While I do agree that currently vehicles are inefficient and that we are eventually heading towards insufficiencies in our supplies of fossil-fuel, one must also consider the vegetation of the eras that became the fossil fuels of today. From what I can gather, many plants were rather humongous in comparison to today. I mean, if say during the period of dinosaurs, plants had to be big enough to feed a pod of 10-15 meter behemoths, I'd say we had a lot of vegetation going at that time. Forget how many plants it takes to power a car, how much did it take to fuel a dinosaur?
And besides, aren't fossil-fuels the product of not only plants, but animal-life as well? I could be wrong on this one, but I think everything was part of the good ol' life-to-petrol cycle.
This isn't really a "new" technology though, since it's been in use for awhile. And being that I dno't see many people trying to get away with sirens and flashing lights in their cars, I'd say this could fall along the same scope.
Some things are for emergency personally that are restricted from the general public, and yes, I'd say that if the penalties are high enough to prevent abuse then this "technology" could be curbed in a hurry (maybe it would classify as "impersonating" a police/ambulance/fire officer?).
You might get the odd idiot trying to get away with using this, but I think that in the case where it's abusing a possibly life-saving technology, stiff penalties are warranted.
Whilst newer hardware obviously has the speed advantage, there are some blessing to older hardware. The main one I can see is heat. Processors have become faster, yes, but heat-dissipation efficiency hasn't really come to where it should.
Now, while an Atari might be a step too far back for many practical applications (maybe you could use it as a relay-to-internet for some form of telegraph info though?) in looking at my older PC's there were no fans, and not much of a heatsink either. For my MMX233, it was running as a server with a
So situations where noise needs to be minimal, and heat equally so, modifying older systems to run semi-current technology might be useful. After all, there is a lot you can do with a "not-quite-dumb" terminal, but getting hardware to work on them is another story.
Maybe you need a computer that has one task, to display a little information and maybe have a submissal button/form, but it needs to interact with more modern machines. I think that in this case, an old Atari with an ethernet cable would shine through very nicely: low power consumption and little noise.
They're not really "memory glasses" so much as they are "subliminal message" glasses. That is to say, they pop you a little message that after awhile you eventually log down automatically from your subconscious. This is much the same as ads for soft-drinks etc that were placed in theatres between frames before it became illegal (except in this case it would be opt-in and therefore presumably legal).
My main concern would be whether or not these things might display messages other than the ones intended? What happens if due to certain investors it say "Thirsty? Coke" or something similar? And since the glasses don't have a preset film, how would you know?
Emergency vehicles are still required to stop on a Red, then proceed. Stopping at each red light before proceeding shaves off seconds, and in the case of life-threatening injuring those few seconds could be crucial.
I'd say that it should be very, very illegal for normal people to have these devices, perhaps you could give certain traffic lights a camera that snaps the license of whomever flashed it the "green" signal, therefore determining whom is making unauthorized use of the system
Ahhhh, but since when did innocence have to be proved? It's up to them to prove he was speeding, not the other way around... (although often enough the justice system seems to be forgetting the guilty-until-proved-innocent concept)
Actually, it was an input-card with 2 input channels on 2 seperate (RCA) jacks if I remember correctly.
And as for FPS... I think it was a bit jerky as it was used to record between two monitoring devices (where a little stutter is not too bad) and might not be suitable for PVR recording, but then the software (custom-made) wasn't too great either. I'm not sure the channel-swapping was at fault though.
For hom applications, you could probably get away with a standard TV-input card. The per-channel FPS would be fine, and even with my old ATI (and earlier) cards the channel-swapping was pretty fast, and some support dual-channel input.
So that it only works for books, or perhaps that items can be plugged with a "searchable" flag which can be disabled for manuals and other non-novel type literature which might lose out on such a search instead of benefitting.
Further, the box has an equal ability to prove that someone is not at fault. It is there as a neutral observer.
Most people don't know their car has such a box. I don't know if my does, but being that it's over 10 years old I'm blessing the merits of not having the latest technology for once.
Now, it's fine to say that "Joe Average could use this to prove his innocence," but it seems in most cases "Joe Average" doesn't even know the thing is there, or what it does, and thus it would only likely be used against him.
And indeed, a lot of this was to protect an author against unauthorized copying, to promote authors to generate material without fears of plagiarism/piracy/etc.
That in mind, why extend copyright far past the death of an author at all - distribution questions aside? If I'm dead, I'm hardly going to amass anything from sales anymore.
