Because the gun does not have a soul, it is not thinking "hm, for safety's sake I better not fire." Nor by the way did the gun manufacture think that way either.
Whether the gun fails to fire because of a poorly designed mechanical piece, or it fails to fire because of a poorly designed electronic chip, it makes no difference.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is too uneducated, prejudiced and foolish to be trusted with a piece of technology more complex than a hammer.
Technology fails. You should purchase the one that fails least, not the one that fails in a way you understand. Otherwise, we would never have put computer chips into cars.
We can't predict the future, or the desires of any alien race, therefore we can predict they won't want to visit us.
Duh. If you can't predict then you can't say what they WON'T do.
The reason why aliens would come and visit are numerous. Here are the top 3 that I thought of while reading his poorly thought out article.
1. They are running out of space on their home world, and earth has some nice views, good water, nice temperature. Perfect place to raise a family without bumping into your neighbor (i.e. they don't want to steal just our gold, they want to steal everything)
2. They want to learn about alternate biologies cultures, psychology, etc.
3. Religion. We must spread the word of Latter Day Saints/Allah/etc. etc.
The main problem is the fool thinks the future will be just like the recent past, rather than the distant pass. He assumes our technology will continue to grow dramatically, rather than incrementally.
Right now, the most logical way to do star travel is to increase lifespans to 200+ years and develop a nice cryo-statis type thing.
Which means travel is possible in just about 80 years of technology growth or so, (at least to Alpha Centauri) plus another 100/200 years of cry-sleep transit.
The original article was written by someone that saw way too many bad sci-fi shows and think the most dramatic, silly inventions are likely, and that we/aliens will wait till everything is all settled till we go exploring.
He is not the first to suggest requiring people to vote on ideas, and won't be the last. I myself suggested it to them ages ago.
But you see Quirky has their own reasons to continue their current method.
You see, Quirky needs to advertise itself MORE than it needs better products. They get thousand of ideas, they are OK with having thousands fail and only one or two make money.
What they want and need more than better ideas is more people buying from Quirky.
Hence the current system where the people that win are the people that get more attention to Quirky, mainly by spamming their friends to vote for their product.
(Note, my quirky idea was shoes that close when you step into them. Pneumatic + springs to activate it, then a click button to unspring the shoes and let you get out.)
1) Make it illegal for a government agent (police, federal, any) to erase someone else's recording (photographic, video, or sound). This would be considered evidence tampering and have an appropriate automatic jail sentence. If you arrest someone with a recording device in hand, than it must be presented as is to the judge and the defense.
2) If a person ceases to use a service (and sends either an electronic or paper notification) that service is required by law to destroy all 'non-business transaction' records. That is, they can keep records of money paid and services/products bought, but they can not retain any private, identifying information such as email, browser information (including search histories, IP addresses, personal settings, etc)
3) In cases of Identity Theft, the right to request a "Replacement Social Security Number" (RSSN). Right now you can not change the one you have, even if you have had your identity stolen. Doing so requires you to be photographed, fingerprinted, and costs $100. Such a system would be entirely optional, and it would be forbidden by law to require someone to get or use this RSSN for anything. You can then use your new RSSN in place of the old original one.
D does not stand for 'better", it stands for dimension. The 4th Dimension is time.
A 4D show would be one that is different every single time you observe it, not something that childishly and stupidly throws in extra sensory experiences.
At best this kind of marketing, should be called 4S shows - sight, sound, smell, and touch (water).
When some marketing idiot calls it 4d, it just make think "Do you like making the world a stupider place?"
1) Can we at least arrest, if not shoot the idiot that thought the word "kilomile" was a good word?
2)Price wise, the cost to replace 55 pounds of aluminum is about equal to gas. Maybe a little lower if you get paid back some for the used aluminum. Not much, but at least a small gain economically. Pollution wise it is worth it.
3) Range of a gas car is normally around 300 to 400 miles. (http://solarchargeddriving.com/editors-blog/on-evs-a-phevs/706-whats-your-gasoline-cars-range.html) Range of a car using this technology should easily be the same (just because some idiot thought they need to refill the battery with water every 100 miles doesn't mean a good engineer can't install a large spare water tank to refill it on the go.
