You'd need more than a quart, unless you live in a doghouse or something.
Obviously more than just a quart, I can't believe you actually took the time to reply just to say that.
But you still would likely only need a fraction of the amount it would take to paint the same area with regular housepaint. The reason being reglar paint is for aesthetic and protective purposes and needs many layers to do those jobs. The solar cell "paint" would only be able to convert to energy light that strikes its top surface (AFAIK low wavelength light - which this tech takes advantage of - is not a good penetrator) so multiple layers would do you no good. Most likely you would put down a few base coats of regular color paint, spray a fine layer of solar paint, then a clear sealing IR-permiable layer to protect the solar paint from chipping or wearing. For the record YMMV but it'll be a few gallons since we're being pedantic.:P
Neither article makes any mention of how expensive this new film is to produce. Granted, it is still in the development stages, but nanoparticles can be very costly to manufacture, mostly because the controls involved in producing such precise chemistry (in this case nano-rods 8 carbon atoms long) usually prohibit large-sale batch making techniques. Unless/until these particles can be mass produced cheaply, it will likely be just as cost-prohibitive as current solar panel tech.
I would love to be able to buy a quart of Rustoleum Outdoor SolarPaint (TM), and just apply it to the sunny side of my house and plug it into the grid, but I have a feeling it'll be decades before I can do that w/o applying for a second mortgage for just the paint!
Personally I think people should be sentenced for their actions, not for their actions combined with their good luck in not killing someone
Part of that means evaluating intent and how reckless one's actions actually were. By your logic I should also get 2 years in prison for speeding because I might have been cut off and was unable to slow down in time and caused a fatal car accident. A person cannot be sentenced based soley on outcomes that may or may not have occurred as a result of their actions. Yes, those outcomes should be taken into account, doing something clearly dangerous, such as drunk driving, will net you a harsher sentence than just speeding, but you cannot prosecute to the worst case scenario everytime, otherwise everyone would be in jail.
The guy who drives home drunk and the guy who drives home drunk and runs someone over - what did they do differently? Nothing.
I beg to differ, one of them ran someone over, that's clearly different. Their intentions - to get home w/o hitting anything - were the same, their bad judgement in choosing to drive drunk was the same, but the outcomes were different. Which only further demonstrates that the worst-case doesn't always happen so we can't assume it always will. What about a farmer who drives home drunk down a deserted dirt road from the bar to his farm? Does he deserve 2 years as well even though no one else lived or travelled on that road?
One last point, a kid I used to know from college was arrested for drunk driving and had his license taken away for a year, plus had to attend some AA meetings and take a class given by the state police. Let me tell you, after 12 months of having to find rides to work, or to go out anywhere, and after all thsoe meetings, he sure as hell learned his lesson. It was a huge burden not being able to drive. He got lucky and didn't hurt anyone when he was DUI, and the system gave him a second chance with some penalties. I argue that he learned his lesson w/o having to spend two years in jail. Two years that may have cost him his life, definitely would have cost him his job and future jobs, and probably would have screwed him up pretty badly.
Yes, I would feel differently, but that's probably because the circumstances would be different, wouldn't they?
I think we need to look at what is the most effective way to go about "protecting the public from this fucktard." And that means cost-effective too. Although we know the consequences of his actions could have been much worse, it seems like (thus far from what little we know) his motivations were along the lines of a harmless prank. Does that make it harmless? Fuck no! Should he get some serious fines and jailtime to teach him this lesson? Hell yes! But if he really was just a doofis with really really bad judgement then he won't do it again after a few years making nice with people who murder for fun. Putting him away for 25 years is only justified if the court decides he's likely to keep doing this and he needs to be locked up to prevent him from doing it. But if he's just a moron then teach him his lesson in a couple years time then free up his cell for someone who really does need to be kept totally out of society.
Sucks to be him sure, but you need to either argue that we should never make examples of anyone (which has a cost) or argue that the example won't be effective.
You're right, I was vague about that point, but I make these up as I go, heh, no one who took the time to really craft a response would get one up in time to be modded otherwise. I think my point was that while an example may be required, there is a balance between a reasonable punishment and an effective example. A balance that a 25 year sentence in this case broadly oversteps.
If we take a look at what 'making an example of someone' means here it's does the cost of getting caught prevent someone from pulling the prank? Most anyone would agree 5 to 10 years is plenty to dissuade 99.9% of the idiots out there. Anyone who still decides it's a good idea with even that length of sentence would probably not be swayed by another 15 years tacked on. I mean, hell, why not just give him life, that'll set an example.
What we need to do is find that middle ground where the sentence is strict enough that both the crook and others learn a lesson, but that does not needlessly burden our system with yet another "criminal" who would be better off out paying taxes instead of using them in federal prison and taking up the bunk of someone who rapes/murders/commits intentional terrorism.
As others have pointed out, though, the 25 years possible sentence is the result of a number of charges strung together, which includes lying to a federal officer. In the end though, people are going to read the headlines and equate lasing an airplane with whatever the jailtime is, regardless of what the details of the charges were.
I don't know which FA you R'd, but the USA Today article linked in the post does not say this
Sorry, didn't have a link handy at the time, I actually read the wired article before I found this thread on/. I also remember reading something about this the day it occurred which also stated that the pilots were "temporarily blinded" though I cannot recall what source, sorry. I think by temporarily blinded they mean an effect similar to when your asshole friend sets off a camera flash in your eyes, rather than something requiring medical treatment or lasting longer than possibly a minute or two. This, at least, is how I interpret it, and given the nature of a being flashed momentarily with a laser, is probably all it amounted to.