The same thing can happen with any non-open pieces of software... and even to some extent open-source ones. If the company providing support to your software goes down, then you eventually have little choice but to replace it in many cases.
If you had an accounting package with a Y2K error and you package provider wasn't around anymore to provide the 2000 release you were pretty much hosed then, developer or no. The plus side to open-source is that if you do have developers, and they can read the code (and compile it, for that matter), then you stand at least some chance of getting it to work again. But be that as it may, it's still sometimes better to replace it in a future point, otherwise you lose tech time to developing that product.
Somebody was running an application that was semi-dependant on the windows messaging protocol. Albeit, the thought of such a thing gives me shudders as there are many better ways... but I could see this being a problem for AOL.
What's good for the majority isn't good for everyone, and when it comes to modification of personal property there's likely a lawsuit on the horizon...
Of course, if AOL had pre-notified customers for authorization to do this, it would not have been a problem. There was a time even when they could have sent out a patch via email, etc... but those days have passed due to spoofing of email and "official" patches.
A good judge will know that you aren't an attorney, and generally cut you a fair amount of slack.
This is true in two cases. (a) you get a good judge, not a corporate shill. The second is that you don't go LA Law or something similar, trying to act like a TV lawyer.
If you are a John Doe defending yourself, and you make some errors but are obviously doing your best, you probably get some slack and may even get helped/prompted along. If you try to act like the dude you saw on TV you'll probably get shot down a few times, and if you don't smarten up then you'll probably lose.
Research your own case, you don't have to know everything about lawyering, but you do need to know at least something about pertinent details to your case or type of case. Don't act like the dude on TV because it just looks ignorant.
He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it
The question is, then, if he had harvested seeds previously, or would have harvested them from the current crop anyhow. Yes, maybe he knowingly harvested Monsanto seeds... but would he have done so even if they were not Monsanto?
In different perspective, if farmer A's prized stallion gets into farmer B's yard and "fertilizes" B's mare... should B's be required not to breed from the resulting offspring? The only difference I see now is it is more of a case that A was borrowing C's stallion as a stud, but with the same benefit to B.
Now, you could claim "B" was in violation because he knowingly bred from enhanced offspring due to "contamination" caused by farmer "A" - but isn't that his right... to breed his own stock as if it were not "contaminated" because it is, in fact, his own stock, and the "contamination" was not his fault?
You aren't giving them to friends, you are copying them. And remember, giving something away isn't illegal, unless it's a woodworking jig
Copying and distribution is the issue, with allowances for fair you. In other words, despite RIAA hype, you have the rights to copy your own content (you paid for it), transfer to another medium (mp3), and I believe derive works for personal use etc. You don't have the rights to give away a duplicate... and if you give away the original you no longer have rights to any duplicates, etc.
Heck why not? Veterinary tatoos are expensive and not very custom. With this baby, you could tattoo your dog with a bone-shaped tatoo, "bad to the bone" caption, and a phone number in case he gets lost when he's out with the ladies...
Abortion is a really hot button for many people. Can you deal with it in a way that will not put off so many people that you won't be elected no matter how good you are otherwise
Incubational holding tanks/wombs. No dead infant problems, no pregnancy. Just remove the embryo, incubate it, and wait until it's old enough for adoption (or use it to power, say, our future robot overlords).
There is only so much money coming into congress. As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should be borrowed if it isn't enough.
Either a memory-erase gun so people forget my debts, or just put major opponents in the supercollider...
See... geeky gadgets could solve our problems. You just need to be more creative:-)
Excluding browser-related errors... a lot of these would be solved by having a linux box between a windows box and the net. It's not a final solution, as obviously we'd want to find a way to migrate users... but at the cheap costs of a NAT-ready PC it's at least a way to get people used to the idea of linux.
Nice to see somebody had some forethought on this. After all, yes, the French did have financial interests in the middle east, BUT, would they have not furthered their own interests by being an active participant in picking apart of remnants of the country? That is to say, they could really have profited either way... but it took balls to stand up to the US and take the subsequent media beating.
But I was assuming that those who voted most probably voted on all categories. At least it would be what I voted... meaning that much of the same voted for each item.
Slashdot Mirror
While I do agree that currently vehicles are inefficient and that we are eventually heading towards insufficiencies in our supplies of fossil-fuel, one must also consider the vegetation of the eras that became the fossil fuels of today. From what I can gather, many plants were rather humongous in comparison to today. I mean, if say during the period of dinosaurs, plants had to be big enough to feed a pod of 10-15 meter behemoths, I'd say we had a lot of vegetation going at that time. Forget how many plants it takes to power a car, how much did it take to fuel a dinosaur?
