I've been saying this all along. The only debate that seems to be out there is which government should control the Internet. The best answer is NONE. Not the US, not the EU, but private citizens. Once Gov't gets their dirty little claws on a thing, you see things like China's little section of the Internet.
I honestly don't believe that any government has the right to control it. What needs to happen is for private citizens to take it back.
It's not society's job to determine what's detrimental to the well being of minors - it's the parents. Laws and regulations will never make a dent in behavior. However, it does make for a nice bank account ballance for the lawyers.
Laws and regulations just shift responsability from the one's that have the most direct impact in a child's life (the parents) to "society". For some reason everyone thinks it's better whan it is "our" problem.
"The world of the future will be an evermore demanding struggle against the limitations of our intellegence, not a comfortable hyammock in which we can lie down to be waited upon by our robot slaves."
-Norbert Weiner (1894-1964)
Each suceeding generation begins a couple steps ahead of the old. That shift in point of origin allows the younger generations to view the old's accomplishments as the beginning of something more, while the old can only see the tremendous effort it required.
Think Doctor in a Hospital with electronic medical records. Such a small device would be a perfect fit in such an environment. as for Slashdotters using it - well, geekfactor is kinda high. . .:)
This isn't much to go on, and pellet storage of H has been around for a while.
What would make this really interesting and useful is the ease of recharging the pellets. Hydrogen is nothing but a energy storage media after all (it takes energy to extract it from water, natural gas). Imagine solar panels on the top of your car recharging the pellets while your parked - Just add water. That is really the breakthrough we need.
Once upon a time I worked as a sys admin for an engineering company, and man those guys were into creative destruction with their laptops.
1. Had an one guy dump a cup of coffee into his laptop. Nothing new there, right? We'll he tried to clean it out with solvent. I've never seen such a gooey mess.
2. One engineer actually ran over their laptop with their car.
3. Had one pack theirs in the checked in luggage at the airport because it was too heavy to carry around. Ever see the Sampsonite commercial where the monkey tossed luggage around? Aparently he hadn't.
4. One programmer was working on the logic board of a conveyor system and had their laptop plugged in to the serial port, but the only place to put the laptop was on a HUGE magnet designed to stop metal trays. Guess what Einstein triggered?
5. P0rn, p0rn, p0rn - 'nuff said.
Lots more stories than anywhere else I worked at. Those guys averaged a new laptop every six months.
No, it doesn't. If I create something, it is mine not the public's. If I want to lease it to you I can. If I want to put restrictions, such as an EULA, I can. It is my effort that created it, and I'll be damned if I'll let anyone tell me how I can or cannot distribute the fruit of my tallent, labor, or time. I can also chose to give it away for free.
We have choice and that is it. If you don't like my restrictions, then don't spend the money on my works. It is mine. I created it. My rules. You have no say in what I do with my own and are not entitled to it in any way that I don't agree with.
How would this be different if I built a house? If I sold it to you stating that I can spend the night on every Wednesday, and you go ahead and buy the house I built you had better not complain when I show up with a pillow and a blankie. Just because it is inconvenient to you after the sale doesn't invalidate the agreement. If you buy DRMed stuff, don't whine about it later.
Copyrights, patents, etc. were the tradeoff between keeping secrets and enhancing public knowledge in exchange for a limited monopoly. At least originally. Those bounds have been grossly enlarged, but were designed to protect the knowledge by discouraging secrets.
If an artist wants to sell their works without somone "ripping" it, what do you care? If they want to DRM them, who are you to tell them no? If someone goes through the creative effort, they should be able to DRM it if they so chose. Don't like it, don't buy it or use it. That is your choice. I'll bet you still go to movies and support the "evil masters" though.
Creating an open source DRM only maximizes the choices available. It is still up to the artists. Without something like this, you'll never see the open source systems be able to play DRM'ed works. That hurts everyone and makes for less choice.
Opening up DRM to the opensource community is a good step forward. It is still up to the artists to use it or not. If this is not embraced, then the community will suffer.
While I agree that stuff should be open, it is up to the artists to protect their work. Giving them open source alternatives is additional choice, and choice is always good.
I here ya. I'm convinced there is a point where anything new I learn will push out something old at random. Still waiting for the day I forget how to tie those thingies that dangle from my shoes.
This is cool, but could it be improved with a laser? I've seen some that can produce messages, but does anyone know anythat could produce text and images on such a large scale?
Folks, I WAS[*] the security guy for a large datacenter. It is all about CYOA. Security folks have no authority - no problem. When I issue my security report on "really fscked up project" or "retardedly configured server" the manager gets to sign off on it. Making the higher ups sign of on risk acceptance is what I like to call a "shit deflector." Kinda hard to dodge stuff like that.
