how's this: this technology should not be developed, and if they must develop it, it should only be legal to use by the military in a warfighting scenario, not for police action, and only against military targets in a warzone, but really the just shouldn't develop it
although I suppose in the end protestors will figure out a way to build an army of unarmed, uncooperative robots to take the place of unarmed, uncooperative citizens.
This is not a zero-sum game. Only large organized crime syndicates would have the ability to do as you say.
Ordinary citizens would not have the ability to defend themselves against this if the government began using them for suppression of free speech.
These robots should not be developed. And if they must be developed they should be illegal to use on US citizens. But really, just don't develop them.
so somebody discovered a whole new state of matter...I would hope the implications would be just a tad bit more grand
They're not talking about 'states of matter' like we learned in science class, per se...solid, liquid, gas, plasma...the headline is kind of tabloidous...when dealing w/ these types of things, sometimes scientific terminology gets exaggerated..
from TFA:
in terms of a ham sandwich, where the ham -- the two-dimensional crystal -- represents a flat plane that constrains the movement of the electrons in two dimensions.
It's about motion...the electron structure had motion in two dimensions, but if they tried to coax it into a third dimension of electron motion it came apart...until they tried using the super-strong magnet
"This issue is academic, but it's not just academic," said Gervais in a statement. "The same semiconductor materials we're working with
yeah...about manipulating matter to unnatural arrangements (in this case electrons)...not a totally new 'state' of matter
Just by the tone of your post, I'd bet you are one of those wackos that has a quad core processor with as much RAM as you can stuff into your "box"...
nah, I'm not an overclocker (is that the right word?) and I don't play any games online...i use a laptop w/ 1 gig of ram...i just have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to people limiting bandwidth access and saying that what they give you is 'plenty'...
also, I was asking an honest question, b/c i really don't know from minute to minute how much of my '54.0 mbs' i'm using...what I do know is that when I'm doing research for a music review (i'm a freelance writer), I usually have two myspace pages, gmail (w/ one chat convo),/., facebook, and a few wiki pages open...and in that scenario, i'll pop open a tab for a youtube video of a band or whathaveyou
oftentimes my computer will be slow to respond in that scenario...now, add to that downloading an.mp3 in the background
from what I've seen, my usage isn't that far off from what a college kid might be doing (lord knows when I was in college i was always doing 8 things at once)
idk if my lagging is due to a hardware issue or internet connection...that's kinda why I posed the question, and your gave a good answer..anyways...
at the heart of this, i don't think the university (or any org) should be in the business of doing the RIAA's bidding...
The college for which I work limits internet bandwidth in the dorms to 384kb/s per port...plenty bandwidth to watch youtube/hulu/etc videos, check email, IM, etc
I really don't see how 384kbs is "plenty" for watching youtube, reloading an email program, and getting IM's all at the same time.
do the students have to pay the extra surcharge that offsets the cost of the phones
yes of course...this is a private religious college, not a public university...giving each student a 'free' ipod or iphone is nothing more than marketing
how do I know? I went to a school just like this: Cedarville University. Cedarville's marketing gimmick actually made sense while I was there (I was a freshman in '97): they had computers with high speed internet in every dorm room. It really helped us become computer savvy (NESticle, Napster, etc...) and helped the lower-income students whose parents couldn't afford a private college AND a new computer.
Liberty University did the same thing only they installed a chairlift for skiing/snowboarding in winter and mountain biking in summer.
Bottom line: it's all marketing, and it gets figured into the tuition
Someone had to have judged the pictures of those who were deemed to be attractive
absolutely...these 'attractiveness' projects, whether they be research related or programs like this seem to always come down to that flaw. It's a fatal flaw, which really just enforces the status quo and homogenizes are already small ideas of 'beauty'
the only thing I've ever seen like this that has come close to being relevant was a global study that surveyed everyone from NYC city dwellers to tribesmen who have never seen TV or a newspaper about body types...shown all different female body types and asked which is most attractive, and the skinny, open-hip type was by far common choice across all manner of cultures...the researchers concluded that it's an evolutionary thing...women with those body types have the easiest time in childbearing
let the free market resolve the issue -- is the right starting point, the right instinct. But what his team doesn't seem to want to admit...
We are of one mind on this issue...here's the deal: you start your comment with your "i'm not a communist, laisse fare" bona-fides, then proceed to describe the reality of the situation.
It seems like more and more the assumption is that unless a person is a hardcore anarcho-capitalist then they are a socialist...I'm a left leaning libertarian. I agree that the default position is no government involvement (whether it be by laws, regulations, etc.), and you succinctly described why this issue doesn't directly fall into the open market.
