Heh came to say the same thing. Make a "service dock" that the robot needs to be in for 8 hours a night (for sleeping and dumping human waste), and request to be paid in lithium batteries (which you resell for a wage).
Findings, if TFS is to be believed, are meaningless.
To me, a "smart phone" is (1) phone (2) GPS (3) Calendar (4) email monitor (too small for real use) (5) text messaging (emergency/supplementary/alert short messages -- neither I nor anyone I know actually "texts" in the conventional sense) such as "Can't Answer Phone", "Downstairs", police-traffic alerts) and (6) Google: quick facts, restaurants and services such as flights (7) photo/video missions (scenic, birthdays,...)
I have an "old people" Facebook account for some limited family/friend photo sharing and for advertising one of my businesses. I never access it from the phone and don't have any social medial apps installed. I guess technically that's social media -- I used Facebook for about an hour over the course of two days in the last seven months (funeral announcement).
So, yes, my S9+ is indispensable and it is next to my bed at night. I used to have a GPS, camera, calendar, and alarm clock and I lugged all that shit around (and some of it was implemented as a big paper book). This damn thing fits in my pocket!
But I don't think that's what the point of the survey was.
Oh, other apps I have installed? Well, I have some music files on there, but I don't normally play them from the phone. I also have a small database of specialized information that I use for work - I look something up on there about once a week. And I have some gas station and pharmacy loyalty cards on the phone. All those replace paper I used to lug. Those are all the apps.
The Russians built a system to disrupt NATO military use of GPS, but the only way they can know that it would work is to actually disrupt a NATO military exercise.
There is this thing called "Science" and the big feature is that it can make correct predictions. In the case of how electromagnetic energy works, it can predict -- perfectly correctly -- and we know this -- that a trivial device can disrupt GPS. So, NO, testing it is "not the only way to know", except in some existential sense. I mean, it could be that if you turn on a radio transmitter, it doesn't broadcast a signal, but instead opens a quantum vortex from which the interdimensional aliens pop out and annihilate all of humankind.
Russians were just being assholes trying to annoy us.
Meanwhile, the military is not as dependent on GPS as you imagine; the military, which invented GPS, is not that stupid.
Missiles should be able to navigate with a paper map.
They can! How do you think precision cruise missiles worked prior to the invention of GPS? They have a map, and they use AI ("computer vision") to look at the terrain they are flying over. I remember when this was deployed around 1980.
They also have inertial guidance in the navigation array, of course.
And to cross/. threads here: Some of the folks at the lab where I was working at the time, who invented those vision systems as part of pure basic science research, were concerned about what the technology would be used for. (Of course the funding was from DARPA.)
These service workers are underpaid minions for the tech giant, slaves that come running every time those upper class pages make a request. It's the gig economy, exploiting workers who linger in the background, hoping for something to do. Shamefully discarded when there isn't enough for them to do. They're probably using foreign undocumented code, too!
No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...
The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.
Correct. An auto-seer is itself considered a machine gun. (Even though it's just a little tiny trivially manufactured piece of metal that goes into the gun. It is the Fun Part.)
You seem to forget that at the point of writing, automatic guns were already available
Um... no. Not even close. Not even metallic cartridges were available. It was all glorious bore-fouling lead balls, with bore-fouling black powder pushing those bore-fouling lead balls down the barrel.
If you know of some, please, link us to them because I would love to see them. (not being sarcastic. I'd love to see 18th-century autoloading firearms.)
Semiautomatic handguns were preceded by revolvers, which was basically the same thing. (You pull a trigger, a bullet comes out, no need to reload, just pull again and again bang bang bang bang bang bang. ) That technology is from the mid-1500s.
The Puckle semi-automatic flintlock was circa 1722 (a dozen rounds automatically fired from cylindrical magazines that you could pop in). The Chinese also invented rotary canons in the early 1700 (hundred round hopper magazine). The year 1777 saw the Belton's semi-auto flintlock musket, which fired 20 rounds in 5 seconds from a paper cartridge. The Continental Congress ordered 100 of them for the army.
By the mid 1800s we had things like electrically ignited machine guns, steam driven machine guns, multiple barrels, etc. Lots of automatic and semi-automatic guns all over the place. Bessemer (of steelmaking process fame) patented a hydro-pneumatic blowback water cooled fully automatic canon. The Gatling rotary cannon (200 rounds/minute) was 1861. The first truly modern machine gun may have been from Sweden in 1870: fully automatic recoil-operated firearm action. By 1884 there was the Maxim machine gun, which is just like what we have today. That's a full auto water cooled 600 rounds/minute canon.
