Well, that vendor had the chance to go to court and say 'well, our purchase agreement says $99'... After all, the court can supoena the document as it relates to the case. Or, better yet, they could have refunded the money they paid for the licence without them needing to get dragged to court. That would have prevented what is essentially a $100 'you were stupid' charge.
And I'm just saying the analogy is perfectly valid, because it's comparable to the others. And it just happens to be closer to the main topic than either of my examples, too.
"...any reason for his gear other than his personal choice"
Oh, so you think religious discrimination is ok? And a practicing homosexual can be discriminated against because he chooses to act on his/her 'skewed' libido? They're personal choices, after all. This is not really different.
Most things either contain, or could be changed to only contain, plastics given a cheap enough source. Heck, I seem to recall them using a composite plastic as a possible next generation tank armor.
Stuff like I build would be more difficult as the things I work with dissolve most plastics, but that'll eventually be fixed with an expensive 'ink'.
As for movement... Expansion and contraction is all you need. Check out a watch for an example. Or just remember that the rotory motion of a car engine is, at it's root, just extension (ignite gas) and compression (expel fumes) phases*... If I had access to myomers (that's things that contract when electricity is applied) I could probably reproduce just about anything with that printer.
* Yeah, I know the power cycle would be reversed in this example. It's a basic timing change to fix, though.
You know, after it's been explained, you'd think I wouldn't have to explain it again.
The fact is that those are the facts. It's not 'insulting' to say that most secretaries are women... most secretaries ARE women. It's not insulting to state that most serial killers are white males. Most serial killers ARE white males. It's not insulting to imply that most janitors are fairly uncreative. Most janitors ARE fairly uncreative.
You might want to try some reading comprehension. I nowhere said that ALL are. That would be factually incorrect, and I go WELL out of my way to make it PERFECTLY clear that I don't intend to even IMPLY 'all'. I stated what is true: that most DO fall under that category. Whether you like it or not, the truth doesn't change, and I'm not about to waste my time trying to pretend otherwise.
I have. It's the only anti-utopian (dystopian) book I can tolerate, actually.
"that thinking is elitist and condescending"
We call it realistic. Grab a newspaper, or go deal with people not in the engineering/programming/IT department for a while, and that'll click pretty fast. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, they are very rare. And that's not saying that the 'elite' professions (to make this shorter) don't have their share of idiots, of course, it's just a percentages thing.
"I'm happy for people to have choices in their lives"
And they still would. There wouldn't be any reason a motivated person couldn't go and do something constructive with their lives. They just wouldn't HAVE TO. NEEDING to go to work to live eliminates choices, it doesn't promote them.
"I'm talking about people who have no choice but to be mindless zombies throughout their lives"
Ummm... it was strongly implied that the robots would take over the 'mindless' bit. In other words, the 'Alphas' and 'Betas' would still be around (not geneticly engineered, and not inhereted... essentially the creative (neophilus) and the mundanes (greyfaces, neophobus)). The 'worker caste' would be the robots.
Ummm... Why? Wouldn't you like to have the choice between doing something creative (if you're so inclined), and choosing a less interactive form of entertainment (for me, engineering work is entertainment). Why would it be SCARY to think that humanity might be moving to a point where the neophiles can do what they want, and the neophobes can just entertain themselves (i.e. stay out of the way), instead of going into politics like they do now?
"that wealthy people are going to pay for a [person] to clean their houses"
Allow me to correct one of your misperceptions of the rich. Note the (incorrect) emphisis above, then look below:
"that wealthy people are going to pay for a [person] to clean their houses"
The rich, in general, don't care that much about clean houses, compared to the 'status' of having someone clean for them. Not having a robot do it (except when houce cleaning robots are EXPENSIVE!), but having a real live human doing menial labor for them.
The people you really need to worry about are the people to dumb, not ambitious enough, not inherently skilled enough, whatever, to be able to handle non-repetitive tasks. There are a lot of assembly workers that could be trained to do 'special items' that making a robot wouldn't be cost effective for (prototypes) as well as people to do assembly while the robots are being 'trained'. But that requires, not a huge amount, but a decent level of skill, intelegance, and capability. The ones that just screw the cap onto the toothpaste tube aren't going to have much luck finding a job a robot can't do better.
"they've been left with the choice of killing the patient OR killing the disease. They can't keep both."
I think you're underestimating the power of the Dark Side of the Law.
If either comes even close to happening (after all, remember that MS is perfectly happy with the disease killing off the weak, it just gets annoyed when IT needs to take antibiotics), they'll just settle. No ruling = no precident, and we'll have to start all over with new contestants, errr, defendants. MS won't admit guilt in the settlement, after all.
Remember the golden rule of political/legal activities: If someone powerful is going to lose, then suddenly a win/win situation will appear...
Re:The War of Information
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Very good synopsis.
One thing that might be a wrench in the plans is that there's a way for any single country to execute the IP equivilent of mutually assured destruction. You ever read Distraction by Bruce Sterling? Pretty good book... They give as the reason for the collapse of the US economy as being the result of this kind of attack. China decides that IP isn't worth it, and declares that within China, there's no such thing. So you can download any copyrighted work... including games, applications, video, whatever... from Chinese servers. Any company based on IP (Disney, or anything in Hollywood, really, the RIAA members, etc.) would get wiped out by it.