This has turned into kind of a meta-comment...i guess here on/. you have to prove your not Stalin before you make a comment on issues like this
good link, I understand the need to be precise with the language, especially in this area.
my point is, of the two candidates, Obama is the better choice b/c when it comes to 'net neutrality' he is in favor of not screwing over the end user with manipulation of very technical details that probably 80% of internet users do not grasp
companies want to take advantage of ignorant end users (which, in most areas, darwinism applies...caveat emptor) but for things like net neutrality (as defined in your first two definitions), I see an analogy to our truth in advertising laws...a company cannot make blatantly false statements...they can't say "this medicine has asprin in it" if it's actually naproxin sodium.
likewise, the internet is way too important...it must remain a level playing field for all users to access without companies gaming the system and giving certain content or users preferred treatment
both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication
Typical...article going too far to look "balanced"...unfortunately, our standards for journalistic objectivity now require MSM to throw out all analysis and simply ask dimwitted questions and repeat the candidates talking points.
In this case, the article is really bending over backwards to make the false point that:
both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication
by saying that:
there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality,"
That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.
This is where everyone who is in favor of John McCain flames me with how my links and definition of 'net neutrality' isn't exactly right..blah blah blah...I used to work in IT, and everyone...I mean everyone I worked with in our rather large company had the exact same basic understanding of 'net neutrality'...the wiki definition is as good as any and represents the general idea as it is understood in common usage
It's blatantly obvious that when it comes to net neutrality issues, Obama is the one who favors an internet unfettered by tiered service "packages" that do nothing more than deliver less for the same or more $$$. Why do we have to pretend that "net neutrality" is some nebulous, undefined thing that the candidates haven't talked about in enough detail...if you want more specifics, just look at the list of laws that have tried to promote net neutrality and failed, then look who voted for or against them
It's very easy and fairly inexpensive ($100 maybe) to get an after-market governor for a car.
It's not like I am trying to ban using governors on cars...
You missed my point: The trend in our society is to just go into lockdown and restrict everything irrespective of cause or consequence, instead of, you know, trying to understand and solve the problem.
With you kids...sure you want them to drive smartly, but as another poster pointed out, how is 80 mph any kind of limit...if 80 is safe, wouldn't 40 be safer??? If you care about your kids, you should limit their speed to 40 then...or you're a bad parent...the logic breaks down...
the family car is as dangerous parked in a nice secluded spot as it is at top speed
now you're thinking smart!
seriously, I think one could make real profit by designing a new, tech savvy version of the chastity belt...maybe it could be made of kevlar and have a microchip with a GPS and phone home if there is an attempt to tamper with it...
perfect trial market would be that school district in Texas where the parents protested to keep their girls from getting HPV vaccinations
what if your government thinks it is a good idea to limit performance for all drivers?
yep, that's one of the reasons why there's a "thinkofthechildren" tag...
This is part of the trend towards restriction being the answer to everything. I'm a liberal, but I have a strong libertarian streak, and it seems like whenever our society confronts a problem, increasingly the answer isn't to understand the cause and think about a solution, but to dumb the process down so much that it's impossible to do anything
If DARPA is giving them money then it's time to turn them off.
The patients have been running the asylum at DARPA for at least 8 years now. I watched a doc on the Military Channel about a DARPA conference. The doc was in the context of "cool new weapons at the DARPA" tradeshow or whatever they call it.
They actually had this idiot (he acted like one of those dopey "regular guy" characters in a cheesey commercial) who had money somehow. He talked about how, one day he was watching Frankenstien with static electricity poles and thought "hey that'd be a good way to control crowds...hmmm I should hire someone to make a gun that shoots static electricity!"
Of course he couldn't do it himself (had to hire someone to draw up some artist's conceptions), and the ability to power and aim the thing was a fatal issue...*had no working model at all*...and of course, DARPA gave him $3 million.
DARPA is full of shit. I don't care how "cool" some of the stuff they are working on is. Most of that tech is being developed for both military AND civilian law enforcement uses...I'm resisting the obvious comparison here...oh hell...they're like Nazis! and I'm only half joking...
hey take a look at my original post...i pretty much agree with you...i hate how our economy runs on greed (or the Gordon Gecko wannabes think it does)
my whole point was that if we had a strong president who knew how to lead, he could come on TV and cut through the bullshit and say forget the 'bailout'...let the financial markets correct naturally, and give some government help to those who lost their homes to foreclosure unfairly.
well, that was a well thought out response, with direct clash on points that continues the discussion in a logical, thoughtful way...
unfortunately I have to fold on this one b/c I just don't have time to find links for you...
here's what I've got: I'm not in favor of this 'bailout'...for me, the Bush administration's incompetence has brought us to the position we were in...a choice between a shitty 'bailout' and or possible economic collapse.
