"It takes longer to get any large loads going"
No, not really.
"It may be slightly more economical..."
just slightly? considering that the available fuel is practically infinite with no fuel from earth being used (except for leaving earth) I'd call it extremely economical. Perfecting this method of transportation is a good step in the right direction, imho.
It appears to me to be a rather intelligent design. Both hands can be used to quickly manipulate buttons (as opposed to palming while pecking) without obstructing the screen. As for answering a call, that's what headphones are for. As to the 1st poster concerning Bluetooth... RTFA!
finally someone has an open mind on the subject. "not so easily" is much easier to swallow than "can't". Maybe i "can't" reproduce light polarization today, but are you telling me I will never ever figure out how to pull it off? It's inevitable that every "can't" will one day be engineered into a "can". A statement like, "You can't detect a light polarization without changing it is a hefty generalization, I'll bet you can even if you have to reproduce/repeat the polarization process to make the outgoing signal seem untampered with...
The fine print
Start with the text of the DMCA itself. It says, "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component" that is primarily designed to bypass copy-protection technology. Note it does not explicitly prohibit research or published work, and in fact the DMCA explicitly includes limited exemptions for encryption research and reverse-engineering.
Who, pray tell, determines "primary design purpose"? This is the overly broad part is it not? If professor So&So gives a speech about security weaknesses of say cd-checks and goes into any detail about how an attacker could bypass it; is this not a "service" and could it not be construed as primarily designed to circumvent copy-protetion using the same word-twisting techniques the EFF is accused of using to say the law is overly broad?
Slashdot Mirror
"It takes longer to get any large loads going" No, not really. "It may be slightly more economical..." just slightly? considering that the available fuel is practically infinite with no fuel from earth being used (except for leaving earth) I'd call it extremely economical. Perfecting this method of transportation is a good step in the right direction, imho.
It appears to me to be a rather intelligent design. Both hands can be used to quickly manipulate buttons (as opposed to palming while pecking) without obstructing the screen. As for answering a call, that's what headphones are for. As to the 1st poster concerning Bluetooth... RTFA!
finally someone has an open mind on the subject. "not so easily" is much easier to swallow than "can't". Maybe i "can't" reproduce light polarization today, but are you telling me I will never ever figure out how to pull it off? It's inevitable that every "can't" will one day be engineered into a "can". A statement like, "You can't detect a light polarization without changing it is a hefty generalization, I'll bet you can even if you have to reproduce/repeat the polarization process to make the outgoing signal seem untampered with...
The fine print Start with the text of the DMCA itself. It says, "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device (or) component" that is primarily designed to bypass copy-protection technology. Note it does not explicitly prohibit research or published work, and in fact the DMCA explicitly includes limited exemptions for encryption research and reverse-engineering. Who, pray tell, determines "primary design purpose"? This is the overly broad part is it not? If professor So&So gives a speech about security weaknesses of say cd-checks and goes into any detail about how an attacker could bypass it; is this not a "service" and could it not be construed as primarily designed to circumvent copy-protetion using the same word-twisting techniques the EFF is accused of using to say the law is overly broad?
This sounds just like a book I've had for years written by a chemist called, Cook-Wise, written by Shirley Corriher. Old news.
concepted and prototyped by none other than Richie Hawtin (aka Plastikman)
...doomed to a life...
:)
what a damnation! I'll take it