My entire point is that the argument you gave is garbage. Governments can not force a company to abide by their laws based on the fact that a citizen used their service. The location of the user is irrelevant and not under the company's control and NOT the company's responsibility.
You (and France) do not have the right to tell Twitter where they are doing business. Twitter decides where Twitter does business. In truth, the location of the server is actually irrelevant (let alone the user). You can outsource your server - although it is unwise to do so into a country where you do not do business. You could put your servers in international waters, but it wouldn't matter. What matters is where you claim to do business. Twitter can claim to do business in the US only. It is their right.
Similarly France does has the right to block twitter (which I expressly said in my original post)
As for France's laws, they are fine for french people. They can't enforce their laws outside of their country. Twitter has the right to say screw you France, we don't want your business.
Just as France has the right to block Twitter.
There is a separate question as to whether they SHOULD do that. It may not be in the best interest of France to block twitter, similarly it may not be in the best interest of Twitter to risk losing France's business.
But in either case, France has no business (just as the US has no business) telling foreign companies what they can and can not do.
I would be fine with this except Visa and MasterCard are already acknowledged as a single Monopoly (see old American Express court battles). The fact that they will follow each.
The real question is not if Visa will follow Mastercard, but will American Express (the number 3 card) will follow Mastercard.
Twitter should send a letter stating:
"We are an American company, doing business in America. We abide by American laws, not yours. We have no desire to abide by your laws or even to provide service to your country. If you don't like what we do, feel free to block us. But no one from our company will ever travel to France again. Good luck with your laws."
Note, I have nothing against France. But all countries (including the USA), need to recognize that the internet will their citizens do business with foreign companies and that foreign companies are NOT required to obey their laws. It is up to the citizens of a country to obey that countries laws, not everyone in the world.
Look, in every business, there is going to be a low cost provider, a high quality provider, and a bunch of also rans.
The low cost provider will ALWAYS make money.
The High quality provider may or may not make money.
The also rans usually get eaten up by the low cost provider.
The fact that your particular company fails in a business is a failure of YOU, not the business. It means you can't compete with the rest of the world.
When Bosch leaves, it lets everyone else raise their prices just a little bit.
Maybe that will be enough to make the rest of the corporations profitable. Or maybe some more 'also rans' may have to quit because THEY are losing money.
But I guarantee you, once enough also rans have left the business, the rest of the people will make money hand over fist.
You know why you are wrong you still persist in your belief.
That is because you don't understand what is going on.
There is nothing wrong with offering discounts. It is common behavior. Do you think a store is doing something wrong because they have a sale? If so you are a fool. Discounts - real and fake (i.e. raise the price by 11% then offer 10% 'discount') are there for a reason - people like to to think they are getting a deal and sometimes it is reasonable to give them one. Particularly if for example their are large costs per sale and someone buys in bulk (i.e. saving you those large marketing costs).
A bribe on the other hand is very different. Instead of lowering the cost, it raises the cost. It is a crime not against the person paying the bribe, but against the organization that hired the briber. That is, when Ford bribes a Banana Republic official to buy 1971 Pintos, instead of Dodge Chargers, it is the Banana Republic that is getting ripped off and Chrysler not Ford.
Because the Banana Republic official is not doing his job - to pick the best car, as opposed to doing his job.
When I pay you to do your job wrong, that is a problem. There is nothing wrong with giving someone a discount.
2) Tell people about common tricks like infected flash drives being dropped in parkways, calling and requesting a password, etc. etc.
3) Warn them that sometime during the year, YOU WILL TRY TO HACK THEM.
4) Tell them if they fall for the hack, they will not get a bonus that year. (It helps if you actually give out yearly bonuses - even $100 will be fine)
5) Actually test them two months later.
6) If they fail the test, send them an email and require that they take your 10 minute class again.
I have found that if you do this, then people learn. The threat of losing even $100 bonus a year is more than enough to get people to stop being stupid.
Note, this will not stop people from downloading things from the internet and/or playing games. But it will stop them from picking up random flashdrives and using them - as well as stop them from giving out passwords over the phone.
Wow you really went to town on someone ELSE'S argument. I never said any of the claims you refuted. I never said that frackers don't take steps, comply with the law, or have too many accidents.
I said they won't reveal what they are pumping into the ground.