So, yes, the framers were definitely aware of automatic high-rate cartridge-based weapons of mass destruction. They ordered a bunch of them.
VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use.
If it's one of these 3D printed guns we're talking about, you had better make 100 of them. Then you will be able to get off 70 shots before it's back to the printer for you. Assuming you survived those 30 explosions....
Is there a machine that melts them down and makes more raw material for the printer, too? Like the Creepy Crawlers machine when I was a kid?
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
An international airport (i.e. one at which there is Customs service) is considered "the border". If you are within 100 miles of "the border", you're at the border and have very few rights.
Also note that since there are so many airports that can be considered "international", that there are very few places anywhere within the United States where you don't happen to be "at the border".
What we really need is greatly reduced cost and deployed transportation infrastructure capable of frequent deliveries of large payloads, and people actually getting out there
Because this is slashdot, the obligatory car analogy is that if a car manufacturer installed a top speed limiter of 75 mph as a firmware update, and then said it would not affect most users much, given that the average speed is 35 mph.
2008 called -- they want their Slashdot back.
No, really. We want it back!
(Imagine a Beowulf cluster of "I for one..." car analogies! I would like that. Rather than the rampant technological ignorance most of the comments illustrate these days. Present commentary excluded naturally.)
A company can't impose additional legal terms with a fix to a sold product.
This Intel "fix" has nothing to do with any kind of "warranty" or "recall" or anything like that, and it's totally optional for you. You just don't like that fact, is all.
Not that this makes Intel less slimy, but your "legal" reasoning is just based on ignorance and imagination.
No company can legally require a person this kind of performative obedience under any circumstance as a sold product like this.
Of course a company can enter into a contract with you that says you can't publish performance specs for their product. So I am going to assume that you mean to say that it's about a product they PREVIOUSLY sold you. The thing is, Intel did NOT previously sell you this microcode update.
The contract is that Intel will provide you this new microcode update, which is software, but that your license to use it will be restricted. (Specifically that you can't run this software on a computer for the purpose of benchmarking it, and that you won't publish such a benchmark.)
I don't see any legal problem with that contract.
It doesn't make Intel look good, but if you don't like the deal, then don't install the software.
Additionally, there have already been cases where judges have rendered TOS/EULA agreements as total bullshit and unenforceable.
If you cannot read the "By downloading, you agree..." license terms BEFORE downloading, then you have a shrink-wrap license problem. (By the way, shrink-wrap licenses are still upheld in some states such as Maryland and Virginia.) Even if there's a shrink-wrap issue, though, it is fairly obvious that INSTALLING the software after downloading and reading the accompanying license would constitute agreement to the terms.
Especially after a sale has already been completed, just look at the Sony Linux feature removal class action on the PS3 that cost them millions
That case was different than this. In the PS3 case, Sony removed access to their online gaming network, thereby crippling the box. Here, Intel is not removing access to anything: if you don't like the terms, then don't install the microcode update, and your computer will continue to function exactly as it did before, with all the same capabilities (and bugs) intact. Which is the point.
I expect the benchmarks will be out soon and all over the place, published in ways that make it impossible to figure out who to sue. Then, these benchmarks will be reported all over the place by people who never downloaded or installed or agreed to any of the license terms, and in fact did not perform any benchmarking themselves. Just published some results from some other shadowy people who cannot be sued.
"And what makes that cop's gun so cool? PHYSICS! Kinetic energy generates the velocity with which the bullet exits the barrel, while the ballistics coefficient and sectional density determine the damage to its targets! Guns don't kill people, PHYSICS kills people!" ---Prof. Dick Solomon
Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
I assume all that is done and will be done; the thing about trying it out 5 times is that it's 5 more chances to see what was missed in all that.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh came to say the same thing. Make a "service dock" that the robot needs to be in for 8 hours a night (for sleeping and dumping human waste), and request to be paid in lithium batteries (which you resell for a wage).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And who oversold it? The scientists?
No. Al Gore.
That's where most people got their information about global warming from.
No, they really weren't. Stop using Infowars as your encyclopedia. Find me a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal that said that
I think he was using Al Gore as his source; that's who made the outrageous claims about things being underwater by now.
When they remotely infected that ship,
was the wek password 16309, or 123456?
I, for one, welcome our gigantic overheated viral overlords.
Findings, if TFS is to be believed, are meaningless.
To me, a "smart phone" is (1) phone (2) GPS (3) Calendar (4) email monitor (too small for real use) (5) text messaging (emergency/supplementary/alert short messages -- neither I nor anyone I know actually "texts" in the conventional sense) such as "Can't Answer Phone", "Downstairs", police-traffic alerts) and (6) Google: quick facts, restaurants and services such as flights (7) photo/video missions (scenic, birthdays, ...)