And besides, aren't fossil-fuels the product of not only plants, but animal-life as well? I could be wrong on this one, but I think everything was part of the good ol' life-to-petrol cycle.
This isn't really a "new" technology though, since it's been in use for awhile. And being that I dno't see many people trying to get away with sirens and flashing lights in their cars, I'd say this could fall along the same scope.
Some things are for emergency personally that are restricted from the general public, and yes, I'd say that if the penalties are high enough to prevent abuse then this "technology" could be curbed in a hurry (maybe it would classify as "impersonating" a police/ambulance/fire officer?).
You might get the odd idiot trying to get away with using this, but I think that in the case where it's abusing a possibly life-saving technology, stiff penalties are warranted.
Whilst newer hardware obviously has the speed advantage, there are some blessing to older hardware. The main one I can see is heat. Processors have become faster, yes, but heat-dissipation efficiency hasn't really come to where it should.
Now, while an Atari might be a step too far back for many practical applications (maybe you could use it as a relay-to-internet for some form of telegraph info though?) in looking at my older PC's there were no fans, and not much of a heatsink either. For my MMX233, it was running as a server with a
So situations where noise needs to be minimal, and heat equally so, modifying older systems to run semi-current technology might be useful. After all, there is a lot you can do with a "not-quite-dumb" terminal, but getting hardware to work on them is another story.
Maybe you need a computer that has one task, to display a little information and maybe have a submissal button/form, but it needs to interact with more modern machines. I think that in this case, an old Atari with an ethernet cable would shine through very nicely: low power consumption and little noise.
They're not really "memory glasses" so much as they are "subliminal message" glasses. That is to say, they pop you a little message that after awhile you eventually log down automatically from your subconscious. This is much the same as ads for soft-drinks etc that were placed in theatres between frames before it became illegal (except in this case it would be opt-in and therefore presumably legal).
My main concern would be whether or not these things might display messages other than the ones intended? What happens if due to certain investors it say "Thirsty? Coke" or something similar? And since the glasses don't have a preset film, how would you know?
Emergency vehicles are still required to stop on a Red, then proceed. Stopping at each red light before proceeding shaves off seconds, and in the case of life-threatening injuring those few seconds could be crucial.
I'd say that it should be very, very illegal for normal people to have these devices, perhaps you could give certain traffic lights a camera that snaps the license of whomever flashed it the "green" signal, therefore determining whom is making unauthorized use of the system
Ahhhh, but since when did innocence have to be proved? It's up to them to prove he was speeding, not the other way around... (although often enough the justice system seems to be forgetting the guilty-until-proved-innocent concept)
Actually, it was an input-card with 2 input channels on 2 seperate (RCA) jacks if I remember correctly.
And as for FPS... I think it was a bit jerky as it was used to record between two monitoring devices (where a little stutter is not too bad) and might not be suitable for PVR recording, but then the software (custom-made) wasn't too great either. I'm not sure the channel-swapping was at fault though.
For hom applications, you could probably get away with a standard TV-input card. The per-channel FPS would be fine, and even with my old ATI (and earlier) cards the channel-swapping was pretty fast, and some support dual-channel input.
So that it only works for books, or perhaps that items can be plugged with a "searchable" flag which can be disabled for manuals and other non-novel type literature which might lose out on such a search instead of benefitting.
Not if you're in Quebec, that's in Canada... though sometimes they'd prefer otherwise.
No patriot act, and I'm not sure exactly about how/if the DMCA functions here, but I'd bet it had a better chance of getting nuked in court if it is.
Further, the box has an equal ability to prove that someone is not at fault. It is there as a neutral observer.
Most people don't know their car has such a box. I don't know if my does, but being that it's over 10 years old I'm blessing the merits of not having the latest technology for once.
Now, it's fine to say that "Joe Average could use this to prove his innocence," but it seems in most cases "Joe Average" doesn't even know the thing is there, or what it does, and thus it would only likely be used against him.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
At the very least you could post a link to these. Where do I buy the parts to mod my car with these wheels?
And indeed, a lot of this was to protect an author against unauthorized copying, to promote authors to generate material without fears of plagiarism/piracy/etc.
That in mind, why extend copyright far past the death of an author at all - distribution questions aside? If I'm dead, I'm hardly going to amass anything from sales anymore.