And that is outright true. You can bring up a ton of good things they do, but unless you counter the one bad thing that they do, it just doesn't matter. That's like saying "Why did you convict me of rape, I never stole any money whatsoever."
Frackers fight the laws with lobbyists - and then are surprised that people say no to fracking. You can't use lobbyists to give yourself easy laws, comply with them, and then wonder why people are against you. They are against you because they are not stupid, they KNOW the laws you demanded are too lenient.
Specifically the laws let them hide what they pump into the ground. As long as you can do that, you can't be trusted.
I stand by my argument.
P.S. I agree that nuclear is fine and coal is evil. But that doesn't mean we should stand by and watch fracking turn into the coal industry. Instead we need to make sure Frackers act like the good guys, not the evil coal SOBs.
The only problem is idiots that don't want to use it responsibly. Fracking makes energy cheaply. That's a good idea.
The problem is it has clear environmental risks that the frackers don't want to discuss.
They don't want to tell you what they put into the ground (because they are afraid people will sue them - or steal their wonderful business secrets).
Being in business means you get sued. Deal with it. As for business secrets - ever hear of patents????
The truth is that Frackers are having problems not because the technology they use is more dangerous than other tech, but because they are so damn greedy they want to do so without taking reasonable safety and anti-pollution precautions. Let's be honest here - the EPA is not know for being a hard-ass. They let people get away with amazingly evil misdeeds before they take action.
I am all in favor of fracking - if they publicly reveal everything they pump into the ground and take reasonable steps to ameliorate the problems.
Yes this will cost more. But fracking will still be cheap. We have a right to cheap CLEAN energy, not just cheap energy.
What you describe would be OK. But it is not accurate.
There is no release after the contract is up.. It doesn't matter if you have owned it for one month or 10 years, you NEVER gain the right to do what you want with the device.
Sister does not mean identical.
You do realize that the Fukushima plant was specifically designed to deal with the terrain and did so in a manner that made sure the water drained away from the reactor instead of into the reactor?
Only if you include non-US nuclear power plants. Because Japan and Russia are the two big sinners, mainly because they have made bad choices when it comes to nuclear safety.
Honestly, the new molten salt reactors are safer than any anything we have thought of. When everyone panics and runs away, leaving the machines alone, they automatically and safely shut down. No fear of radiation leaks, just safely.
You might be right when discussing countries other than the United States of America. But I am absolutely CORRECT and you are wrong if we are talking about the USA. You need to actually read the wiki on the case you sighted.
Missouri v. Holland said that a STATE law can't over-ride a federal law.
Yes, the state department then went and made a treaty to convince the SCOTUS that the Federal government had the right to pass that law. But the treaty was supporting the law, not the other way around.
As for your mis-formed idea of self-executing treaties, they only exist in cases where previous LAWS were previously passed to give the federal government the right to pass that treaty.
As in, law over-rides treaty.
At heart your opinion fails to understand the basics of American separation of powers. The people amend the Constitution (highest authority). Congress passes the laws under those Amendments. The Executive Branch administers the laws. Courts judge the laws (against the Constitution),
The President can not over-ride Congress by signing a treaty.
If your rather twisted version of government applied in the US, then Barack Obama could for example, make assault weapons illegal simply by including a paragraph in a treaty with Mexico.
No, he can't do that, because there is NO such thing as a 'self-executing treaty" unless congress has already explicitly passed a law allowing it.
No one and I mean NO ONE ever fakes permanent insanity to get out of a murder charge.
Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.
What criminals typically try to plead is 'temporary insanity', where you claim you were insane, but aren't anymore. But Judges and Juries typically only grant that when they think the victim deserved it - as in "When that drug dealer raped and killed my 12 year old daughter I went temporarily insane and shot him in the head 14 times. But I'm feeling much better now."
Treaties are LESS powerful than Law, not more so. No treaty can make us do anything at all - countries break treaties all the time (see North Korea).
It is perfectly legal for the President to signa treaty that says "We will send all of our mushrooms to Canada."
Then Congress can pass a law that says "We will not send ANY mushrooms to Canada."
In such a case than it is illegal to send mushrooms to Canada, no matter what the treaty says. Canada can sue us in international court, and that court may assign sanctions to us, but they can not force us to send them all our mushrooms.