Straw man...I never said that. I said some are like that, and everyone on/. knows it's true.
guys on Wall Street are just as smart as you.
I never said they weren't...they don't pass the laws, though, do they? Lawmakers come in all shapes and sizes (ex Ted Stephens) and some are very beholden to what the fickle masses think they should do.
BTW, perception drives any economy, even one based on the gold standard.
of course it does, but not nearly at the same level as it is now. I do not support going back to a gold standard, at all, just making a point about the realities of our economy (i knew I should have put a disclaimer in my original post;).
I'm not defending the gold standard, just saying that now perception of value is much more fickle and salient
The gold standard was based on a perception of value as well.
don't talk semantics with me! I know where you're going with that..."all value is perception"...can we keep the existential questions off this thread, please?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I am not advocating that we go back to a gold standard.
My point is, since the US went to a "full faith and credit" over a gold standard, the economy has been much more linked to fickle perceptions of the masses.
The US has a mixed economy. Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard). We like for a market to be as unregulated as possible, but for any number of reasons sectors of the economy will have regulations (from health codes, to OSHA, to Sarbanes/Oxley).
Perception drives our economy just as much as facts and reality. I don't like it, but it's just a flat fact. If people *think* our economy is good, they buy things and make investments. If they *think* it's bad, they don't buy, don't invest, etc... These are the basics, I'm building to a point.
My point is, if we had a respected President, one who could come on TV and calm everyone down, this 'bailout' would be unnecessary. The market would recover. But because the general public has the *perception* that this is "the worst economic crisis since the depression" then something had to be done.
I don't like what they did, but I agree they had to do something. I would have liked for it to be better, but it's not.
Yes, there is obviously problems in the housing market and banking system right now, but (all suffering aside) it's just the market leveling itself out. Housing prices were inflated...they were going to come down. People took on loans they couldn't pay...they were bound to get foreclosed.
In a perfect world, we could let AIG, etc. fail, give some emergecy economic help to people who lost their homes, and wait for the market to recover, but because of how *perception* plays a part in our economy, this "bailout"...though in theory the wrong move, in practice was needed...almost like a commercial for how good our economy will be...
I hate that this is how it works (and I know I'm oversimplifying), but it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
you won't, b/c grand parent is full of shit. I live in Indiana (Madison County to be more specific) and the Voter ID law is purely to suppress votes.
what's the difference? Was the government's handling of hurricane Katrina 'stupidity' or 'evil'? It's all bad.
man...ok, it was a bad choice of words...
how's this: this technology should not be developed, and if they must develop it, it should only be legal to use by the military in a warfighting scenario, not for police action, and only against military targets in a warzone, but really the just shouldn't develop it
This is not a zero-sum game. Only large organized crime syndicates would have the ability to do as you say.
Ordinary citizens would not have the ability to defend themselves against this if the government began using them for suppression of free speech.
These robots should not be developed. And if they must be developed they should be illegal to use on US citizens. But really, just don't develop them.
They're not talking about 'states of matter' like we learned in science class, per se...solid, liquid, gas, plasma...the headline is kind of tabloidous...when dealing w/ these types of things, sometimes scientific terminology gets exaggerated..
from TFA:
It's about motion...the electron structure had motion in two dimensions, but if they tried to coax it into a third dimension of electron motion it came apart...until they tried using the super-strong magnet
yeah...about manipulating matter to unnatural arrangements (in this case electrons)...not a totally new 'state' of matter
nah, I'm not an overclocker (is that the right word?) and I don't play any games online...i use a laptop w/ 1 gig of ram ...i just have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to people limiting bandwidth access and saying that what they give you is 'plenty'...
also, I was asking an honest question, b/c i really don't know from minute to minute how much of my '54.0 mbs' i'm using...what I do know is that when I'm doing research for a music review (i'm a freelance writer), I usually have two myspace pages, gmail (w/ one chat convo), /., facebook, and a few wiki pages open...and in that scenario, i'll pop open a tab for a youtube video of a band or whathaveyou
oftentimes my computer will be slow to respond in that scenario...now, add to that downloading an .mp3 in the background
from what I've seen, my usage isn't that far off from what a college kid might be doing (lord knows when I was in college i was always doing 8 things at once)
idk if my lagging is due to a hardware issue or internet connection...that's kinda why I posed the question, and your gave a good answer..anyways...
at the heart of this, i don't think the university (or any org) should be in the business of doing the RIAA's bidding...
so, where are they?
