Well, it's a touch more romantic if you, as a geek, don't dwell on the pragmatic negatives, like disposing of a body or covering effectively for the absence of someone that's been there for months or years.
"That's right, Honeybunches. I don't kill you not because it'd be impractical or messy, but because I luuuurve you!"
No, it's a perfectly meaningful and appropriate phrase in this context.
If a Facebook user attempts to have some privacy, Facebook robustly controls the attempt to minimize damage to its data mining and other core capabilities. Nothing as trivial as a user's misguided desire to keep secrets can be allowed to interfere with Facebook's mandate to spill all beans to the highest bidder.
In other words, parse "privacy control" the same way that a sailor parses "damage control": try to prevent it from happening, and limit it if it does.
How does it have anything to do with our lifespans?
I dunno. Maybe your home network connection is so slow and filtering-congested it'll take longer than your lifespan to download those rather large 3D design files?
A sufficiently skilled tinker couldn't make a clock for anyone but himself (and possibly not even that) unless they'd first undertaken an apprenticeship with a master, than a turn as a journeyman clockmaker, and submitted a masterwork to the guild leadership to be allowed their own independent mastership and hallmark.
This restriction was typically enforced by local (mayoral, or maybe local noble) law enforcement. In other words, you didn't intrude on the functional monopoly of the guild.
IP consortia are the new guilds. You can't do anything for yourself within their areas of monopoly without running afoul of someone else's patent or copyright. And the guilds have the protection of law, so flouting their monopoly has consequences.
Remember, the word "guild" is cognate with "gold" for a very good reason.
BTW, in the minds of the IP pigopolists, false positives aren't false. If you ask them (and if this technology becomes mandatory, you will... every time you use your 3D printer), you're not supposed to be doing anything yourself except giving them money and taking whatever dreck they choose to hand you. And liking it. Somehow, they're not satisfied until you're forced to feign a little smile of contentment at their beneficience.
In my opinion, Xenon was probably the best of the early wave of reactive/interactive (voice synthesis) pinball machines, and it seems impossible to find any around any more. Damn shame.
I have never seen ads in my inbox. Apparently, evil google hasn't found a way to hijack imap.
They can target ads all they want, because I won't see them anyway. They won't even get pageview statistics, since I'm not using their obnoxious webmail interface. MWAHAHAHA!
I actually think that's a cool idea and would love to see that happen. I might have to seriously look into making this happen. So, that first time you look up into the night sky and see "Eat at Joe's" lighting up the sky, you'll know that you are the reason why.
"Grandpa, tell me about the old days, when the stars made the shapes of imaginary animals or monsters or people, and not ads for Nike and Coke."
But pointing out the hipocracy of the messenger is not ad hominem.
What you're describing is another low-rent rhetorical attack first characterized by the Romans: tu quoque. And yes, technically, it is ad hominem, because it speaks nothing about the opponent's arguments and entirely about the opponent himself.
It's a logical fallacy. It's rhetorical dirty fighting. Usually, if someone resorts to it, it's a pretty good sign that they've run out of effective arguments against the idea itself.
You'll notice that in terms of utility, a 1000 MPG car is no less practical than a 1000 MPH car. No more practical, either. In fact, not at all practical.
I take it that on further reflection, you don't want either?
I dunno. Will the vehicles be reduced to a fine gel, or will there be chunks and perhaps a few whole vehicles? The former would be traffic jelly; the latter would, in fact, be traffic jam.
Sure. Appropriate-diameter iron pipe with pipe cap with a drilled hole for striking the primer.
I wouldn't trust it for more than one shot (hell, I'm not sure I'd trust it for even that), but it would fulfill the function and probably be no less accurate than a 18th-Century unrifled musket.
Did you miss the arithmetic lesson about 220 being "more than" 100?
The difference is irrelevant. 220 miles is no better than 100 in this context.
The unrefueled surface strike range of an F-18 Super Hornet is over 500 miles. If it's carrying Block III Harpoon missiles for ship attack, add 75 miles to that. If one of the carrier's escorts is given the opportunity to fire the warshot, a Tomahawk has a range of over 1000 miles.
In that situation, I hope the ship with that 220-mile range railgun can fire underwater, because that's where it will be.
The only sticking point is that an aircraft carrier is not a gun cruiser. Or even a destroyer.
Frankly, a CVN is not supposed to get within gun range of anything that can shoot back. That's what its warplanes are for.
Things may be a little different if "gun range" is more than 100 miles, but again... a carrier full of warplanes and unmanned combat air vehicles doesn't need a popgun, even if it's a railgun.