It explains that the Japanese found a way to send a pipeline down to the hydrates and depressurize them. This caused some of the released methane to travel up the pipeline they had dropped to the surface, where it could be captured as a gas.
Note it does not say how much of the gas is wasted/escapes into the ocean (which might have some very serious effects). On the other hand, they left most of the ocean pressurized (obviously) so it should hopefully re-sublimate back down to a methane hydrate.
It is actually a real breakthrough, rather than a mere translation problem. That said, a lot matters about efficiency. Merely getting a gallon of methane to the surface is not a huge deal if they have to burn 3/4 of a gallon to get it up (let alone transport it to someplace useful via a pressurized gas transport ship/pipeline).
Slashdot Mirror
Anything else is your bosses concern, not yours.
Worse, any time you use trying to fix him directly and negatively affects his morale.
Sometimes it's better not to know what goes into the sausage.
Because the gun does not have a soul, it is not thinking "hm, for safety's sake I better not fire." Nor by the way did the gun manufacture think that way either.
Whether the gun fails to fire because of a poorly designed mechanical piece, or it fails to fire because of a poorly designed electronic chip, it makes no difference.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is too uneducated, prejudiced and foolish to be trusted with a piece of technology more complex than a hammer.
Technology fails. You should purchase the one that fails least, not the one that fails in a way you understand. Otherwise, we would never have put computer chips into cars.
Duh. If you can't predict then you can't say what they WON'T do.
The reason why aliens would come and visit are numerous. Here are the top 3 that I thought of while reading his poorly thought out article.
1. They are running out of space on their home world, and earth has some nice views, good water, nice temperature. Perfect place to raise a family without bumping into your neighbor (i.e. they don't want to steal just our gold, they want to steal everything)
2. They want to learn about alternate biologies cultures, psychology, etc.
3. Religion. We must spread the word of Latter Day Saints/Allah/etc. etc.
The main problem is the fool thinks the future will be just like the recent past, rather than the distant pass. He assumes our technology will continue to grow dramatically, rather than incrementally.
Right now, the most logical way to do star travel is to increase lifespans to 200+ years and develop a nice cryo-statis type thing.
Which means travel is possible in just about 80 years of technology growth or so, (at least to Alpha Centauri) plus another 100/200 years of cry-sleep transit.
The original article was written by someone that saw way too many bad sci-fi shows and think the most dramatic, silly inventions are likely, and that we/aliens will wait till everything is all settled till we go exploring.
But you see Quirky has their own reasons to continue their current method.
You see, Quirky needs to advertise itself MORE than it needs better products. They get thousand of ideas, they are OK with having thousands fail and only one or two make money.
What they want and need more than better ideas is more people buying from Quirky.
Hence the current system where the people that win are the people that get more attention to Quirky, mainly by spamming their friends to vote for their product.
(Note, my quirky idea was shoes that close when you step into them. Pneumatic + springs to activate it, then a click button to unspring the shoes and let you get out.)
2) If a person ceases to use a service (and sends either an electronic or paper notification) that service is required by law to destroy all 'non-business transaction' records. That is, they can keep records of money paid and services/products bought, but they can not retain any private, identifying information such as email, browser information (including search histories, IP addresses, personal settings, etc)
3) In cases of Identity Theft, the right to request a "Replacement Social Security Number" (RSSN). Right now you can not change the one you have, even if you have had your identity stolen. Doing so requires you to be photographed, fingerprinted, and costs $100. Such a system would be entirely optional, and it would be forbidden by law to require someone to get or use this RSSN for anything. You can then use your new RSSN in place of the old original one.
D does not stand for 'better", it stands for dimension. The 4th Dimension is time.
A 4D show would be one that is different every single time you observe it, not something that childishly and stupidly throws in extra sensory experiences.
At best this kind of marketing, should be called 4S shows - sight, sound, smell, and touch (water).
When some marketing idiot calls it 4d, it just make think "Do you like making the world a stupider place?"
2)Price wise, the cost to replace 55 pounds of aluminum is about equal to gas. Maybe a little lower if you get paid back some for the used aluminum. Not much, but at least a small gain economically. Pollution wise it is worth it.