Sure, they could try to get China off the 'net, but you know the quote: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it"
Think of it the same way you would a social security number.
Suppose you get into bankruptcy. Well, all your financial data is under SS#666-23-2342. If you get a new SS#, would they necessarily know how to trace you if you wanted to open a bank account? Or would they think 'no problem, no background on this SS#' and give it to you? (simplified, I know, but the take the general idea)
APDSFSDU ammo, used in tank rounds: Armor piercing discarding sabot fin stabilized depleted uranium (I'm almost sure that's the right order for the acronym...)
Alternately, you could use magnets that are 'twisted' in pole (I can't get to the site to see the actual design, so bear with me). For example, you could use 3 rod magnets in each 'stage' (or 3 e-mags, whatever) and then rotate them relative to the previous row, giving you a triple helix. Then 'lobe' the slug. The magnets will 'draw' the lobes along and spin it.
I would have said GURPS. The Gauss Battle Rifle rocks.
Remember (as was mentioned) crosswind and deflection, and what wasn't, air resistance. A heavier ball bearing drops faster in water than a lighter one, even though it's a bit bigger (increasing drag)
The reason they get so many small contributions is the same reason if you looked at Pat Robertson's rolls, you'd see the same effect. And if you look at the people who bought stuff from publisher's clearinghouse, etc., what their demographics are. Don't get it? They're fleecing the same targets: Older people with little income.
Most corporate donations are over the legal limit to an individual candidate (as I recall), and therefore come in under 'soft' money, which doesn't have to be traced (and is not subject to limits) because it goes to the party slush fund instead of the candidate fund.
No,/. is totally right-wing! When have you seen an anti-second amendment article here? An article supporting the UN as world government? An article on reform of the tax code? You haven't because it's run by right-wingers for right-wingers. (end sarcasm)
If you're going to try to argue, at least activate your brain. You don't see those because they're not GEEK NEWS. None of those are TECH STUFF.
"The legislative branch is held by Republicans, but by a very narrow majority in both houses"
I think you forgot the importance of that word. With the Executive in their pocket, 'narrow' isn't an issue. Unless you think there are many vetos from the Pres on substantial issues the party cares about?
"but this is subject to change in 2004"
I do believe I did time-qualify my statement.
"The judicial branch doesn't have party affiliation"
I have this nifty suspension bridge for you... Hey, remember Bush v Gore? Remember O'Connor, your 'swing vote', saying that she hopes the next pres (this was before Bush was installed) was a Republican so she could retire?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say sexual orientation was a choice, I said acting on it was.
Well, that vendor had the chance to go to court and say 'well, our purchase agreement says $99'... After all, the court can supoena the document as it relates to the case. Or, better yet, they could have refunded the money they paid for the licence without them needing to get dragged to court. That would have prevented what is essentially a $100 'you were stupid' charge.
And I'm just saying the analogy is perfectly valid, because it's comparable to the others. And it just happens to be closer to the main topic than either of my examples, too.
Oh, so you think religious discrimination is ok? And a practicing homosexual can be discriminated against because he chooses to act on his/her 'skewed' libido? They're personal choices, after all. This is not really different.
Boost the power, make a HERF gun.
Nuke lunch from across the room.
Use the receiver as a radar detector.
In paralell, use the emitter to pulse back at radar guns off phase... See if they'll pull you over for doing 290mph in your Geo Prism
Connect it to your battery and put it on the back of your car. "Your closing speed is..."
Make your own short range weather station.
Set it for single pulse, and you have an RF rangefinder.
Just point the emitter out the back, and watch those speeders slow as they 'see' the radar on their detectors.
There's ALL SORTS of things to do with it.
Stuff like I build would be more difficult as the things I work with dissolve most plastics, but that'll eventually be fixed with an expensive 'ink'.
As for movement... Expansion and contraction is all you need. Check out a watch for an example. Or just remember that the rotory motion of a car engine is, at it's root, just extension (ignite gas) and compression (expel fumes) phases*... If I had access to myomers (that's things that contract when electricity is applied) I could probably reproduce just about anything with that printer.
* Yeah, I know the power cycle would be reversed in this example. It's a basic timing change to fix, though.
The fact is that those are the facts. It's not 'insulting' to say that most secretaries are women... most secretaries ARE women. It's not insulting to state that most serial killers are white males. Most serial killers ARE white males. It's not insulting to imply that most janitors are fairly uncreative. Most janitors ARE fairly uncreative.
You might want to try some reading comprehension. I nowhere said that ALL are. That would be factually incorrect, and I go WELL out of my way to make it PERFECTLY clear that I don't intend to even IMPLY 'all'. I stated what is true: that most DO fall under that category. Whether you like it or not, the truth doesn't change, and I'm not about to waste my time trying to pretend otherwise.
"that thinking is elitist and condescending"
We call it realistic. Grab a newspaper, or go deal with people not in the engineering/programming/IT department for a while, and that'll click pretty fast. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, they are very rare. And that's not saying that the 'elite' professions (to make this shorter) don't have their share of idiots, of course, it's just a percentages thing.