Unless the pilots were tripping balls, in which case the laser would have definitely provided a temporary distraction: "dude, whoa, check out that trippy light over there.... oh man, now my mouth is like, totally full of cotton.";)
yeah and no chance of the pilots making their shit up?
[...] come on people. at least screw with a solid state laser long enough to know what we are talking about before you start making shit up. [...] the pilots saw the dot in the cockpit... from 2 miles away without heavy and specific stabilization equipment that is 100% impossible.
First off, they found the man who was in fact shining a green laser at air vehicles, so it's doubtful that the pilots made it up, and what would they stand to gain by fabricating such a story?
Secondly, no one said it was a solid state laser, at least not in the article that I read. His lawyer claims he bought the laser online for $100 and its intended use was for testing fiber optic cable. Granted, $100 for a green laser pointer sounds about right for a solid state job from thinkgeek, but it's possible either he or his lawyer is lying. Maybe he does have a green pen laser and that's what he turned over to police, but the one he used on the plane could have been a 500mW gas laser he bought after he decided the penlight didn't do it for him?
Additionally, the wired article says the incident occured on approach at 3,000 feet, which - if we assume a ground angle of 30 degrees - means the beam could have travelled as little as roughly 6,000 ft, just over one mile. A 100mW laser at that distance would still be enough to flashblind someone for a few moments if it got them in the eyes.
While I agree that all of this should be taken with a grain of salt, and that we're all arguing with too little information, this story is not impossible or even implausible.
First off, I did RTFA, and for those that didn't here's why a long prison sentence is warranted, whether it whould be for 25 years I will get to.
The man who was arrested was caught because he shined the same green laser into the cockpit of a helicopter that was surveying the area to discover the origin of the laser that temporarily blinded the pilots of the airliner. They were able to find his location because of this, and incidentally he blamed the helicopter lasing on his daughter. So here we have not just poor judgement or a one-time prank, but a guy who was shining a very bright laser (according to article it was used to test fiber optic cables) at pretty much anything that flew overhead. If he had just done it once he likely would have never been caught and it could be written off as poor judgement.
Because of this I think his sentence should be more than just a slap on the wrist, definitely some heavy fines, maybe a few years jail time depending on what motives they discover for his actions. However, if it turns out he was just a jerk, or an idiot, or whatever and wasn't trying to bring down aircraft, then the maximum 25 year sentence is definitely too long. What I fear is that to make an example of him and to stop others who seem to think lasing planes is a fun idea (reports from multiple other airports of similar events) is that the government will hit him with the max or near max penalty.
I have to wonder, making examples of criminals or not, how some judges can justify these extreme jail sentences? The criminal learns his lesson for sure, but is effectively never given the chance to apply that lesson. In 25 years the man will be so old as to almost be ready for social security, and with a criminal record he'll be lucky if greeter at Walmart is even available to him. What the system has done now is taken an otherwise productive (granted rather stupid for his actions) member of society, burned a ton of taxpayer $$ on him for 25 years, then released him to be a further drain on the system.
At what point will someone - the american people, congress, other judges - say enough is enough and start setting limits on jail sentences to times that make sense? If this guy is guilty of nothing more than the airline equivalent of chucking rocks over the freeway as a dumb prank then I'm pretty sure 5 to 10 years in the fed pen will be quite enough to ensure he doesn't shine a laser anywhere again. Even 5 years is a sizable chunk of someone's life, and prison is no fun place to spend it, plus getting one's life back on track after such a sentence will be hard enough. It's time to stop this "War on X" mentality that the justice system has taken and give non-violent offenders a chance to learn from their actions and apply those lessons in their lifetime instead of overcrowding prisons and sucking up taxpayer dollars.
Anyway, this rant is mostly concerned with if this guy turns out to be just a beavis/butthead type who got his hands on a laser and gets the 25 yrs. If he gets a more appropriate sentence length, or if his actions were in fact malicious then I guess this rant is moot. But there seems to be a trend in our courts to just throw people away forever, which in the end really doesn't teach a very long lesson since those people never get out to tell others to not follow their example.
Besides, there weren't any complaints about the pilots being blinded by the lasers but rather, consern that the laser could represent someone aiming at the plain with a gun.
I know the/. article did not provide a link to the actual article, but you're making some rather strong incorrect statements. I did RTFA and (A) the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot. Apparently either the angle of laser relative to the cockpit was such that it went in, or else there was some unlucky refraction/reflection. (B) There was no concern that this represented someone pointing a gun at the plane, there was concern that terrorists were trying to blind pilots to cause them to crash. Although the investigators did state that they do not believe the actions of the suspect in this case to be terrorist.
A lot of people seem to think this tool will be useless or unused by the unwashed masses, which holds a certain amount of truth. One argument being if you're dumb enough to fall for a phishing scam, you're probably not aware enough to know to protect yourself in the first place, or if you've already got firefox installed you're already savvy enough to not fall for them.
Speaking as my family tech support geek (which I think most of us on/. can relate to) I think this tool will be highly useful for people who know nothing about phishing scams as yet another barrier *I* will install for them.