The same thing can happen with any non-open pieces of software... and even to some extent open-source ones. If the company providing support to your software goes down, then you eventually have little choice but to replace it in many cases.
If you had an accounting package with a Y2K error and you package provider wasn't around anymore to provide the 2000 release you were pretty much hosed then, developer or no. The plus side to open-source is that if you do have developers, and they can read the code (and compile it, for that matter), then you stand at least some chance of getting it to work again. But be that as it may, it's still sometimes better to replace it in a future point, otherwise you lose tech time to developing that product.
Somebody was running an application that was semi-dependant on the windows messaging protocol. Albeit, the thought of such a thing gives me shudders as there are many better ways... but I could see this being a problem for AOL.
What's good for the majority isn't good for everyone, and when it comes to modification of personal property there's likely a lawsuit on the horizon...
Of course, if AOL had pre-notified customers for authorization to do this, it would not have been a problem. There was a time even when they could have sent out a patch via email, etc... but those days have passed due to spoofing of email and "official" patches.
A good judge will know that you aren't an attorney, and generally cut you a fair amount of slack.
This is true in two cases. (a) you get a good judge, not a corporate shill. The second is that you don't go LA Law or something similar, trying to act like a TV lawyer.
If you are a John Doe defending yourself, and you make some errors but are obviously doing your best, you probably get some slack and may even get helped/prompted along. If you try to act like the dude you saw on TV you'll probably get shot down a few times, and if you don't smarten up then you'll probably lose.
Research your own case, you don't have to know everything about lawyering, but you do need to know at least something about pertinent details to your case or type of case. Don't act like the dude on TV because it just looks ignorant.
He harvested seeds from the crops so he could continue to benefit from it
The question is, then, if he had harvested seeds previously, or would have harvested them from the current crop anyhow. Yes, maybe he knowingly harvested Monsanto seeds... but would he have done so even if they were not Monsanto?
In different perspective, if farmer A's prized stallion gets into farmer B's yard and "fertilizes" B's mare... should B's be required not to breed from the resulting offspring? The only difference I see now is it is more of a case that A was borrowing C's stallion as a stud, but with the same benefit to B.
Now, you could claim "B" was in violation because he knowingly bred from enhanced offspring due to "contamination" caused by farmer "A" - but isn't that his right... to breed his own stock as if it were not "contaminated" because it is, in fact, his own stock, and the "contamination" was not his fault?
You aren't giving them to friends, you are copying them. And remember, giving something away isn't illegal, unless it's a woodworking jig
Copying and distribution is the issue, with allowances for fair you. In other words, despite RIAA hype, you have the rights to copy your own content (you paid for it), transfer to another medium (mp3), and I believe derive works for personal use etc. You don't have the rights to give away a duplicate... and if you give away the original you no longer have rights to any duplicates, etc.
Heck why not? Veterinary tatoos are expensive and not very custom. With this baby, you could tattoo your dog with a bone-shaped tatoo, "bad to the bone" caption, and a phone number in case he gets lost when he's out with the ladies ...
Not a bad idea... although metal lighters would be nicer.
Shouldn't be a problem so long as the lighter is empty and washed out (refillable lighters)
Abortion is a really hot button for many people. Can you deal with it in a way that will not put off so many people that you won't be elected no matter how good you are otherwise
:-)
Incubational holding tanks/wombs. No dead infant problems, no pregnancy. Just remove the embryo, incubate it, and wait until it's old enough for adoption (or use it to power, say, our future robot overlords).
There is only so much money coming into congress. As a congressman you get to choose how to spend it, and if more should be borrowed if it isn't enough.
Either a memory-erase gun so people forget my debts, or just put major opponents in the supercollider...
See... geeky gadgets could solve our problems. You just need to be more creative
Wireless camera. TV input card with 2 input channels. Software fast-swapped between the channels and grabbed images.
For the ones I've seen disabled.... the second time I click the link with the popup it comes through..
Excluding browser-related errors... a lot of these would be solved by having a linux box between a windows box and the net. It's not a final solution, as obviously we'd want to find a way to migrate users... but at the cheap costs of a NAT-ready PC it's at least a way to get people used to the idea of linux.
Nice to see somebody had some forethought on this. After all, yes, the French did have financial interests in the middle east, BUT, would they have not furthered their own interests by being an active participant in picking apart of remnants of the country? That is to say, they could really have profited either way... but it took balls to stand up to the US and take the subsequent media beating.
But I was assuming that those who voted most probably voted on all categories. At least it would be what I voted... meaning that much of the same voted for each item.