I really don't see how 384kbs is "plenty" for watching youtube, reloading an email program, and getting IM's all at the same time.
yes of course...this is a private religious college, not a public university...giving each student a 'free' ipod or iphone is nothing more than marketing
how do I know? I went to a school just like this: Cedarville University. Cedarville's marketing gimmick actually made sense while I was there (I was a freshman in '97): they had computers with high speed internet in every dorm room. It really helped us become computer savvy (NESticle, Napster, etc...) and helped the lower-income students whose parents couldn't afford a private college AND a new computer.
Liberty University did the same thing only they installed a chairlift for skiing/snowboarding in winter and mountain biking in summer.
Bottom line: it's all marketing, and it gets figured into the tuition
absolutely...these 'attractiveness' projects, whether they be research related or programs like this seem to always come down to that flaw. It's a fatal flaw, which really just enforces the status quo and homogenizes are already small ideas of 'beauty'
the only thing I've ever seen like this that has come close to being relevant was a global study that surveyed everyone from NYC city dwellers to tribesmen who have never seen TV or a newspaper about body types...shown all different female body types and asked which is most attractive, and the skinny, open-hip type was by far common choice across all manner of cultures...the researchers concluded that it's an evolutionary thing...women with those body types have the easiest time in childbearing
We are of one mind on this issue...here's the deal: you start your comment with your "i'm not a communist, laisse fare" bona-fides, then proceed to describe the reality of the situation.
It seems like more and more the assumption is that unless a person is a hardcore anarcho-capitalist then they are a socialist...I'm a left leaning libertarian. I agree that the default position is no government involvement (whether it be by laws, regulations, etc.), and you succinctly described why this issue doesn't directly fall into the open market.
This has turned into kind of a meta-comment...i guess here on /. you have to prove your not Stalin before you make a comment on issues like this
good link, I understand the need to be precise with the language, especially in this area.
my point is, of the two candidates, Obama is the better choice b/c when it comes to 'net neutrality' he is in favor of not screwing over the end user with manipulation of very technical details that probably 80% of internet users do not grasp
companies want to take advantage of ignorant end users (which, in most areas, darwinism applies...caveat emptor) but for things like net neutrality (as defined in your first two definitions), I see an analogy to our truth in advertising laws...a company cannot make blatantly false statements...they can't say "this medicine has asprin in it" if it's actually naproxin sodium.
likewise, the internet is way too important...it must remain a level playing field for all users to access without companies gaming the system and giving certain content or users preferred treatment
Typical...article going too far to look "balanced"...unfortunately, our standards for journalistic objectivity now require MSM to throw out all analysis and simply ask dimwitted questions and repeat the candidates talking points.
In this case, the article is really bending over backwards to make the false point that:
by saying that:
That statement is simply false. Of course anyone could quibble over the definition of any word ad infinitum, but the general idea is no tiered service.
This is where everyone who is in favor of John McCain flames me with how my links and definition of 'net neutrality' isn't exactly right..blah blah blah...I used to work in IT, and everyone...I mean everyone I worked with in our rather large company had the exact same basic understanding of 'net neutrality'...the wiki definition is as good as any and represents the general idea as it is understood in common usage
It's blatantly obvious that when it comes to net neutrality issues, Obama is the one who favors an internet unfettered by tiered service "packages" that do nothing more than deliver less for the same or more $$$. Why do we have to pretend that "net neutrality" is some nebulous, undefined thing that the candidates haven't talked about in enough detail...if you want more specifics, just look at the list of laws that have tried to promote net neutrality and failed, then look who voted for or against them
Obama is best for net neutrality by a mile...
Seems like the body of a human being is being bombarded with more radiation than ever before...cell phones, anyone?
If public figure is dumb enough to try that...it would be her
It's called incorporation, so yeah FOIA applies no matter what the Alaska law says.
Also, she hasn't been elected yet, so don't try to the whole "executive privilege" thing either.
It's very easy and fairly inexpensive ($100 maybe) to get an after-market governor for a car.
It's not like I am trying to ban using governors on cars...
You missed my point: The trend in our society is to just go into lockdown and restrict everything irrespective of cause or consequence, instead of, you know, trying to understand and solve the problem.
