Analogy time....say somebody is in their front yard, holding up a big sign that has their "my bank password is xxx". Should someone passing by in the street get shit for looking over and noticing that?
How about a better analogy. You're in your front yard enjoying a nice glass of lemonade. Somebody drives by and shoots you in the chest.
That's a BETTER analogy?? You're going for the funny mod, right?
Surgery is an extremely delicate in any situation requiring telepresence like this. The scalpel hitching even a little bit could cause death.
In some ways this technique is actually superior to normal surgery, because the device can remove the natural slight shaking that anyone's hand, even a skilled surgeon, will exhibit. It can also scale the movements way down so that for example 1 centimeter of movement of the hand translates to one millimeter of movement of the instrument, allowing much greater precision. I'm not saying there aren't potential problems, but I think it's silly to think that/. commenters have thought of them and the people working on this technology have not.
If folks would just put the stupid anthropomorphism on the back burner, we could already have a wealth of useful robotics in the home.
Do you know this to be true, or are you guessing? Do you know of home robotics projects that were either not started or not successful solely or primarily because of the prohibitive or insurmountable obstacle of making the robot humanoid?
There are robots in the home; I have one, and it's not humanoid. I'm guessing - I don't know - that home robots have not been more successful because good robots are difficult and often expensive to make, not because customers demand that they look like people.
No, I should be allowed to break into my own house if I want to. I bought the house (DVD). Just because it came with a lock (DRM), why should I be prohibited from opening it?
How would you ever prove actual damage? Seems to me this law is in place to discourage companies from falsely claiming patents because it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate actual damage to an individual from such fraud, yet it's clearly in society's interest to prohibit it.
Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them. Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited." Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it. CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted. There are many other examples.
What? Heavy SUVs are extremely bad choices for winter weather. Light cars with AWD are vastly superior.
Until the snow gets up to the car's frame. Then light cars with AWD are vastly stuck. Don't get me wrong, I have a light car with AWD, and I live in a snowy climate, and I pretty much hate big SUVs. However, big trucks are occasionally vastly superior, in that they are still able to move.
First, if you think that you're safer in an SUV in the snow, you're part of the problem. I am not scared of driving in the snow, but I'm terrified of people driving SUVs in the snow.
It depends on the snow. I can't speak for the other guy, but here it's not a matter of safety but of mobility. When it gets deep enough (somewhat over a foot, which doesn't happen often), our AWD car just can't make it. And forget about front wheel drive. If you must be able to get around at all times of year in all conditions, you have to have a truck of some kind. Then again, in such places most people are well aware of how to drive in the snow.
Snow and ice will stick to completely smooth vertical surfaces under some conditions. It probably isn't possible to design a useful traffic light that will not accumulate snow simply by virtue of its shape. Given that, there needs to be another solution.
"Organic Chemistry is a discipline within chemistry that involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of hydrocarbons and their derivatives."
It doesn't have to have anything to do with life. For example, a chemist studying carbon compounds from an asteroid would be doing organic chemistry even if there is no life involved.
Actually the need for such a law would be evidence that it promotes the progress of science and useful arts. If patent law does not do that, then it has no Constitutional justification (again restricting my comments to the US).
I don't think that a right to profit exists. Certainly I think that a person has a right to do what they wish with an idea, including attempting to earn a profit with it.
Great.
You nicely summed up what I object to:
Anybody who sees your product now also has your idea.
You're objecting to reality, then. I wasn't talking about something current patent law allows, or the way things ought to be. That is just the way it is, always has been, and always will be. Once you show me your idea (or the embodiment of it), there is no way you can keep me from also having the idea. As soon as you show me whatever it is, I have the idea.
"...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I do, in fact, think that it is the "Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" that is the core value that should be upheld. The promotion of progress follows from honouring that right.
I think you have it exactly backwards. The core value is "to promote the Progress", and "securing...the exclusive Right" is nothing more than a means to that end. And that's how it's phrased: "to promote... by securing". The purpose is promoting progress; the means is temporary monopoly rights.
Slashdot Mirror
In a corporate context, insider attacks are the most common. So having passwords laying around the office could really be a security concern.
Analogy time....say somebody is in their front yard, holding up a big sign that has their "my bank password is xxx". Should someone passing by in the street get shit for looking over and noticing that?
How about a better analogy. You're in your front yard enjoying a nice glass of lemonade. Somebody drives by and shoots you in the chest.
That's a BETTER analogy?? You're going for the funny mod, right?
It most assuredly activates the same neurons that this magnetic stimulation of neurons produces.
Most assuredly, interesting. How do you know this?
Surgery is an extremely delicate in any situation requiring telepresence like this. The scalpel hitching even a little bit could cause death.
In some ways this technique is actually superior to normal surgery, because the device can remove the natural slight shaking that anyone's hand, even a skilled surgeon, will exhibit. It can also scale the movements way down so that for example 1 centimeter of movement of the hand translates to one millimeter of movement of the instrument, allowing much greater precision. I'm not saying there aren't potential problems, but I think it's silly to think that /. commenters have thought of them and the people working on this technology have not.
