And when one of those irretrievably fails, what will they do? (and are they auditable, or just monolithic counters?) Would be followed by something like this, maybe?
"Um, hi, um, I'm Mr. Smith, Assistant Secretary of State. I'm sorry it's so late, um well early, but I've called this press conference to announce the Secretary's resignation, effective immediately.
The Secretary, er, former secretary, that is, would like to make it perfectly clear that her resignation has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of certain voting apparatuses and the alleged loss of over 250,000 votes in the mostly Democratic districts.
I do NOT think, however, that restrictive regulation how to go about it
How, then? How else do you incentify the protection of something for which there is no obvious short-term profit motive (short-term I'm talking less than a decade.)
in the United States, it is out of the purview of the Federal Government-- it's not an enumerated power.
Ding-ding-ding-ding! Congratulations, you just showed everyone your genetic marker for being an ultra right-winger! - If this were true, would the federal gov't have put a man on the moon? Few people imagined that in the 1700s. There are many things the gov't does that weren't written into the Constitution - you'll have to refine that argument a bit more to make it real. "State powers" or "states rights" has become a rallying cry for anything a conservative doesn't like the Fed'l gov't doing.
Yes, there's evedince that the environment is changing, but the causality has not been proven.
It's not likely we'll prove CO2 is the cause until it causes some realproblems. The reality here is, we probably won't be able to do anything about it anyway - our lifestyles and systems of work are so entrenched with large expenditures of energy that it will probably be impossible to get people to change their habits until it's too late. Do you see China, South America, Africa going toward cleaner energy production in the next twenty years? I don't - I see them using the same old diesel, petrol and coal, with its resultant output of CO2 and other chemicals.
Hey, I'm in the same boat - there are a lot of things I'd rather the gov't not pay for, especially including the exhorbitantly expensive U.S. military, oh and also the idiotic tax rebate we'll all be paying back for the next couple of decades.
You juxtapose people being lazy with it costing too much to change - the latter is true. Banks have invested tens or hundreds of *thousands* of people-hours in developing their software.
Just saying "hey it's easy to flip over to Linux" ain't gonna change the fact that it'll cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to redevelop all that code.
That's where IBM's doing the OSS world a double-edged favor, by running Linux on mainframes. Offers a way for them to transition onto Linux on IBM's mainframe VM platform without having to incur a huge cost to do it all at once.
Although the atmosphere is very thin at that altitude, wind gusts can reach hundreds of miles per hour. There's enough energy in them that a low-mass projectile like SS1, with its broad flat perpendicular surfaces (wings), could be spun.
Now, it's unclear in what I've read whether SS1 has gyros. If roll is a regular occurrence with this type of spacecraft, I'm sure there will need to be some design changes to introduce better stability with respect to that axis.
Most of O'Keefe's speech seemed to be about Bush's Mars proposal and how SSO is here because NASA let it be? A whole lotta credit-grabbing.
Yes, I'm sure some of the technology used in WK/SSO could be traced to some NASA programs, but, please, credit where due. This is an original effort, from a true innovator who has been developing original fuselage fabrication technology for thirty years.
Toss-up between Korea and Japan, next place the Europeans
> the most advanced communication technology, etc...
Again the Americans, though it depends on what you're referring to as "the most advanced," and also which communication technology industry you're focusing on, as there are many now! Israel has been doing interesting things lately.
The foundations of much of today's global communications originated with American research. Japanese companies are great at optimising, but I don't see a lot of "first-of" tech coming from there.
If your dog could talk to you, what would it say?
on
Upgrade Your Dog
·
· Score: 1
Imagine the computer-generated phone calls you'll be getting at work:
"Happy! Happy! Love you! Go play! Go play! Happy! Love you! Go play! Hungry! Hungry! Sad! Love you!"
I kind of like it that my pet doesn't speak my language!
I read the patent, and to me it's a wide-ranging catch-all. A neck computer that's also a cellphone, or maybe it's a radio, possibly has a display, maybe you can listen to music on it.
Hey! I know! Let's work all conceivable notions into the patent for what a neck computer could be, so if anybody else wants to make one, they gotta pay us.
Patents like this make patenting seem like a racket.
Hogwash. A game with one round is easily lost. A game with many rounds has much more opportunity to be won.
That's the game Google is playing. Your game, the one which goes as follows, has but one conclusion:
Google opens for business in PRC, providing cache access to documents blocked by the government's filteres
PRC blocks Google
Game over. The people of China lose.
By going in soft, Google can build public mindshare by providing a powerful search tool that will help the public see into the gray areas of PRC's censorship, and begin exploiting them.
With your approach, Google's principles would become instantly worthless to the people in China. With Google's approach, they will have the opportunity to attack the problem of censorship from within, rather than from outside.
Yes, sarcastic! The republicans here recently tried to ban gay marriage in the U.S. - and their reasons for banning it come from their christian beliefs. I think that is stupid. (Note I said "_their_ christian beliefs" - I don't believe all christians are stupid or unspiritual.)
I don't think it makes sense for them to be mucking about in the relationships of others. None of their damnable business.