This is not the "end of story" unfortunatly. Without any due process whatsoever, this person will have their rights restricted. Ask Sen. Kennedy how easy it is to get off the no fly list. While I admit it was kinda stupid, even the S.S. thought it was harmless. Why the FBI file? Why the possibility of a phone tap? This is a severe curtailment of the 4th and 5th amendments.
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A peace officer should have probable cause for asking me for my ID. Unfortunatly "shouldn't" isn't "can't". If a police officer asks me for an ID, I respond "What is the problem, officer?" The fact that everybody else in the country seems to feel that they must obey every request put to them is one of the biggest problems in this country (USA). I do live in the real world, and I respectfully challenge situations like this whenever they present themselves. I have yet to be arrested or charged with a crime. Government officials have no business in my affairs without probable cause. Drag me away and lock me up forever, but I will not submit without atleast some effort to defend my rights.
". . . courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security."
Umm, last I checked I had rights. The bill of rights was not written for us, it was written for government a a list of things to keep their hands off of. There is a preamble to the bill of rights:
. . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
I have a right to be secure in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, [that] shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." When are we going to wake up and realize that this statement is from us to them and not the other way around?
Anything less is tyrany. PERIOD. I actually met Michael Badnarik last night in Green Bay, WI. I asked him a question about what the priorities of his administration would be. He said among other things "I'm going to wrap the constitution around a bat and show it to them real close." Now THAT is my kind of president.
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info 2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (90%) Click here for info 3. Cobb, David - Green Party (47%) Click here for info 4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (47%) Click here for info 5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (40%) Click here for info 6. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info 7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (34%) Click here for info 8. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (33%) Click here for info
It's already in the bill of rights (Fourth Amendment):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . .."
That first part tells it all. Privacy is a right, just like my guns. But since very few people understand the difference between rights and privileges, we the people get screwed time after time.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been saying this all along. The only debate that seems to be out there is which government should control the Internet. The best answer is NONE. Not the US, not the EU, but private citizens. Once Gov't gets their dirty little claws on a thing, you see things like China's little section of the Internet.
I honestly don't believe that any government has the right to control it. What needs to happen is for private citizens to take it back.
It's not society's job to determine what's detrimental to the well being of minors - it's the parents. Laws and regulations will never make a dent in behavior. However, it does make for a nice bank account ballance for the lawyers.
Laws and regulations just shift responsability from the one's that have the most direct impact in a child's life (the parents) to "society". For some reason everyone thinks it's better whan it is "our" problem.
Clear nail polish or superglue in the USB port usually fixes this issue.
Also, anyone that puts a PC with a CD burner into an environment where you need to control who has the data should be kicked in the privates.
"The world of the future will be an evermore demanding struggle against the limitations of our intellegence, not a comfortable hyammock in which we can lie down to be waited upon by our robot slaves."
-Norbert Weiner (1894-1964)
Each suceeding generation begins a couple steps ahead of the old. That shift in point of origin allows the younger generations to view the old's accomplishments as the beginning of something more, while the old can only see the tremendous effort it required.
Think Doctor in a Hospital with electronic medical records. Such a small device would be a perfect fit in such an environment. as for Slashdotters using it - well, geekfactor is kinda high. . . :)
No they will make a new 802.11 zed standard.
This isn't much to go on, and pellet storage of H has been around for a while.
What would make this really interesting and useful is the ease of recharging the pellets. Hydrogen is nothing but a energy storage media after all (it takes energy to extract it from water, natural gas). Imagine solar panels on the top of your car recharging the pellets while your parked - Just add water. That is really the breakthrough we need.
Of course they have - The whole core is ice!! Now, hot looking mutants is the find I'm looking for!
Once upon a time I worked as a sys admin for an engineering company, and man those guys were into creative destruction with their laptops.
1. Had an one guy dump a cup of coffee into his laptop. Nothing new there, right? We'll he tried to clean it out with solvent. I've never seen such a gooey mess.
2. One engineer actually ran over their laptop with their car.
3. Had one pack theirs in the checked in luggage at the airport because it was too heavy to carry around. Ever see the Sampsonite commercial where the monkey tossed luggage around? Aparently he hadn't.
4. One programmer was working on the logic board of a conveyor system and had their laptop plugged in to the serial port, but the only place to put the laptop was on a HUGE magnet designed to stop metal trays. Guess what Einstein triggered?
5. P0rn, p0rn, p0rn - 'nuff said.
Lots more stories than anywhere else I worked at. Those guys averaged a new laptop every six months.
"the work belongs to the public by default."
No, it doesn't. If I create something, it is mine not the public's. If I want to lease it to you I can. If I want to put restrictions, such as an EULA, I can. It is my effort that created it, and I'll be damned if I'll let anyone tell me how I can or cannot distribute the fruit of my tallent, labor, or time. I can also chose to give it away for free.