While a year wouldn't be enough time to educate all my relatives and friends on the various and ever-changing intricacies of PC web security, it's very useful to be able to install an app and tell them 'Look, if this thing pops up a big red warning, do what it says so you don't get a virus!' I've switched over everyone in my family to Firefox, all they care about is that it works pretty much the same for their needs as IE did. The google toolbar to block popups, zone alaram to catch other nasties, autorunning spybot and a coolwebsearch sweeper - these are all programs that make their web use look savvy but they ultimately have very little knowledge about. Now that my mom has started using the internet to buy things, no doubt she'll eventually get a phishing scam at some point relating to eBay or Amazon, with this toolbar hopefully now I can just set it and forget it and not worry as much that she's going to give all her bank info to some fake eBay site.
Hello, how is this different than R-rated movies today? [...] What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).
I'm not up on current movie laws but as far as I know (and as far as a 5 minute google search yielded) you can't be sent to jail or fined by the government (i.e. courts) for allowing a minor to view/rent/buy an R rated movie.
Now there may be penalties at the theater/store level, you might get fired from ABC Cinemas, but you will not be prosecuted in a court of law. This bill seeks to impose fines and jail time for providing violent video games to minors. Games that are rated the equivalent of an R movie, mind you. That is completely rediculous. And I guarantee that the physical, mental, and social damage done to the clerk in prison will far outweigh any sort of harm done to the kid because he was allowed to play Mortal Combat: Deadly Alliance.
This whole issue needs to be put into perspective, because there are a lot more violent/harmful influences acting on kids than video games. As others have said in this thread, things like the nightly news, TV movies, and your local library contain as much, if not more, violent content than any videogame you can name. And last I knew, you can still go check out any of Stephen King's books from your public library w/o being over 18. And I've read a lot of those books, and there is some evil stuff in there.
Additionally I think it's very easily argued that porn, tobacco, and alcohol are much more directly harmful than playing a violent video game. When a number of reputable and repeatable studies come out proving (not just demonstrating) that violent video games are just as harmful as any one of porn/smokes/booze then there is an argument to be made in favor of this law. Until then the state has no business imposing legal penalties on selling games and not every other form of media. And I think it's very easy to see that placing such restrictions and penalties on all forms of media is totally ludicrous.
Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?
Short answer? Nope, probably not ever.
Seriously, how long has the scifi channel been around? About 10 years now? Doesn't really matter, I was excited when I first heard about it. 'All right,' I thought, 'a whole channel devoted to shows I like, and they'll make their own series too, this will be great.' Wow, couldn't have been more wrong. I don't watch Farscape so I don't know if that's a scifi original or not, but barring that one show I have never seen a single scifi channel original - series, movie, anything - that was tolerable, let alone good. Terrible writing, awful actors (do they get these people fresh out of dental commercials or what?), and downright stupid "special" effects - I've rotoscoped lightsabers in paintshoppro that look better than half the weapons effects I see on scifi. And the cinematography and directing is just as lamentable. I think that's what really kills me, is that I can't find even one facet of most of these shows that's worthy of any sort of praise.
I stopped even bothering to tune in any more, I just skip over it like a home shopping channel. Honestly, if something like a decade of awful shows hasn't forced them to change their ways, what possibly could at this point?
To further muddy the waters, consider that digital photography, like p2p applications and globalization, is fast-growing and un-stoppable. There's no magical way to prevent someone from taking your picture. In the end, your picture can be taken whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Ha! I found away around it. I just watched this freeky video a friend of mine brought over, something about a girl and horses, some lady brushing her hair.... Really weird, then some creepy kid called me right afterword looking for Kevin Hayes or something. I dunno, that was last friday, but ever since my face shows up all blurry whenever someone takes my picture. Take that technology!
BTW, if anyone knows how to disinfect monitors w/o breaking them, please drop me a line, flies keep coming out of my screen for some reason.
I've said before that the US space program should build a permanent moonbase before we attempt to send people on an extended expedition to Mars. It would give us the opportunity to practice for the Mars mission in a simulated Martian environment much closer to any we've created on Earth, with the added benefit that if something goes wrong the crew would be seven days away from help, instead of seven months.
Could this new invention/process be the argument that finally makes people realize the usefulness of such an intermediate step before we race off to the red planet? Besides the ability to produce their own breathable air from lunar rocks for sustained occupancy, the base could double as a fueling station, producing liquid oxygen for the ISS for breathing, fuel, etc. It might even become practical to use such a base as the staging location for the actual Mars mission. It would be much easier to do in-space assembly of a Mars super-ship with a low-gravity (as opposed to the microgravity of orbit) "Factory" available on the moon, shuttling pieces to the ship in lunar orbit.
We've had the technology to setup a permanent presence on the moon for some time, I want to see it happen just for the cool factor, but I think there's plenty of scientific and exploration reasons. Maybe now that the moon can be used to actually produce something we will take advantage of that. Here's hoping.
It was cancelled because the majority of people did not think it was superb.
While there is certainly merit to this argument, I think a huge part of the problem was lack of awareness. I never even heard about FireFly until months after it was cancelled, along with most of my other geek friends. Having watched the entire DVD set I can say with no reservations it was leaps and bounds better (IMHO) than at least two of the major sci-fi franchises currently out there; SG1 and Enterprise.