The bible is filled with laws and rules, many of which are broken by today's christians, the very ones who want to ban gay marriage, so the Amendment list was made to protest their very un-christian-like judgemental behavior. Their biblical god reserves the right to judge and punish, but many christians seem to've taken it upon themselves to do judge and punish those whom they don't like, who are different. I wonder if their god considers that good or bad?
Ah, no. That sig was part of a proposed set of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, designed to help all Americans comply with *Christian* Biblical Law. It's meant to complement the recent attempts at amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent homosexual-type gay Americans from marrying.
AMENDMENT XXVIII. No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender (Nothing mentioned in the Bible).
AMENDMENT XXIX. No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).
AMENDMENT XXX. No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law-sea amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15).
AMENDMENT XXXI. No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Esra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27).
AMENDMENT XXXII. No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).
AMENDMENT XXXIII. No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28).
AMENDMENT XXXIV. No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
AMENDMENT XXXV No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossionas 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).
AMENDMENT XXXVII No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman's menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanness has terminated (Levitious 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 1825-6).
AMENDMENT XXXVIII No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Levitious 21:13-14).
AMENDMENT XXXIX No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
AMENDMENT XXXX No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).
Hello? Did they think of running their design past a security specialist to get a sniff-test, and then just forget? Maybe it fell off their to-do list and nobody thought "oh wait! the product's name is 'Secure'! Let's see if it really is!" Nutz.
1) You shut down one road, they'll just use another. Blocking isn't apprehending or interdiction.
2) Of the illegal drugs sold around the U.S., much are sent through FedEx, UPS and like services. Should we shut down those companies because they facilitate the transport of illegal drugs? Because they are the "road" on which the drugs travel into cities?
What you're looking for is variously called "video mixer," "live switcher," and "video switcher."
These are hardware devices, although it can be done in software. At the bottom-end they start around $500-$1000 and work on up to however much yo' mamma's house is worth, and much more.
While I'd like to agree, just to stick it to the Republikkkins, Lockyer's a Democrap, he was elected to the position of AG (not appointed by the gov.), and it looks like he may be running for goverbator against Ah-nuld in 2006.
At protests around the U.S. in the last six years, the police have been actively employing preemptive arrest tactics, which have almost always have resulted in dismissals or "not guilty" decisions.
Not always of course, but much of the time (comparing numbers arrested against numbers inidicted and then convicted.)
Americans say they're for freedom of speech, but anytime a large, public act of communication takes place (mainly demonstrations for this point, but the implications are similar for pirate radio imo), there's always a government entity duly empowered to curb that expression, so that it doesn't have quite so strong the impact its creators put into it. For example, the FCC, appointed by the Executive, and the police and FBI, appointed by that jurisdiction's executive, or, in some cases, elected by the public (yet still a single human with much power over many.)
It's the imperfect, political humans controlling those speech-altering government entities who have the power, here, not the citizens. Too much power in the hands of too few. The U.S. is no longer a good model of a participative democracy. Look toward northern Europe for better examples of directly-involved citizens.
"Fair Use" isn't defined by whether you plan to make a profit from it or not. If that were the case, then none of the profitable newspapers nor broadcast outlets would be able to use footage or quotage from other outlets.
The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security."
It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.
Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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.
I'm not sure there is anyone left in that party that could have won the nomination that would have made a good President. Thats a key reason they Republicans are in power, the Democrats really are a bad party
Yeesh. The republicans are in power because they stole the last election.
Rush Limbaugh has really taken hold of and infected your brain. Turn off the AM talk radio. Go back on your meds. Drop out of the "other people are to blame for blah-blah" bullsh!t. Go talk to people who work for a living and find out that trickle-on economics aren't helping them so much as it helps their bosses get wealthier quicker without having to pay them cost of living increases.
This isn't exactly that... going into the studio and remixing rappahs over Beatles or what-have-you.
Webjay seems to be about creating playlists from mp3s and video on the internet... some of them generally interesting. I've found a ton of free (e.g. given away by the bands/labels on their site) music via Webjay.
big news companies can be sued...Small indy shops can get away with fabricating
What? When you're Fox-owned-by-billionaire-media-mogul-Rupert-Murdoc -News, you've got much greater latitude, because you've got the bux to throw at lawyers. When you're the little guy, you gotta watch your step, coz you don't got the big bux to mount a defense.
Slashdot Mirror
I do NOT think, however, that restrictive regulation how to go about it
How, then? How else do you incentify the protection of something for which there is no obvious short-term profit motive (short-term I'm talking less than a decade.)in the United States, it is out of the purview of the Federal Government-- it's not an enumerated power.
Ding-ding-ding-ding! Congratulations, you just showed everyone your genetic marker for being an ultra right-winger! - If this were true, would the federal gov't have put a man on the moon? Few people imagined that in the 1700s. There are many things the gov't does that weren't written into the Constitution - you'll have to refine that argument a bit more to make it real. "State powers" or "states rights" has become a rallying cry for anything a conservative doesn't like the Fed'l gov't doing.Yes, there's evedince that the environment is changing, but the causality has not been proven.