I have an "old people" Facebook account for some limited family/friend photo sharing and for advertising one of my businesses. I never access it from the phone and don't have any social medial apps installed. I guess technically that's social media -- I used Facebook for about an hour over the course of two days in the last seven months (funeral announcement).
So, yes, my S9+ is indispensable and it is next to my bed at night.
I used to have a GPS, camera, calendar, and alarm clock and I lugged
all that shit around (and some of it was implemented as a big paper book).
This damn thing fits in my pocket!
But I don't think that's what the point of the survey was.
Oh, other apps I have installed? Well, I have some music files on there,
but I don't normally play them from the phone. I also have a small
database of specialized information that I use for work - I look something
up on there about once a week. And I have some gas station and pharmacy
loyalty cards on the phone. All those replace paper I used to lug.
Those are all the apps.
The Russians built a system to disrupt NATO military use of GPS, but the only way they can know that it would work is to actually disrupt a NATO military exercise.
There is this thing called "Science" and the big feature is that it can make correct predictions. In the case of how electromagnetic energy works, it can predict -- perfectly correctly -- and we know this -- that a trivial device can disrupt GPS. So, NO, testing it is "not the only way to know", except in some existential sense. I mean, it could be that if you turn on a radio transmitter, it doesn't broadcast a signal, but instead opens a quantum vortex from which the interdimensional aliens pop out and annihilate all of humankind.
Russians were just being assholes trying to annoy us.
Meanwhile, the military is not as dependent on GPS as you imagine; the military, which invented GPS, is not that stupid.
Missiles should be able to navigate with a paper map.
They can! How do you think precision cruise missiles worked prior to the invention of GPS? They have a map, and they use AI ("computer vision") to look at the terrain they are flying over. I remember when this was deployed around 1980.
They also have inertial guidance in the navigation array, of course.
And to cross /. threads here: Some of the folks at the lab where I was working at the time, who invented those vision systems as part of pure basic science research, were concerned about what the technology would be used for. (Of course the funding was from DARPA.)
I am pretty sure that I've seen Perceptual Ad Blockers on Doctor Who. They're kind of like psychic paper, only in reverse.
Meat, and Fish, and Protein from the sea!
These service workers are underpaid minions for the tech giant, slaves that come running every time those upper class pages make a request. It's the gig economy, exploiting workers who linger in the background, hoping for something to do. Shamefully discarded when there isn't enough for them to do. They're probably using foreign undocumented code, too!
No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...
The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.
Correct. An auto-seer is itself considered a machine gun. (Even though it's just a little tiny trivially manufactured piece of metal that goes into the gun. It is the Fun Part.)
You seem to forget that at the point of writing, automatic guns were already available
Um... no. Not even close. Not even metallic cartridges were available. It was all glorious bore-fouling lead balls, with bore-fouling black powder pushing those bore-fouling lead balls down the barrel.
If you know of some, please, link us to them because I would love to see them. (not being sarcastic. I'd love to see 18th-century autoloading firearms.)
Semiautomatic handguns were preceded by revolvers, which was basically the same thing. (You pull a trigger, a bullet comes out, no need to reload, just pull again and again bang bang bang bang bang bang. ) That technology is from the mid-1500s.
The Puckle semi-automatic flintlock was circa 1722 (a dozen rounds automatically fired from cylindrical magazines that you could pop in). The Chinese also invented rotary canons in the early 1700 (hundred round hopper magazine). The year 1777 saw the Belton's semi-auto flintlock musket, which fired 20 rounds in 5 seconds from a paper cartridge. The Continental Congress ordered 100 of them for the army.
By the mid 1800s we had things like electrically ignited machine guns, steam driven machine guns, multiple barrels, etc. Lots of automatic and semi-automatic guns all over the place. Bessemer (of steelmaking process fame) patented a hydro-pneumatic blowback water cooled fully automatic canon. The Gatling rotary cannon (200 rounds/minute) was 1861. The first truly modern machine gun may have been from Sweden in 1870: fully automatic recoil-operated firearm action. By 1884 there was the Maxim machine gun, which is just like what we have today. That's a full auto water cooled 600 rounds/minute canon.
So, yes, the framers were definitely aware of automatic high-rate cartridge-based weapons of mass destruction. They ordered a bunch of them.
More Pro gun control Fake News.
VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use.
If it's one of these 3D printed guns we're talking about, you had better make 100 of them. Then you will be able to get off 70 shots before it's back to the printer for you. Assuming you survived those 30 explosions....