Maybe smaller railguns for point defense... assuming they can be rapid-fire and have better range than current 20-30mm gatling guns. And you're willing to accept friendly fire on your destroyer screen from all the strays.
If this railgun will be the primary weapon of any type of ship, it would be a destroyer or littoral combat ship (LCS), assuming you can build electrical generation capabilities for it that fit into ships of that smallish size.
The number one reason for guns on ships (instead of missiles, drones, or warplanes) is cheap shore bombardment. Considering full-up system costs, armed drones may be cheaper.
I don't wanna pooh-pooh cool tech that blows stuff up, but this seems like a solution looking for a problem to solve. Unless we're gonna go back to big-gun cruisers mostly for naval gunfire support, I don't see the point. (Although I'm sure the Marines would appreciate it.)
I can only envision one situation where the current naval airpower solution wouldn't work: opposed amphibious operations against an opponent with a strong air defense network. And then, the first thing you do is blind it using stealth assets and saturation cruise missile strikes, a la Gulf War I. Problem solved.
I think they just weren't enthralled with the occupational injury reporting for all the people who catch a dart in the head while pouring a fresh pint.
The second rule of copyright, if you feel like violating the first rule, is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies until extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.
The third rule of copyright is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies even after extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.
Do you have evidence that the Sheriff's wardriving captured and stored packet information? Because the furor over Google doing it was precisely that: indiscriminate and promiscuous capture and storage of any packets in transit in any AP's footprint that they passed through. And then Google kept that information, even after being ordered to delete it.
Tell me that a law-enforcement agency is sniffing and recording packet traffic and trolling for evidence of lawbreaking without formal suspicion or a wiretap court order, and I'll be appropriately angry at the privacy violation. Until then, there's no meaningful equivalence.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's a touch more romantic if you, as a geek, don't dwell on the pragmatic negatives, like disposing of a body or covering effectively for the absence of someone that's been there for months or years.
"That's right, Honeybunches. I don't kill you not because it'd be impractical or messy, but because I luuuurve you!"
No, it's a perfectly meaningful and appropriate phrase in this context.
If a Facebook user attempts to have some privacy, Facebook robustly controls the attempt to minimize damage to its data mining and other core capabilities. Nothing as trivial as a user's misguided desire to keep secrets can be allowed to interfere with Facebook's mandate to spill all beans to the highest bidder.
In other words, parse "privacy control" the same way that a sailor parses "damage control": try to prevent it from happening, and limit it if it does.
Please find a color copier capable of reproducing banknotes (currency). I'll wait.
...
...
Give up? They don't exist. Any copier (or scanner) capable of imaging money well enough to counterfeit it will have firmware preventing that use.
However that happened, is exactly how it would happen for DRM-enforcing 3D printing.
How does it have anything to do with our lifespans?
I dunno. Maybe your home network connection is so slow and filtering-congested it'll take longer than your lifespan to download those rather large 3D design files?
It makes sense if you remember the guild model.
A sufficiently skilled tinker couldn't make a clock for anyone but himself (and possibly not even that) unless they'd first undertaken an apprenticeship with a master, than a turn as a journeyman clockmaker, and submitted a masterwork to the guild leadership to be allowed their own independent mastership and hallmark.
This restriction was typically enforced by local (mayoral, or maybe local noble) law enforcement. In other words, you didn't intrude on the functional monopoly of the guild.
IP consortia are the new guilds. You can't do anything for yourself within their areas of monopoly without running afoul of someone else's patent or copyright. And the guilds have the protection of law, so flouting their monopoly has consequences.
Remember, the word "guild" is cognate with "gold" for a very good reason.
Good point. Almost certainly true.
BTW, in the minds of the IP pigopolists, false positives aren't false. If you ask them (and if this technology becomes mandatory, you will... every time you use your 3D printer), you're not supposed to be doing anything yourself except giving them money and taking whatever dreck they choose to hand you. And liking it. Somehow, they're not satisfied until you're forced to feign a little smile of contentment at their beneficience.
I, for one, reject our new IP overlords.
In my opinion, Xenon was probably the best of the early wave of reactive/interactive (voice synthesis) pinball machines, and it seems impossible to find any around any more. Damn shame.
After all, you shouldn't be buying somebody's USED goods.
It is a Brave New World! Where's my soma?
I have never seen ads in my inbox. Apparently, evil google hasn't found a way to hijack imap.
They can target ads all they want, because I won't see them anyway. They won't even get pageview statistics, since I'm not using their obnoxious webmail interface. MWAHAHAHA!
And the depressing take-away is that "innovation by litagation" itself isn't particularly innovative.
It's amazing anything gets done.
CHEERLEADER: Ya'll are so wack.