With you kids...sure you want them to drive smartly, but as another poster pointed out, how is 80 mph any kind of limit...if 80 is safe, wouldn't 40 be safer??? If you care about your kids, you should limit their speed to 40 then...or you're a bad parent...the logic breaks down...
now you're thinking smart!
seriously, I think one could make real profit by designing a new, tech savvy version of the chastity belt...maybe it could be made of kevlar and have a microchip with a GPS and phone home if there is an attempt to tamper with it...
perfect trial market would be that school district in Texas where the parents protested to keep their girls from getting HPV vaccinations
yep, that's one of the reasons why there's a "thinkofthechildren" tag...
This is part of the trend towards restriction being the answer to everything. I'm a liberal, but I have a strong libertarian streak, and it seems like whenever our society confronts a problem, increasingly the answer isn't to understand the cause and think about a solution, but to dumb the process down so much that it's impossible to do anything
The patients have been running the asylum at DARPA for at least 8 years now. I watched a doc on the Military Channel about a DARPA conference. The doc was in the context of "cool new weapons at the DARPA" tradeshow or whatever they call it.
They actually had this idiot (he acted like one of those dopey "regular guy" characters in a cheesey commercial) who had money somehow. He talked about how, one day he was watching Frankenstien with static electricity poles and thought "hey that'd be a good way to control crowds...hmmm I should hire someone to make a gun that shoots static electricity!"
Of course he couldn't do it himself (had to hire someone to draw up some artist's conceptions), and the ability to power and aim the thing was a fatal issue...*had no working model at all*...and of course, DARPA gave him $3 million.
DARPA is full of shit. I don't care how "cool" some of the stuff they are working on is. Most of that tech is being developed for both military AND civilian law enforcement uses...I'm resisting the obvious comparison here...oh hell...they're like Nazis! and I'm only half joking...
hey take a look at my original post...i pretty much agree with you...i hate how our economy runs on greed (or the Gordon Gecko wannabes think it does)
my whole point was that if we had a strong president who knew how to lead, he could come on TV and cut through the bullshit and say forget the 'bailout'...let the financial markets correct naturally, and give some government help to those who lost their homes to foreclosure unfairly.
well, that was a well thought out response, with direct clash on points that continues the discussion in a logical, thoughtful way...
unfortunately I have to fold on this one b/c I just don't have time to find links for you...
here's what I've got: I'm not in favor of this 'bailout'...for me, the Bush administration's incompetence has brought us to the position we were in...a choice between a shitty 'bailout' and or possible economic collapse.
Straw man...I never said that. I said some are like that, and everyone on /. knows it's true.
I never said they weren't...they don't pass the laws, though, do they? Lawmakers come in all shapes and sizes (ex Ted Stephens) and some are very beholden to what the fickle masses think they should do.
of course it does, but not nearly at the same level as it is now. I do not support going back to a gold standard, at all, just making a point about the realities of our economy (i knew I should have put a disclaimer in my original post;).
I'm not defending the gold standard, just saying that now perception of value is much more fickle and salient
don't talk semantics with me! I know where you're going with that..."all value is perception"...can we keep the existential questions off this thread, please?
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I am not advocating that we go back to a gold standard.
My point is, since the US went to a "full faith and credit" over a gold standard, the economy has been much more linked to fickle perceptions of the masses.
Good links, here's the deal...
The US has a mixed economy. Our currency is based on a perception of value (no more gold standard). We like for a market to be as unregulated as possible, but for any number of reasons sectors of the economy will have regulations (from health codes, to OSHA, to Sarbanes/Oxley).
Perception drives our economy just as much as facts and reality. I don't like it, but it's just a flat fact. If people *think* our economy is good, they buy things and make investments. If they *think* it's bad, they don't buy, don't invest, etc... These are the basics, I'm building to a point.
My point is, if we had a respected President, one who could come on TV and calm everyone down, this 'bailout' would be unnecessary. The market would recover. But because the general public has the *perception* that this is "the worst economic crisis since the depression" then something had to be done.
I don't like what they did, but I agree they had to do something. I would have liked for it to be better, but it's not.
Yes, there is obviously problems in the housing market and banking system right now, but (all suffering aside) it's just the market leveling itself out. Housing prices were inflated...they were going to come down. People took on loans they couldn't pay...they were bound to get foreclosed.
In a perfect world, we could let AIG, etc. fail, give some emergecy economic help to people who lost their homes, and wait for the market to recover, but because of how *perception* plays a part in our economy, this "bailout"...though in theory the wrong move, in practice was needed...almost like a commercial for how good our economy will be...
I hate that this is how it works (and I know I'm oversimplifying), but it's true.