We have choice and that is it. If you don't like my restrictions, then don't spend the money on my works. It is mine. I created it. My rules. You have no say in what I do with my own and are not entitled to it in any way that I don't agree with.
How would this be different if I built a house? If I sold it to you stating that I can spend the night on every Wednesday, and you go ahead and buy the house I built you had better not complain when I show up with a pillow and a blankie. Just because it is inconvenient to you after the sale doesn't invalidate the agreement. If you buy DRMed stuff, don't whine about it later.
Make me a Stradavarius then.
Copyrights, patents, etc. were the tradeoff between keeping secrets and enhancing public knowledge in exchange for a limited monopoly. At least originally. Those bounds have been grossly enlarged, but were designed to protect the knowledge by discouraging secrets.
If an artist wants to sell their works without somone "ripping" it, what do you care? If they want to DRM them, who are you to tell them no? If someone goes through the creative effort, they should be able to DRM it if they so chose. Don't like it, don't buy it or use it. That is your choice. I'll bet you still go to movies and support the "evil masters" though.
Creating an open source DRM only maximizes the choices available. It is still up to the artists. Without something like this, you'll never see the open source systems be able to play DRM'ed works. That hurts everyone and makes for less choice.
Opening up DRM to the opensource community is a good step forward. It is still up to the artists to use it or not. If this is not embraced, then the community will suffer.
While I agree that stuff should be open, it is up to the artists to protect their work. Giving them open source alternatives is additional choice, and choice is always good.
The weather reports YOU! I just couldn't stop myself.
I here ya. I'm convinced there is a point where anything new I learn will push out something old at random. Still waiting for the day I forget how to tie those thingies that dangle from my shoes.
Same here. I haven't watched TV for about 2 years and I don't miss it at all. Well Southpark, but I'll get the DVDs instead.
Seriously, anything I need is on the Internet and more. Broadcast flag, TiVo shenanigans, MPAA, etc. Fsck 'em all and just don't watch I say.
This is cool, but could it be improved with a laser? I've seen some that can produce messages, but does anyone know anythat could produce text and images on such a large scale?
Folks, I WAS[*] the security guy for a large datacenter. It is all about CYOA. Security folks have no authority - no problem. When I issue my security report on "really fscked up project" or "retardedly configured server" the manager gets to sign off on it. Making the higher ups sign of on risk acceptance is what I like to call a "shit deflector." Kinda hard to dodge stuff like that.
[*] Security, we don't need no stinkin security!
This is not the "end of story" unfortunatly. Without any due process whatsoever, this person will have their rights restricted. Ask Sen. Kennedy how easy it is to get off the no fly list. While I admit it was kinda stupid, even the S.S. thought it was harmless. Why the FBI file? Why the possibility of a phone tap? This is a severe curtailment of the 4th and 5th amendments.
The definition of reasonable:
A peace officer should have probable cause for asking me for my ID. Unfortunatly "shouldn't" isn't "can't". If a police officer asks me for an ID, I respond "What is the problem, officer?" The fact that everybody else in the country seems to feel that they must obey every request put to them is one of the biggest problems in this country (USA). I do live in the real world, and I respectfully challenge situations like this whenever they present themselves. I have yet to be arrested or charged with a crime. Government officials have no business in my affairs without probable cause. Drag me away and lock me up forever, but I will not submit without atleast some effort to defend my rights.
". . . courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security."
Umm, last I checked I had rights. The bill of rights was not written for us, it was written for government a a list of things to keep their hands off of. There is a preamble to the bill of rights:
I have a right to be secure in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, [that] shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." When are we going to wake up and realize that this statement is from us to them and not the other way around?
Anything less is tyrany. PERIOD. I actually met Michael Badnarik last night in Green Bay, WI. I asked him a question about what the priorities of his administration would be. He said among other things "I'm going to wrap the constitution around a bat and show it to them real close." Now THAT is my kind of president.
". . . becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents."
And how exactly do you determine that without everyone voting for the candidate who most matches their views on how things should be run in goverment?
The whole notion of "spoilerism" offends me personally because it assumes that my vote isn't mine - that it somehow belongs to the "collective"
This is one pissed off elector who will not be assimilated. Period.
All is as it should be:
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (90%) Click here for info
3. Cobb, David - Green Party (47%) Click here for info
4. Nader, Ralph - Independent (47%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (40%) Click here for info
6. Bush, President George W. - Republican (37%) Click here for info
7. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (34%) Click here for info
8. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (33%) Click here for info
It's already in the bill of rights (Fourth Amendment):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . . ."
That first part tells it all. Privacy is a right, just like my guns. But since very few people understand the difference between rights and privileges, we the people get screwed time after time.
They have a backup unit
How about going back to school when your over 30? Oh yeah, me and the wife now live in Dad's basement. Great quality of life, that.