have no desire to download this stuff but would like to know what dependencies it has.
When was the last time the US had a coup? Compare that with other countries that restrict gun ownership.
Of course, they won't introduce guns right away that can't shoot humans. At first they'll make it so the guns can't shoot police officers. After all, why should you ever be allowed to shoot at a police officer right? Then they'll expand that to soldiers. After all, only illegal combatants use civilian weapons to shoot at military personal. Then maybe they'll add a facial age measure device to the gun, so you can never accidently shoot a child. Then maybe women. Then everyone. Maybe you'll have to call a 1800 number to ask for permission to use your gun if you want to defend your home. And let's not forget the massive police force we'll need to make sure the only guns available are the ones with these sensors.
Ok, obsurd rant over. That's stupid and it will never happen right? Because people will stand up and be counted to defend their right to bare arms. But what does that mean, "arms"? Does it mean just guns? Surely it doesn't. It means whatever weapons deemed necessary to overthrow a corrupt government. And if that government has a powerful robot police force then surely it means having your own robots to overthrow it if need be.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Asimov.
Just to keep this on topic. Suppose you have a robot police force that was so damn effective that you didn't need to defend yourself or "enforce justice" as you put it. What would be the point of having an armed populous then? Don't bother answering me. I know the answer. I just want you to think about terms like "justice" before you throw them around willy nilly.
There are already laws that have been passed which mandate all new handguns be fitted with this biometric recognition stuff.. I forget what state, let's, oh, I don't know, California.
Are you trying the suggest their's some difference between "remove the monopolies" and "allow competition"? Or was this just a "me too" comment?
Asimov's rules were always applied to intelligent robots. No-one (to my knowledge) has ever suggested that a hammer should have a sensor to recognise if it is hitting a nail or a thumb and refuse to obey the "command" of its operator if it is targetting the latter. The purpose of Asimov's three rules was to prevent himself from falling into the trap of writing yet another Frankenstein story. That said, I believe there are some proponents of handgun biometrics that believe guns should override the commands of their operators if the operator is not authorized to use it. In the future you may not be able to (legally) purchase a handgun that will fire on a human being.
The solution is to break up monopolies, not enact laws that prevent businesses from entering into mutually beneficial contracts.
It's called geology, and if you actually ever speak to a geologist in your life, as them how well they can do their job with rovers and satelite photos.
I think the biggest lesson learned from the X-Prize is that it isn't all about the technical challenges. You also have to solve the legal challenges. Allowing challengers to carry ballast instead of paying passengers into space was a mistake. The X-Prize should have forced competitors to carry living, breathing, payying customers into space, then they would have had to content with and conquer the legal issues, not just the technical ones. And it would have ment that space rides were available immediately after the challenge was won, because who would be so silly to go to all that trouble to win the challenge and then not take money from the people lining up to fly.
See, the scary part about natural gas is that it is stored in your moving-at-high-speed vehicle under pressure. So if you puncture the tank, and you're lucky enough not to cause a spark doing so, your car will still blow up into little pieces as the shrapnel tears it apart.
Not like natural gas it don't.
Have you seen the myth busters episode where they shoot at the gasoline tank?
Dude, people drive around with natural gas tanks in their cars.
It may be *more* profitable to fly 11, but it certainly isn't unprofitable to fly 1. Unless you think it cost Rutan $200k per launch, which is just crazy.
As for the jerk comment, don't take my comment out of context. What I said was that even if you put a dozen barriers up and charged an obscene amount of money you'd still make a profit. For a passenger to make it through that kind of filter they would have to be unusually determined, and when people like that are put into regular, not challenging, situations, they typically behave like jerks.
to profit from space, you must go from the ground to orbit, and bring something back that's worth the trip.
That "something" is your passengers and their memory of their experience. Instead of air liner, think cruise liner.
and would do 100 times as much science as 30 missions will ever do.
All the science that the Mars rovers have done could have been done by a human team in the first day of their expedition.
Then it's my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that Rutan had no right to claim a win for the X-Prize in that case. The purpose of the prize was to encourage the development of a vehicle that could be used for space tourism. Obviously that's not Rutan's fault, the X-Prize rules should have been more specific, but if Virgin Galactic starts making flights some time soon, everything will be forgiven.
Here's a really novel idea about how Rutan could make money: offer black sky flights on Spaceship One. According to the Virgin Galactic web page they go for about US$200,000 each. At that price you'd expect Rutan would have started flights two weeks after he won the X-Prize. What'd he do instead? He put Spaceship One in the Smithsonian. WTF? The old Spaceship One FAQ (prior to the X-Prize win) has this to say:
How much will it cost to get a ride into space?
Rides will not be offered in SpaceShipOne. The price of a ride will have to take in consideration the cost of certification and establishing an airliner-like operation. One goal of this research program is to see how low it might be without the burden of regulatory costs. At program completion we will have good data for operational costs and may publish them.
Establishing an airliner? WTF? Seriously dude, require your passenger to aquire a pilot's license, do the minimum required number of flight hours and designate them as a co-pilot. Then get them to sign a waiver as long as you're arm and you'll still have enough rich jerks with $200k each lining up to keep you flying two flights a day, every day, for the next five years.
Speaking of five years, when will Virgin Galatic be offering flights? Who the hell knows. Their web site says:
By the end of the decade, Virgin Galactic - the most exciting development in the story of modern space history - is planning to make it possible for almost anyone to visit the final frontier at an affordable price.
Surely they don't mean US$200k, so how long will it take to go from that to an "affordable" price? 5 years? Can't be, that would mean they have already started flights. 3 years? Sweet, so they'll start flying next year? Don't count on it.
You're certainly right about the shuttle program, it's a black hole, but let's not bag the whole concept of humans in space ok? If we were to send just one geologist to Mars he could do more science than any of the robots that have been sent their in the first hour of his arrival. That said, manned space flight shouldn't be about science. It should be about conquering and colonizing a new frontier.
Hopefully soon, commercial space flight will focus more on the exploitation of space resources than pure science and we'll really start to see the worth of manned space flight. Then maybe governments can get out of the business of creating launch vehicles and just fund the pure research to use commercially available launch vehicles.
Because the winner of the X-Prize just took the money and then went on speaking tours. If Rutan had actually started offering black sky flights after he won the X-Prize we'd see some motivation by others to offer similar flights. Instead, everything is trying to come up with their own stunt to best Spaceship-One.