It needed some work as well, but a second (or even just a full first) season would have gone a long way to smoothing out any wrinkles. The groundwork was all laid, the characters had depth and were believable, there was an evil empire to hate, space pirates, and there was less than usual number of abominations of physics than we see in most space sci-fi. Not to mention a whole social caste of high-class call girls, who couldn't get behind that?
I think what may have turned a lot of viewers off was the character-centric nature of the stories, too much "mushy stuff" for geeks to handle apparently. I don't know about others but after decades of hour long episodes devoted to finding a clever way of rebooting warp drives in record time, or decoding a signal before some hostile race killed everyone; some serious focus on characters and emotion - and how the future world actually affects people - was a welcome change.
Before I get flooded with responses berrating me for blatantly ignoring the humanitarian aspects of ST:TNG and the like, I know, they're there. And I love TNG, and DS9, don't get me wrong. But there was just something about FireFly that has been somehow lacking in scifi for a long time.
You are completely wrong. As per the game EULA, NC Interactive owns the characters, even though it's the users that made them. Therefore, the company owns the infringing work, and they are the ones who should be sued. They're not being sued for providing a tool, they're being sued for claiming ownership and using characters they don't actually own.
I don't think I'm completely wrong. But as I don't play CoH I haven't read the EULA. The EULA claiming blanket ownership, however, creates an interesting grey area.
From the article: "The argument can still be made that ``City of Heroes'' is only empowering users to the same degree that an establishment like Kinkos enables customers to make paper copies of copyrighted material, said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Although Kinkos doesn't claim ownership over copies that customers make, so the question here becomes: are the game creaters responsible for the copyright infringement caused by the users? Or, to put it another way, is it their responsibilty to specifically police the copyright of others? If you argue that, yes, they must set up controls to prevent all infringement of others' IP then you set a dangerous precident for almost every other industry, along the lines of some other posters' comments how bic could be liable because they don't expressly prevent you from drawing something that infringes someone's IP.
If CoH is using these infringing avatars to advertise or promote their game, or otherwise profit from those specific likenesses, then I would say that yes, they are infringing and are liable. However if these are simply just players' personal avatars and they aren't seen by anyone not actually playing the game then I don't think it's their fault if users are creating copyrighted heros.
Where do we draw the line with who is at fault here? While it may be reasonable for NCSoft to include a statement in the EULA to the effect of "we do not condone IP infringement, don't do it, blah blah, legalese" I don't think they should be required to police for it.
The bic pen argument is unrealistic, there is still quite a bit of skill and commitment required on the part of the pen user to infringe IP by drawing a character, but what about something like a digital scanner? They can be used quite easily to infringe copyright, and they now prevent people from scanning in images of currency, so we know there's a way for them to prevent copying of certain images. However there is a huge difference between forging legal tender and reprinting a magazine photo. If one argues that NCSoft must police for all infringement then makers of digital scanners must as well along similar arguments.
This also opens up a whole new area of extortion, whereby digital vandals could insert copyrighted content into someone else's system and then turn them in.
Like I said, this seems to be a new grey area under the law, there doesn't look to be any simple solution, but suing NCSoft for characters foisted upon them by others doesn't sound right either.
Marvel, DC, whatever, replace my character references with ones that Marvel owns and my point still holds true. Until you feel like registering on/. I suggest you follow your own advice.
This strikes me as being extremely similar to the lawsuits that the RIAA originally brought against peer-to-peer software makers, as well as the intent of the INDUCE Act. In this case it is not the company who is violating copyright, they are merely providing a tool that can be used by the end-users to infringe copyright.
I would think that given the recent court rulings (no time to find relevant links) that have indemnified P2P creators against infringement suits, that as soon as this goes to court it will just be thrown out. Have we learned nothing from the RIAA??
Does this mean perhaps we'll soon start seeing CoH gamers receiving subpoenas because their Akwa|\/|an character is too close to the original for the tastes of Marvel? This, IMHO, is going waaay too far. I suspect the submitter may be right about Marvel pulling this crap just to lay the way for their own game, why else would they really care if some kid in middle America has a digital avatar somewhere that resembles Superman? No one in-game is going to somehow confuse that character as being Marvel's licensed original.
I remember playing with legos, and still see them on the market today.
No offense to the parent, but why did this get modded insightful? I think they were going for funny maybe?
So as not to be offtopic I will add that the new star wars lego ships are amazing. I mean, come on, who doesn't need a 3000+ piece lego star destroyer? In fact, I need whole fleet of them. Ooooh, and you could get a couple kits and build yourself a super star destroyer!
The 20th anniversary edition Optimus Prime is fantastic! The chest opens to reveal the matrix which lights up and can be removed and opened. The wheels have spring shocks, his mouth plate moves (identical movement to the animation) so you can make him talk. Tons more detail on everything, and his joints are quite flexible, more posable than most action figures out there, plus individual fingers!
And of course he still transforms into one bad-ass semi.
4530 is nothing compared to all the votes that I knocked off when I hacked that Florida machine. [...] Anyway, thanks/. for giving me all the info about evoting fraud that I needed before the election. I was expecting for it not to work, but the machines are dead fuckin simple.
Come on now, do you really expect us to believe a 1337 h4xx0r tampered with votes.... and voted Republican??