Is there a machine that melts them down and makes more raw material for the printer, too? Like the Creepy Crawlers machine when I was a kid?
but she's not AT a border, she's at an airport well within the border.
An international airport (i.e. one at which there is Customs service) is considered "the border". If you are within 100 miles of "the border", you're at the border and have very few rights.
Also note that since there are so many airports that can be considered "international", that there are very few places anywhere within the United States where you don't happen to be "at the border".
What we really need is greatly reduced cost and deployed transportation infrastructure capable of frequent deliveries of large payloads, and people actually getting out there
So you're saying Uber?
Because this is slashdot, the obligatory car analogy is that if a car manufacturer installed a top speed limiter of 75 mph as a firmware update, and then said it would not affect most users much, given that the average speed is 35 mph.
2008 called -- they want their Slashdot back.
No, really. We want it back!
(Imagine a Beowulf cluster of "I for one..." car analogies! I would like that. Rather than the rampant technological ignorance most of the comments illustrate these days. Present commentary excluded naturally.)
Not kidding!
go on, define it
I know it when I see it.
And I am pretty sure I just saw it on the Senator Ron Wyden (D) web site!
A company can't impose additional legal terms with a fix to a sold product.
This Intel "fix" has nothing to do with any kind of "warranty" or "recall" or anything like that, and it's totally optional for you. You just don't like that fact, is all.
Not that this makes Intel less slimy, but your "legal" reasoning is just based on ignorance and imagination.
its an under warranty fix for previously sold product.
Yeah, except that you're just TOTALLY MAKING THAT UP !
No company can legally require a person this kind of performative obedience under any circumstance as a sold product like this.
Of course a company can enter into a contract with you that says you can't publish performance specs for their product. So I am going to assume that you mean to say that it's about a product they PREVIOUSLY sold you. The thing is, Intel did NOT previously sell you this microcode update.
The contract is that Intel will provide you this new microcode update, which is software, but that your license to use it will be restricted. (Specifically that you can't run this software on a computer for the purpose of benchmarking it, and that you won't publish such a benchmark.)
I don't see any legal problem with that contract.
It doesn't make Intel look good, but if you don't like the deal, then don't install the software.
Additionally, there have already been cases where judges have rendered TOS/EULA agreements as total bullshit and unenforceable.
If you cannot read the "By downloading, you agree..." license terms BEFORE downloading, then you have a shrink-wrap license problem. (By the way, shrink-wrap licenses are still upheld in some states such as Maryland and Virginia.) Even if there's a shrink-wrap issue, though, it is fairly obvious that INSTALLING the software after downloading and reading the accompanying license would constitute agreement to the terms.
Especially after a sale has already been completed, just look at the Sony Linux feature removal class action on the PS3 that cost them millions
That case was different than this. In the PS3 case, Sony removed access to their online gaming network, thereby crippling the box. Here, Intel is not removing access to anything: if you don't like the terms, then don't install the microcode update, and your computer will continue to function exactly as it did before, with all the same capabilities (and bugs) intact. Which is the point.
I expect the benchmarks will be out soon and all over the place, published in ways that make it impossible to figure out who to sue. Then, these benchmarks will be reported all over the place by people who never downloaded or installed or agreed to any of the license terms, and in fact did not perform any benchmarking themselves. Just published some results from some other shadowy people who cannot be sued.
Guns don't kill people; flesh displacement kills people.
Guns don't kill people; going into shock kills people.
Guns don't kill people; organ failure kills people.
Guns don't kill people; bleeding out kills people.
"And what makes that cop's gun so cool? PHYSICS! Kinetic energy generates the velocity with which the bullet exits the barrel, while the ballistics coefficient and sectional density determine the damage to its targets! Guns don't kill people, PHYSICS kills people!" ---Prof. Dick Solomon
Intel can put "You will not (i) exercise any of your first amendment rights ever again." in their license. That doesn't make it enforceable.
First Amendment pertains to GOVERNMENT censorship, not to private contracts such as software licenses.
First, it's Russian Roulette
Geez, enough with the Russians already!
Five successes is like rolling dice five times and not getting a one. It's going to happen. I would want something a little more technical, such as detailed analysis of failure modes, extensive sensory data showing precisely what is happening physically and electrically, and an ultrasound scan of metal items before and after the series of runs to determine how they're handling the stress.
I assume all that is done and will be done; the thing about trying it out 5 times is that it's 5 more chances to see what was missed in all that.
UK doesn't really have places as dangerous as Baltimore, Chicago, or Camden.
Funny that you list the cities where citizens are not allowed to have guns!