"I'm happy for people to have choices in their lives"
And they still would. There wouldn't be any reason a motivated person couldn't go and do something constructive with their lives. They just wouldn't HAVE TO. NEEDING to go to work to live eliminates choices, it doesn't promote them.
"I'm talking about people who have no choice but to be mindless zombies throughout their lives"
Ummm... it was strongly implied that the robots would take over the 'mindless' bit. In other words, the 'Alphas' and 'Betas' would still be around (not geneticly engineered, and not inhereted... essentially the creative (neophilus) and the mundanes (greyfaces, neophobus)). The 'worker caste' would be the robots.
Posing for trophies? (Thanks Steven Wright!)
Ummm... Why? Wouldn't you like to have the choice between doing something creative (if you're so inclined), and choosing a less interactive form of entertainment (for me, engineering work is entertainment). Why would it be SCARY to think that humanity might be moving to a point where the neophiles can do what they want, and the neophobes can just entertain themselves (i.e. stay out of the way), instead of going into politics like they do now?
Allow me to correct one of your misperceptions of the rich. Note the (incorrect) emphisis above, then look below:
"that wealthy people are going to pay for a [person] to clean their houses"
The rich, in general, don't care that much about clean houses, compared to the 'status' of having someone clean for them. Not having a robot do it (except when houce cleaning robots are EXPENSIVE!), but having a real live human doing menial labor for them.
The people you really need to worry about are the people to dumb, not ambitious enough, not inherently skilled enough, whatever, to be able to handle non-repetitive tasks. There are a lot of assembly workers that could be trained to do 'special items' that making a robot wouldn't be cost effective for (prototypes) as well as people to do assembly while the robots are being 'trained'. But that requires, not a huge amount, but a decent level of skill, intelegance, and capability. The ones that just screw the cap onto the toothpaste tube aren't going to have much luck finding a job a robot can't do better.
Who's Comedy Central owned by? I'm not the only one who thinks the Daily Show is the best source for news.
I think you're underestimating the power of the Dark Side of the Law.
If either comes even close to happening (after all, remember that MS is perfectly happy with the disease killing off the weak, it just gets annoyed when IT needs to take antibiotics), they'll just settle. No ruling = no precident, and we'll have to start all over with new contestants, errr, defendants. MS won't admit guilt in the settlement, after all.
Remember the golden rule of political/legal activities: If someone powerful is going to lose, then suddenly a win/win situation will appear...
One thing that might be a wrench in the plans is that there's a way for any single country to execute the IP equivilent of mutually assured destruction. You ever read Distraction by Bruce Sterling? Pretty good book... They give as the reason for the collapse of the US economy as being the result of this kind of attack. China decides that IP isn't worth it, and declares that within China, there's no such thing. So you can download any copyrighted work... including games, applications, video, whatever... from Chinese servers. Any company based on IP (Disney, or anything in Hollywood, really, the RIAA members, etc.) would get wiped out by it.
Sure, they could try to get China off the 'net, but you know the quote: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it"
Right. But it doesn't negate the comparison to the REASONS you'd want a new one. Don't take all metaphors literally, it helps comprehension.
I'm in shape. Round is a shape.
Suppose you get into bankruptcy. Well, all your financial data is under SS#666-23-2342. If you get a new SS#, would they necessarily know how to trace you if you wanted to open a bank account? Or would they think 'no problem, no background on this SS#' and give it to you? (simplified, I know, but the take the general idea)
Umm... I believe I covered that under 'fin stablized', actually.
Alternately, you could use magnets that are 'twisted' in pole (I can't get to the site to see the actual design, so bear with me). For example, you could use 3 rod magnets in each 'stage' (or 3 e-mags, whatever) and then rotate them relative to the previous row, giving you a triple helix. Then 'lobe' the slug. The magnets will 'draw' the lobes along and spin it.
Remember (as was mentioned) crosswind and deflection, and what wasn't, air resistance. A heavier ball bearing drops faster in water than a lighter one, even though it's a bit bigger (increasing drag)
I don't know, maybe I'm a geek or something, but 1) is DEFINATLY a klingon battlecruiser.
Dude... could you send me some envelopes?
Sorry... Just had to do that.
Most corporate donations are over the legal limit to an individual candidate (as I recall), and therefore come in under 'soft' money, which doesn't have to be traced (and is not subject to limits) because it goes to the party slush fund instead of the candidate fund.
If you're going to try to argue, at least activate your brain. You don't see those because they're not GEEK NEWS. None of those are TECH STUFF.
I think you forgot the importance of that word. With the Executive in their pocket, 'narrow' isn't an issue. Unless you think there are many vetos from the Pres on substantial issues the party cares about?
"but this is subject to change in 2004"
I do believe I did time-qualify my statement.
"The judicial branch doesn't have party affiliation"
I have this nifty suspension bridge for you... Hey, remember Bush v Gore? Remember O'Connor, your 'swing vote', saying that she hopes the next pres (this was before Bush was installed) was a Republican so she could retire?