Of course, as a random SlashDot poster, I'm sure you're more aware of the issues surrounding it than experienced engineers.
A good point, except that I happen to be a professional engineer whose job is developing and programming automated robotic systems, so here, yes, I do have experience.
You're probably boned if you lose either; so what? Are you somehow under the impression that having *more* parts you're dependent on makes for a more reliable system?
While more parts can mean more places for failure, it also offers more places for redundant engineering to prevent failure. Anytime you put two systems in one, if you lose one (fatally) you lose the other, period. Let's say the fanfold motors turn out to be buggy, but the IBE motor you would have otherwise attached the antenna to was good. Now your buggy motor in a previously unrelated system has ruined your communications. In general it's never as easy to run Thing A on Thing B, as it is to just run Thing A. As far as the actual design goes, if it's very similar to Beagle II then I would argue that the fold-out solar panels are one of the systems more likely to be damaged during entry. It would make more sense to put something as critical as the communications antenna in the middle where it is less likely to be damaged. Also, if you lose a directional axis on the solar panel you just lose some collection efficiency. However, if that same solar panel has the antenna, you've also lost the ability to aim it properly and probably lose most or all of your transmission ability.
As to the solar panels, I agree, the article was rather vague on the actual configuration and the sentence could have been interpretted also as the new design has four but only really needs two. Hard to say. But hey, if I can't play armchair QB on slashdot, then where else can I? Also, given the fate of the last Beagle - MIA on another planet - I think a little scrunity may be called for in the redesign, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Since we're talking about the BBC, wouldn't something more like Bits-Bytes-and-Cockney be more appropriate?
hehehe.... cockney.
Obviously more than just a quart, I can't believe you actually took the time to reply just to say that.
But you still would likely only need a fraction of the amount it would take to paint the same area with regular housepaint. The reason being reglar paint is for aesthetic and protective purposes and needs many layers to do those jobs. The solar cell "paint" would only be able to convert to energy light that strikes its top surface (AFAIK low wavelength light - which this tech takes advantage of - is not a good penetrator) so multiple layers would do you no good. Most likely you would put down a few base coats of regular color paint, spray a fine layer of solar paint, then a clear sealing IR-permiable layer to protect the solar paint from chipping or wearing. For the record YMMV but it'll be a few gallons since we're being pedantic. :P
I would love to be able to buy a quart of Rustoleum Outdoor SolarPaint (TM), and just apply it to the sunny side of my house and plug it into the grid, but I have a feeling it'll be decades before I can do that w/o applying for a second mortgage for just the paint!
Part of that means evaluating intent and how reckless one's actions actually were. By your logic I should also get 2 years in prison for speeding because I might have been cut off and was unable to slow down in time and caused a fatal car accident. A person cannot be sentenced based soley on outcomes that may or may not have occurred as a result of their actions. Yes, those outcomes should be taken into account, doing something clearly dangerous, such as drunk driving, will net you a harsher sentence than just speeding, but you cannot prosecute to the worst case scenario everytime, otherwise everyone would be in jail.
The guy who drives home drunk and the guy who drives home drunk and runs someone over - what did they do differently? Nothing.
I beg to differ, one of them ran someone over, that's clearly different. Their intentions - to get home w/o hitting anything - were the same, their bad judgement in choosing to drive drunk was the same, but the outcomes were different. Which only further demonstrates that the worst-case doesn't always happen so we can't assume it always will. What about a farmer who drives home drunk down a deserted dirt road from the bar to his farm? Does he deserve 2 years as well even though no one else lived or travelled on that road?
One last point, a kid I used to know from college was arrested for drunk driving and had his license taken away for a year, plus had to attend some AA meetings and take a class given by the state police. Let me tell you, after 12 months of having to find rides to work, or to go out anywhere, and after all thsoe meetings, he sure as hell learned his lesson. It was a huge burden not being able to drive. He got lucky and didn't hurt anyone when he was DUI, and the system gave him a second chance with some penalties. I argue that he learned his lesson w/o having to spend two years in jail. Two years that may have cost him his life, definitely would have cost him his job and future jobs, and probably would have screwed him up pretty badly.
I think we need to look at what is the most effective way to go about "protecting the public from this fucktard." And that means cost-effective too. Although we know the consequences of his actions could have been much worse, it seems like (thus far from what little we know) his motivations were along the lines of a harmless prank. Does that make it harmless? Fuck no! Should he get some serious fines and jailtime to teach him this lesson? Hell yes! But if he really was just a doofis with really really bad judgement then he won't do it again after a few years making nice with people who murder for fun. Putting him away for 25 years is only justified if the court decides he's likely to keep doing this and he needs to be locked up to prevent him from doing it. But if he's just a moron then teach him his lesson in a couple years time then free up his cell for someone who really does need to be kept totally out of society.
You're right, I was vague about that point, but I make these up as I go, heh, no one who took the time to really craft a response would get one up in time to be modded otherwise. I think my point was that while an example may be required, there is a balance between a reasonable punishment and an effective example. A balance that a 25 year sentence in this case broadly oversteps.
If we take a look at what 'making an example of someone' means here it's does the cost of getting caught prevent someone from pulling the prank? Most anyone would agree 5 to 10 years is plenty to dissuade 99.9% of the idiots out there. Anyone who still decides it's a good idea with even that length of sentence would probably not be swayed by another 15 years tacked on. I mean, hell, why not just give him life, that'll set an example.