3) Range of a gas car is normally around 300 to 400 miles. (http://solarchargeddriving.com/editors-blog/on-evs-a-phevs/706-whats-your-gasoline-cars-range.html) Range of a car using this technology should easily be the same (just because some idiot thought they need to refill the battery with water every 100 miles doesn't mean a good engineer can't install a large spare water tank to refill it on the go.
You (and France) do not have the right to tell Twitter where they are doing business. Twitter decides where Twitter does business. In truth, the location of the server is actually irrelevant (let alone the user). You can outsource your server - although it is unwise to do so into a country where you do not do business. You could put your servers in international waters, but it wouldn't matter. What matters is where you claim to do business. Twitter can claim to do business in the US only. It is their right.
Similarly France does has the right to block twitter (which I expressly said in my original post)
As for France's laws, they are fine for french people. They can't enforce their laws outside of their country. Twitter has the right to say screw you France, we don't want your business.
Just as France has the right to block Twitter.
There is a separate question as to whether they SHOULD do that. It may not be in the best interest of France to block twitter, similarly it may not be in the best interest of Twitter to risk losing France's business.
But in either case, France has no business (just as the US has no business) telling foreign companies what they can and can not do.
The real question is not if Visa will follow Mastercard, but will American Express (the number 3 card) will follow Mastercard.
Note, I have nothing against France. But all countries (including the USA), need to recognize that the internet will their citizens do business with foreign companies and that foreign companies are NOT required to obey their laws. It is up to the citizens of a country to obey that countries laws, not everyone in the world.
The low cost provider will ALWAYS make money.
The High quality provider may or may not make money.
The also rans usually get eaten up by the low cost provider.
The fact that your particular company fails in a business is a failure of YOU, not the business. It means you can't compete with the rest of the world.
When Bosch leaves, it lets everyone else raise their prices just a little bit.
Maybe that will be enough to make the rest of the corporations profitable. Or maybe some more 'also rans' may have to quit because THEY are losing money.
But I guarantee you, once enough also rans have left the business, the rest of the people will make money hand over fist.
That is because you don't understand what is going on.
There is nothing wrong with offering discounts. It is common behavior. Do you think a store is doing something wrong because they have a sale? If so you are a fool. Discounts - real and fake (i.e. raise the price by 11% then offer 10% 'discount') are there for a reason - people like to to think they are getting a deal and sometimes it is reasonable to give them one. Particularly if for example their are large costs per sale and someone buys in bulk (i.e. saving you those large marketing costs).
A bribe on the other hand is very different. Instead of lowering the cost, it raises the cost. It is a crime not against the person paying the bribe, but against the organization that hired the briber. That is, when Ford bribes a Banana Republic official to buy 1971 Pintos, instead of Dodge Chargers, it is the Banana Republic that is getting ripped off and Chrysler not Ford.
Because the Banana Republic official is not doing his job - to pick the best car, as opposed to doing his job.
When I pay you to do your job wrong, that is a problem. There is nothing wrong with giving someone a discount.
1) Tell people about social hacking/engineering.
2) Tell people about common tricks like infected flash drives being dropped in parkways, calling and requesting a password, etc. etc.
3) Warn them that sometime during the year, YOU WILL TRY TO HACK THEM.
4) Tell them if they fall for the hack, they will not get a bonus that year. (It helps if you actually give out yearly bonuses - even $100 will be fine)
5) Actually test them two months later.
6) If they fail the test, send them an email and require that they take your 10 minute class again.
I have found that if you do this, then people learn. The threat of losing even $100 bonus a year is more than enough to get people to stop being stupid.
Note, this will not stop people from downloading things from the internet and/or playing games. But it will stop them from picking up random flashdrives and using them - as well as stop them from giving out passwords over the phone.
And that is outright true. You can bring up a ton of good things they do, but unless you counter the one bad thing that they do, it just doesn't matter. That's like saying "Why did you convict me of rape, I never stole any money whatsoever."
Frackers fight the laws with lobbyists - and then are surprised that people say no to fracking. You can't use lobbyists to give yourself easy laws, comply with them, and then wonder why people are against you. They are against you because they are not stupid, they KNOW the laws you demanded are too lenient.
Specifically the laws let them hide what they pump into the ground. As long as you can do that, you can't be trusted.
I stand by my argument.
P.S. I agree that nuclear is fine and coal is evil. But that doesn't mean we should stand by and watch fracking turn into the coal industry. Instead we need to make sure Frackers act like the good guys, not the evil coal SOBs.