You knew that would happen, right? :-)
You forgot one part of the MS technique. Isn't it embrace, extend, extinguish?
Short for "I agree with this".
If folks would just put the stupid anthropomorphism on the back burner, we could already have a wealth of useful robotics in the home.
Do you know this to be true, or are you guessing? Do you know of home robotics projects that were either not started or not successful solely or primarily because of the prohibitive or insurmountable obstacle of making the robot humanoid?
There are robots in the home; I have one, and it's not humanoid. I'm guessing - I don't know - that home robots have not been more successful because good robots are difficult and often expensive to make, not because customers demand that they look like people.
I don't know who proclaimed this half-assed hallucination, but I can confirm that it isn't blocked here.
Nobody proclaimed that:
'Several foreign countries including... Israel... have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website.'
Emphasis added.
No, I should be allowed to break into my own house if I want to. I bought the house (DVD). Just because it came with a lock (DRM), why should I be prohibited from opening it?
How would you ever prove actual damage? Seems to me this law is in place to discourage companies from falsely claiming patents because it would be nearly impossible to demonstrate actual damage to an individual from such fraud, yet it's clearly in society's interest to prohibit it.
Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them. Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited." Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it. CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted. There are many other examples.
That means only 10% of the boxes were directly attacked and owned, yet my logs show overwhelming amount of tries to do just that.
And how many were successful? I think they're talking about the times a machine is compromised, not how many times it's attacked.
The correct notation for an area of 240 square millimeters is very hard to type (it's 240mm^2),
Yeah, holding the shift key while you press 6 is just brutal. I think you're right about what happened.
I don't think any sane person would argue there aren't some conditions big trucks are good for.
Yeah, but I didn't know if you were that kind of person!
too bad most SUVs are made on car frames.
Yeah, that's why I specified big trucks. I don't really get the AWD-car-that-looks-kind-of-like-a-truck thing.
Big trucks are vastly inferiour in heavy snow because your boss will expect you to go to work~
Ha, so true! What really sucks is to see all the schools close, my wife stay home from work, and I continue telecommuting! Oh well, it's worth it.
Firstly, if two drivers approach from opposite directions controlled by the stop signs, you're still back to the "who goes first?" case.
If neither is turning left, or both are, they can go at the same time. If only one is turning left, that one yields.
There's a Ram in my town with a bumper sticker saying "If you can't DODGE it, RAM it". Makes me feel really safe driving around him.
What? Heavy SUVs are extremely bad choices for winter weather. Light cars with AWD are vastly superior.
Until the snow gets up to the car's frame. Then light cars with AWD are vastly stuck. Don't get me wrong, I have a light car with AWD, and I live in a snowy climate, and I pretty much hate big SUVs. However, big trucks are occasionally vastly superior, in that they are still able to move.
First, if you think that you're safer in an SUV in the snow, you're part of the problem. I am not scared of driving in the snow, but I'm terrified of people driving SUVs in the snow.
It depends on the snow. I can't speak for the other guy, but here it's not a matter of safety but of mobility. When it gets deep enough (somewhat over a foot, which doesn't happen often), our AWD car just can't make it. And forget about front wheel drive. If you must be able to get around at all times of year in all conditions, you have to have a truck of some kind. Then again, in such places most people are well aware of how to drive in the snow.
Snow and ice will stick to completely smooth vertical surfaces under some conditions. It probably isn't possible to design a useful traffic light that will not accumulate snow simply by virtue of its shape. Given that, there needs to be another solution.
I think you should probably just get a new sarcasm detector. Yours may be beyond repair.
"Organic Chemistry is a discipline within chemistry that involves the scientific study of the structure, properties, composition, reactions, and preparation (by synthesis or by other means) of hydrocarbons and their derivatives."
It doesn't have to have anything to do with life. For example, a chemist studying carbon compounds from an asteroid would be doing organic chemistry even if there is no life involved.
Hence the need for a law to control usage.
Actually the need for such a law would be evidence that it promotes the progress of science and useful arts. If patent law does not do that, then it has no Constitutional justification (again restricting my comments to the US).
I don't think that a right to profit exists. Certainly I think that a person has a right to do what they wish with an idea, including attempting to earn a profit with it.
Great.
You nicely summed up what I object to:
Anybody who sees your product now also has your idea.
You're objecting to reality, then. I wasn't talking about something current patent law allows, or the way things ought to be. That is just the way it is, always has been, and always will be. Once you show me your idea (or the embodiment of it), there is no way you can keep me from also having the idea. As soon as you show me whatever it is, I have the idea.
"...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I do, in fact, think that it is the "Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" that is the core value that should be upheld. The promotion of progress follows from honouring that right.
I think you have it exactly backwards. The core value is "to promote the Progress", and "securing...the exclusive Right" is nothing more than a means to that end. And that's how it's phrased: "to promote... by securing". The purpose is promoting progress; the means is temporary monopoly rights.
If you never told them where your mother lives, that works. But I think in your example you, at some point, gave them your mother's address.