What we need to do is find that middle ground where the sentence is strict enough that both the crook and others learn a lesson, but that does not needlessly burden our system with yet another "criminal" who would be better off out paying taxes instead of using them in federal prison and taking up the bunk of someone who rapes/murders/commits intentional terrorism.
As others have pointed out, though, the 25 years possible sentence is the result of a number of charges strung together, which includes lying to a federal officer. In the end though, people are going to read the headlines and equate lasing an airplane with whatever the jailtime is, regardless of what the details of the charges were.
Sorry, didn't have a link handy at the time, I actually read the wired article before I found this thread on /. I also remember reading something about this the day it occurred which also stated that the pilots were "temporarily blinded" though I cannot recall what source, sorry. I think by temporarily blinded they mean an effect similar to when your asshole friend sets off a camera flash in your eyes, rather than something requiring medical treatment or lasting longer than possibly a minute or two. This, at least, is how I interpret it, and given the nature of a being flashed momentarily with a laser, is probably all it amounted to.
Unless the pilots were tripping balls, in which case the laser would have definitely provided a temporary distraction: "dude, whoa, check out that trippy light over there.... oh man, now my mouth is like, totally full of cotton." ;)
First off, they found the man who was in fact shining a green laser at air vehicles, so it's doubtful that the pilots made it up, and what would they stand to gain by fabricating such a story?
Secondly, no one said it was a solid state laser, at least not in the article that I read. His lawyer claims he bought the laser online for $100 and its intended use was for testing fiber optic cable. Granted, $100 for a green laser pointer sounds about right for a solid state job from thinkgeek, but it's possible either he or his lawyer is lying. Maybe he does have a green pen laser and that's what he turned over to police, but the one he used on the plane could have been a 500mW gas laser he bought after he decided the penlight didn't do it for him?
Additionally, the wired article says the incident occured on approach at 3,000 feet, which - if we assume a ground angle of 30 degrees - means the beam could have travelled as little as roughly 6,000 ft, just over one mile. A 100mW laser at that distance would still be enough to flashblind someone for a few moments if it got them in the eyes.
While I agree that all of this should be taken with a grain of salt, and that we're all arguing with too little information, this story is not impossible or even implausible.
The man who was arrested was caught because he shined the same green laser into the cockpit of a helicopter that was surveying the area to discover the origin of the laser that temporarily blinded the pilots of the airliner. They were able to find his location because of this, and incidentally he blamed the helicopter lasing on his daughter. So here we have not just poor judgement or a one-time prank, but a guy who was shining a very bright laser (according to article it was used to test fiber optic cables) at pretty much anything that flew overhead. If he had just done it once he likely would have never been caught and it could be written off as poor judgement.
Because of this I think his sentence should be more than just a slap on the wrist, definitely some heavy fines, maybe a few years jail time depending on what motives they discover for his actions. However, if it turns out he was just a jerk, or an idiot, or whatever and wasn't trying to bring down aircraft, then the maximum 25 year sentence is definitely too long. What I fear is that to make an example of him and to stop others who seem to think lasing planes is a fun idea (reports from multiple other airports of similar events) is that the government will hit him with the max or near max penalty.
I have to wonder, making examples of criminals or not, how some judges can justify these extreme jail sentences? The criminal learns his lesson for sure, but is effectively never given the chance to apply that lesson. In 25 years the man will be so old as to almost be ready for social security, and with a criminal record he'll be lucky if greeter at Walmart is even available to him. What the system has done now is taken an otherwise productive (granted rather stupid for his actions) member of society, burned a ton of taxpayer $$ on him for 25 years, then released him to be a further drain on the system.
At what point will someone - the american people, congress, other judges - say enough is enough and start setting limits on jail sentences to times that make sense? If this guy is guilty of nothing more than the airline equivalent of chucking rocks over the freeway as a dumb prank then I'm pretty sure 5 to 10 years in the fed pen will be quite enough to ensure he doesn't shine a laser anywhere again. Even 5 years is a sizable chunk of someone's life, and prison is no fun place to spend it, plus getting one's life back on track after such a sentence will be hard enough. It's time to stop this "War on X" mentality that the justice system has taken and give non-violent offenders a chance to learn from their actions and apply those lessons in their lifetime instead of overcrowding prisons and sucking up taxpayer dollars.
Anyway, this rant is mostly concerned with if this guy turns out to be just a beavis/butthead type who got his hands on a laser and gets the 25 yrs. If he gets a more appropriate sentence length, or if his actions were in fact malicious then I guess this rant is moot. But there seems to be a trend in our courts to just throw people away forever, which in the end really doesn't teach a very long lesson since those people never get out to tell others to not follow their example.
I know the /. article did not provide a link to the actual article, but you're making some rather strong incorrect statements. I did RTFA and (A) the laser light entered the cockpit and temporarily blinded both the pilot and the co-pilot. Apparently either the angle of laser relative to the cockpit was such that it went in, or else there was some unlucky refraction/reflection. (B) There was no concern that this represented someone pointing a gun at the plane, there was concern that terrorists were trying to blind pilots to cause them to crash. Although the investigators did state that they do not believe the actions of the suspect in this case to be terrorist.
Speaking as my family tech support geek (which I think most of us on /. can relate to) I think this tool will be highly useful for people who know nothing about phishing scams as yet another barrier *I* will install for them.