The problem is it has clear environmental risks that the frackers don't want to discuss.
They don't want to tell you what they put into the ground (because they are afraid people will sue them - or steal their wonderful business secrets).
Being in business means you get sued. Deal with it. As for business secrets - ever hear of patents????
The truth is that Frackers are having problems not because the technology they use is more dangerous than other tech, but because they are so damn greedy they want to do so without taking reasonable safety and anti-pollution precautions. Let's be honest here - the EPA is not know for being a hard-ass. They let people get away with amazingly evil misdeeds before they take action.
I am all in favor of fracking - if they publicly reveal everything they pump into the ground and take reasonable steps to ameliorate the problems.
Yes this will cost more. But fracking will still be cheap. We have a right to cheap CLEAN energy, not just cheap energy.
There is no release after the contract is up.. It doesn't matter if you have owned it for one month or 10 years, you NEVER gain the right to do what you want with the device.
Sister does not mean identical. You do realize that the Fukushima plant was specifically designed to deal with the terrain and did so in a manner that made sure the water drained away from the reactor instead of into the reactor?
Yes, we could have started with saber-tooth tigers. But no, we don't.
Because this isn't a movie, and we aren't pretending to be idiots just to move a plot along.
Honestly, the new molten salt reactors are safer than any anything we have thought of. When everyone panics and runs away, leaving the machines alone, they automatically and safely shut down. No fear of radiation leaks, just safely.
Me, I think gold is over-priced. Give me platinum any day of the week.
Missouri v. Holland said that a STATE law can't over-ride a federal law.
Yes, the state department then went and made a treaty to convince the SCOTUS that the Federal government had the right to pass that law. But the treaty was supporting the law, not the other way around.
As for your mis-formed idea of self-executing treaties, they only exist in cases where previous LAWS were previously passed to give the federal government the right to pass that treaty.
As in, law over-rides treaty.
At heart your opinion fails to understand the basics of American separation of powers. The people amend the Constitution (highest authority). Congress passes the laws under those Amendments. The Executive Branch administers the laws. Courts judge the laws (against the Constitution),
The President can not over-ride Congress by signing a treaty.
If your rather twisted version of government applied in the US, then Barack Obama could for example, make assault weapons illegal simply by including a paragraph in a treaty with Mexico.
No, he can't do that, because there is NO such thing as a 'self-executing treaty" unless congress has already explicitly passed a law allowing it.
As with any war, the bad officers die. In this case, those companies that don't take security serious will die.
Yes, in the short term a cyber cold war would cause damage, but in the long term, we would come away MUCH stronger.
No pain, no gain. A cold cyber war would be painful, but we would come away much better off.
Why? Because once they lock you up for being insane, they treat you FAR worse than being a mere criminal prisoner. Also, (unlike Batman's world) it is generally much harder to get of the insane asylum than it is to get parole.
What criminals typically try to plead is 'temporary insanity', where you claim you were insane, but aren't anymore. But Judges and Juries typically only grant that when they think the victim deserved it - as in "When that drug dealer raped and killed my 12 year old daughter I went temporarily insane and shot him in the head 14 times. But I'm feeling much better now."
It is perfectly legal for the President to signa treaty that says "We will send all of our mushrooms to Canada."
Then Congress can pass a law that says "We will not send ANY mushrooms to Canada."
In such a case than it is illegal to send mushrooms to Canada, no matter what the treaty says. Canada can sue us in international court, and that court may assign sanctions to us, but they can not force us to send them all our mushrooms.
It explains that the Japanese found a way to send a pipeline down to the hydrates and depressurize them. This caused some of the released methane to travel up the pipeline they had dropped to the surface, where it could be captured as a gas.
Note it does not say how much of the gas is wasted/escapes into the ocean (which might have some very serious effects). On the other hand, they left most of the ocean pressurized (obviously) so it should hopefully re-sublimate back down to a methane hydrate.
It is actually a real breakthrough, rather than a mere translation problem. That said, a lot matters about efficiency. Merely getting a gallon of methane to the surface is not a huge deal if they have to burn 3/4 of a gallon to get it up (let alone transport it to someplace useful via a pressurized gas transport ship/pipeline).