THE UGLY ONE: Wiggidy-wack?
CHEERLEADER: Nope, just regular type.
I actually think that's a cool idea and would love to see that happen. I might have to seriously look into making this happen. So, that first time you look up into the night sky and see "Eat at Joe's" lighting up the sky, you'll know that you are the reason why.
"Grandpa, tell me about the old days, when the stars made the shapes of imaginary animals or monsters or people, and not ads for Nike and Coke."
But when she says it, it's sexy!
Actually, that sounds like a "that's what she said" joke in reverse.
So was kthreadd.
The answer, I think, is more bitcoin stories.
But pointing out the hipocracy of the messenger is not ad hominem.
What you're describing is another low-rent rhetorical attack first characterized by the Romans: tu quoque . And yes, technically, it is ad hominem, because it speaks nothing about the opponent's arguments and entirely about the opponent himself.
It's a logical fallacy. It's rhetorical dirty fighting. Usually, if someone resorts to it, it's a pretty good sign that they've run out of effective arguments against the idea itself.
Here you go.
You'll notice that in terms of utility, a 1000 MPG car is no less practical than a 1000 MPH car. No more practical, either. In fact, not at all practical.
I take it that on further reflection, you don't want either?
I dunno. Will the vehicles be reduced to a fine gel, or will there be chunks and perhaps a few whole vehicles? The former would be traffic jelly; the latter would, in fact, be traffic jam.
The Nokia Lumia 900 already had a purple hue bug! Is there nothing Apple won't retroactively innovate?
FTFY.
Sure. Appropriate-diameter iron pipe with pipe cap with a drilled hole for striking the primer.
I wouldn't trust it for more than one shot (hell, I'm not sure I'd trust it for even that), but it would fulfill the function and probably be no less accurate than a 18th-Century unrifled musket.
Ad hominem: The second-to-last refuge of the incompetent.
Did you miss the arithmetic lesson about 220 being "more than" 100?
The difference is irrelevant. 220 miles is no better than 100 in this context.
The unrefueled surface strike range of an F-18 Super Hornet is over 500 miles. If it's carrying Block III Harpoon missiles for ship attack, add 75 miles to that. If one of the carrier's escorts is given the opportunity to fire the warshot, a Tomahawk has a range of over 1000 miles.
In that situation, I hope the ship with that 220-mile range railgun can fire underwater, because that's where it will be.
The only sticking point is that an aircraft carrier is not a gun cruiser. Or even a destroyer.
Frankly, a CVN is not supposed to get within gun range of anything that can shoot back. That's what its warplanes are for.
Things may be a little different if "gun range" is more than 100 miles, but again... a carrier full of warplanes and unmanned combat air vehicles doesn't need a popgun, even if it's a railgun.
Maybe smaller railguns for point defense... assuming they can be rapid-fire and have better range than current 20-30mm gatling guns. And you're willing to accept friendly fire on your destroyer screen from all the strays.
If this railgun will be the primary weapon of any type of ship, it would be a destroyer or littoral combat ship (LCS), assuming you can build electrical generation capabilities for it that fit into ships of that smallish size.
The number one reason for guns on ships (instead of missiles, drones, or warplanes) is cheap shore bombardment. Considering full-up system costs, armed drones may be cheaper.
I don't wanna pooh-pooh cool tech that blows stuff up, but this seems like a solution looking for a problem to solve. Unless we're gonna go back to big-gun cruisers mostly for naval gunfire support, I don't see the point. (Although I'm sure the Marines would appreciate it.)
I can only envision one situation where the current naval airpower solution wouldn't work: opposed amphibious operations against an opponent with a strong air defense network. And then, the first thing you do is blind it using stealth assets and saturation cruise missile strikes, a la Gulf War I. Problem solved.
I think they just weren't enthralled with the occupational injury reporting for all the people who catch a dart in the head while pouring a fresh pint.
The sign outside the plant would look funny:
"1 days since last crippling beer-darts injury".
is that we don't talk about copyright.
The second rule of copyright, if you feel like violating the first rule, is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies until extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.
The third rule of copyright is that all copyright belongs to big rights aggregators and media monopolies even after extensively and conclusively proven otherwise.
Do you have evidence that the Sheriff's wardriving captured and stored packet information? Because the furor over Google doing it was precisely that: indiscriminate and promiscuous capture and storage of any packets in transit in any AP's footprint that they passed through. And then Google kept that information, even after being ordered to delete it.
Tell me that a law-enforcement agency is sniffing and recording packet traffic and trolling for evidence of lawbreaking without formal suspicion or a wiretap court order, and I'll be appropriately angry at the privacy violation. Until then, there's no meaningful equivalence.