While a year wouldn't be enough time to educate all my relatives and friends on the various and ever-changing intricacies of PC web security, it's very useful to be able to install an app and tell them 'Look, if this thing pops up a big red warning, do what it says so you don't get a virus!' I've switched over everyone in my family to Firefox, all they care about is that it works pretty much the same for their needs as IE did. The google toolbar to block popups, zone alaram to catch other nasties, autorunning spybot and a coolwebsearch sweeper - these are all programs that make their web use look savvy but they ultimately have very little knowledge about. Now that my mom has started using the internet to buy things, no doubt she'll eventually get a phishing scam at some point relating to eBay or Amazon, with this toolbar hopefully now I can just set it and forget it and not worry as much that she's going to give all her bank info to some fake eBay site.
What's the crazy backlash to this? It's absolutely sound to set up laws prohibiting sales of these games to minors (just as it prohibits sales of pr0n to minors).
I'm not up on current movie laws but as far as I know (and as far as a 5 minute google search yielded) you can't be sent to jail or fined by the government (i.e. courts) for allowing a minor to view/rent/buy an R rated movie.
Now there may be penalties at the theater/store level, you might get fired from ABC Cinemas, but you will not be prosecuted in a court of law. This bill seeks to impose fines and jail time for providing violent video games to minors. Games that are rated the equivalent of an R movie, mind you. That is completely rediculous. And I guarantee that the physical, mental, and social damage done to the clerk in prison will far outweigh any sort of harm done to the kid because he was allowed to play Mortal Combat: Deadly Alliance.
This whole issue needs to be put into perspective, because there are a lot more violent/harmful influences acting on kids than video games. As others have said in this thread, things like the nightly news, TV movies, and your local library contain as much, if not more, violent content than any videogame you can name. And last I knew, you can still go check out any of Stephen King's books from your public library w/o being over 18. And I've read a lot of those books, and there is some evil stuff in there.
Additionally I think it's very easily argued that porn, tobacco, and alcohol are much more directly harmful than playing a violent video game. When a number of reputable and repeatable studies come out proving (not just demonstrating) that violent video games are just as harmful as any one of porn/smokes/booze then there is an argument to be made in favor of this law. Until then the state has no business imposing legal penalties on selling games and not every other form of media. And I think it's very easy to see that placing such restrictions and penalties on all forms of media is totally ludicrous.
Short answer? Nope, probably not ever.
Seriously, how long has the scifi channel been around? About 10 years now? Doesn't really matter, I was excited when I first heard about it. 'All right,' I thought, 'a whole channel devoted to shows I like, and they'll make their own series too, this will be great.' Wow, couldn't have been more wrong. I don't watch Farscape so I don't know if that's a scifi original or not, but barring that one show I have never seen a single scifi channel original - series, movie, anything - that was tolerable, let alone good. Terrible writing, awful actors (do they get these people fresh out of dental commercials or what?), and downright stupid "special" effects - I've rotoscoped lightsabers in paintshoppro that look better than half the weapons effects I see on scifi. And the cinematography and directing is just as lamentable. I think that's what really kills me, is that I can't find even one facet of most of these shows that's worthy of any sort of praise.
I stopped even bothering to tune in any more, I just skip over it like a home shopping channel. Honestly, if something like a decade of awful shows hasn't forced them to change their ways, what possibly could at this point?
Ha! I found away around it. I just watched this freeky video a friend of mine brought over, something about a girl and horses, some lady brushing her hair.... Really weird, then some creepy kid called me right afterword looking for Kevin Hayes or something. I dunno, that was last friday, but ever since my face shows up all blurry whenever someone takes my picture. Take that technology!
BTW, if anyone knows how to disinfect monitors w/o breaking them, please drop me a line, flies keep coming out of my screen for some reason.
Could this new invention/process be the argument that finally makes people realize the usefulness of such an intermediate step before we race off to the red planet? Besides the ability to produce their own breathable air from lunar rocks for sustained occupancy, the base could double as a fueling station, producing liquid oxygen for the ISS for breathing, fuel, etc. It might even become practical to use such a base as the staging location for the actual Mars mission. It would be much easier to do in-space assembly of a Mars super-ship with a low-gravity (as opposed to the microgravity of orbit) "Factory" available on the moon, shuttling pieces to the ship in lunar orbit.
We've had the technology to setup a permanent presence on the moon for some time, I want to see it happen just for the cool factor, but I think there's plenty of scientific and exploration reasons. Maybe now that the moon can be used to actually produce something we will take advantage of that. Here's hoping.
While there is certainly merit to this argument, I think a huge part of the problem was lack of awareness. I never even heard about FireFly until months after it was cancelled, along with most of my other geek friends. Having watched the entire DVD set I can say with no reservations it was leaps and bounds better (IMHO) than at least two of the major sci-fi franchises currently out there; SG1 and Enterprise.
It needed some work as well, but a second (or even just a full first) season would have gone a long way to smoothing out any wrinkles. The groundwork was all laid, the characters had depth and were believable, there was an evil empire to hate, space pirates, and there was less than usual number of abominations of physics than we see in most space sci-fi. Not to mention a whole social caste of high-class call girls, who couldn't get behind that?
I think what may have turned a lot of viewers off was the character-centric nature of the stories, too much "mushy stuff" for geeks to handle apparently. I don't know about others but after decades of hour long episodes devoted to finding a clever way of rebooting warp drives in record time, or decoding a signal before some hostile race killed everyone; some serious focus on characters and emotion - and how the future world actually affects people - was a welcome change.
Before I get flooded with responses berrating me for blatantly ignoring the humanitarian aspects of ST:TNG and the like, I know, they're there. And I love TNG, and DS9, don't get me wrong. But there was just something about FireFly that has been somehow lacking in scifi for a long time.
I don't think I'm completely wrong. But as I don't play CoH I haven't read the EULA. The EULA claiming blanket ownership, however, creates an interesting grey area.
From the article:
"The argument can still be made that ``City of Heroes'' is only empowering users to the same degree that an establishment like Kinkos enables customers to make paper copies of copyrighted material, said Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
Although Kinkos doesn't claim ownership over copies that customers make, so the question here becomes: are the game creaters responsible for the copyright infringement caused by the users? Or, to put it another way, is it their responsibilty to specifically police the copyright of others? If you argue that, yes, they must set up controls to prevent all infringement of others' IP then you set a dangerous precident for almost every other industry, along the lines of some other posters' comments how bic could be liable because they don't expressly prevent you from drawing something that infringes someone's IP.
If CoH is using these infringing avatars to advertise or promote their game, or otherwise profit from those specific likenesses, then I would say that yes, they are infringing and are liable. However if these are simply just players' personal avatars and they aren't seen by anyone not actually playing the game then I don't think it's their fault if users are creating copyrighted heros.
Where do we draw the line with who is at fault here? While it may be reasonable for NCSoft to include a statement in the EULA to the effect of "we do not condone IP infringement, don't do it, blah blah, legalese" I don't think they should be required to police for it.
The bic pen argument is unrealistic, there is still quite a bit of skill and commitment required on the part of the pen user to infringe IP by drawing a character, but what about something like a digital scanner? They can be used quite easily to infringe copyright, and they now prevent people from scanning in images of currency, so we know there's a way for them to prevent copying of certain images. However there is a huge difference between forging legal tender and reprinting a magazine photo. If one argues that NCSoft must police for all infringement then makers of digital scanners must as well along similar arguments.
This also opens up a whole new area of extortion, whereby digital vandals could insert copyrighted content into someone else's system and then turn them in.
Like I said, this seems to be a new grey area under the law, there doesn't look to be any simple solution, but suing NCSoft for characters foisted upon them by others doesn't sound right either.
Please STFU.
Marvel, DC, whatever, replace my character references with ones that Marvel owns and my point still holds true. Until you feel like registering on /. I suggest you follow your own advice.
I would think that given the recent court rulings (no time to find relevant links) that have indemnified P2P creators against infringement suits, that as soon as this goes to court it will just be thrown out. Have we learned nothing from the RIAA??
Does this mean perhaps we'll soon start seeing CoH gamers receiving subpoenas because their Akwa|\/|an character is too close to the original for the tastes of Marvel? This, IMHO, is going waaay too far. I suspect the submitter may be right about Marvel pulling this crap just to lay the way for their own game, why else would they really care if some kid in middle America has a digital avatar somewhere that resembles Superman? No one in-game is going to somehow confuse that character as being Marvel's licensed original.
No offense to the parent, but why did this get modded insightful? I think they were going for funny maybe?
So as not to be offtopic I will add that the new star wars lego ships are amazing. I mean, come on, who doesn't need a 3000+ piece lego star destroyer? In fact, I need whole fleet of them. Ooooh, and you could get a couple kits and build yourself a super star destroyer!
Off to append my christmas list!
And of course he still transforms into one bad-ass semi.
Now there's some resolution the industry can really get behind. Kwality with a K, baby!
So when exactly is your thesis paper on ham radio vs hobby programmers due?
Come on now, do you really expect us to believe a 1337 h4xx0r tampered with votes.... and voted Republican??
A good point, except that I happen to be a professional engineer whose job is developing and programming automated robotic systems, so here, yes, I do have experience.
You're probably boned if you lose either; so what? Are you somehow under the impression that having *more* parts you're dependent on makes for a more reliable system?
While more parts can mean more places for failure, it also offers more places for redundant engineering to prevent failure. Anytime you put two systems in one, if you lose one (fatally) you lose the other, period. Let's say the fanfold motors turn out to be buggy, but the IBE motor you would have otherwise attached the antenna to was good. Now your buggy motor in a previously unrelated system has ruined your communications. In general it's never as easy to run Thing A on Thing B, as it is to just run Thing A.
As far as the actual design goes, if it's very similar to Beagle II then I would argue that the fold-out solar panels are one of the systems more likely to be damaged during entry. It would make more sense to put something as critical as the communications antenna in the middle where it is less likely to be damaged. Also, if you lose a directional axis on the solar panel you just lose some collection efficiency. However, if that same solar panel has the antenna, you've also lost the ability to aim it properly and probably lose most or all of your transmission ability.
As to the solar panels, I agree, the article was rather vague on the actual configuration and the sentence could have been interpretted also as the new design has four but only really needs two. Hard to say. But hey, if I can't play armchair QB on slashdot, then where else can I? Also, given the fate of the last Beagle - MIA on another planet - I think a little scrunity may be called for in the redesign, no?