It's not likely we'll prove CO2 is the cause until it causes some real problems. The reality here is, we probably won't be able to do anything about it anyway - our lifestyles and systems of work are so entrenched with large expenditures of energy that it will probably be impossible to get people to change their habits until it's too late. Do you see China, South America, Africa going toward cleaner energy production in the next twenty years? I don't - I see them using the same old diesel, petrol and coal, with its resultant output of CO2 and other chemicals.Hey, I'm in the same boat - there are a lot of things I'd rather the gov't not pay for, especially including the exhorbitantly expensive U.S. military, oh and also the idiotic tax rebate we'll all be paying back for the next couple of decades.
Deny, deny, deny.
they've crashed a few times. Ticket prices'll fall to $500!!
You juxtapose people being lazy with it costing too much to change - the latter is true. Banks have invested tens or hundreds of *thousands* of people-hours in developing their software.
Just saying "hey it's easy to flip over to Linux" ain't gonna change the fact that it'll cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to redevelop all that code.
That's where IBM's doing the OSS world a double-edged favor, by running Linux on mainframes. Offers a way for them to transition onto Linux on IBM's mainframe VM platform without having to incur a huge cost to do it all at once.
Although the atmosphere is very thin at that altitude, wind gusts can reach hundreds of miles per hour. There's enough energy in them that a low-mass projectile like SS1, with its broad flat perpendicular surfaces (wings), could be spun.
Now, it's unclear in what I've read whether SS1 has gyros. If roll is a regular occurrence with this type of spacecraft, I'm sure there will need to be some design changes to introduce better stability with respect to that axis.
Most of O'Keefe's speech seemed to be about Bush's Mars proposal and how SSO is here because NASA let it be? A whole lotta credit-grabbing.
Yes, I'm sure some of the technology used in WK/SSO could be traced to some NASA programs, but, please, credit where due. This is an original effort, from a true innovator who has been developing original fuselage fabrication technology for thirty years.
Not to indulge over-generalisation, but:
> The world's fastest super computer,
That would be the Americans
> the most reliable cars,
Toss-up between Korea and Japan, next place the Europeans
> the most advanced communication technology, etc...
Again the Americans, though it depends on what you're referring to as "the most advanced," and also which communication technology industry you're focusing on, as there are many now! Israel has been doing interesting things lately.
The foundations of much of today's global communications originated with American research. Japanese companies are great at optimising, but I don't see a lot of "first-of" tech coming from there.
Imagine the computer-generated phone calls you'll be getting at work:
"Happy!
Happy!
Love you!
Go play!
Go play!
Happy!
Love you!
Go play!
Hungry!
Hungry!
Sad!
Love you!"
I kind of like it that my pet doesn't speak my language!
I read the patent, and to me it's a wide-ranging catch-all. A neck computer that's also a cellphone, or maybe it's a radio, possibly has a display, maybe you can listen to music on it.
Hey! I know! Let's work all conceivable notions into the patent for what a neck computer could be, so if anybody else wants to make one, they gotta pay us.
Patents like this make patenting seem like a racket.
That's the game Google is playing. Your game, the one which goes as follows, has but one conclusion:
- Google opens for business in PRC, providing cache access to documents blocked by the government's filteres
- PRC blocks Google
- Game over. The people of China lose.
By going in soft, Google can build public mindshare by providing a powerful search tool that will help the public see into the gray areas of PRC's censorship, and begin exploiting them.With your approach, Google's principles would become instantly worthless to the people in China. With Google's approach, they will have the opportunity to attack the problem of censorship from within, rather than from outside.
Yes, sarcastic! The republicans here recently tried to ban gay marriage in the U.S. - and their reasons for banning it come from their christian beliefs. I think that is stupid. (Note I said "_their_ christian beliefs" - I don't believe all christians are stupid or unspiritual.)
I don't think it makes sense for them to be mucking about in the relationships of others. None of their damnable business.
The bible is filled with laws and rules, many of which are broken by today's christians, the very ones who want to ban gay marriage, so the Amendment list was made to protest their very un-christian-like judgemental behavior. Their biblical god reserves the right to judge and punish, but many christians seem to've taken it upon themselves to do judge and punish those whom they don't like, who are different. I wonder if their god considers that good or bad?
Peace.
See this.
Ah, no. That sig was part of a proposed set of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, designed to help all Americans comply with *Christian* Biblical Law. It's meant to complement the recent attempts at amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent homosexual-type gay Americans from marrying.
If you missed it, when the Texas Republican Party announced its platform earlier this year, it included a plank defining the U.S. as a "Christian Nation."
AMENDMENT XXVIII.
No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender (Nothing mentioned in the Bible).
AMENDMENT XXIX.
No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).
AMENDMENT XXX.
No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law-sea amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15).
AMENDMENT XXXI.
No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Esra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27).
AMENDMENT XXXII.
No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).
AMENDMENT XXXIII.
No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew
5:28).
AMENDMENT XXXIV.
No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
AMENDMENT XXXV
No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossionas 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Titus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).
AMENDMENT XXXVII
No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman's menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanness has terminated (Levitious 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 1825-6).
AMENDMENT XXXVIII
No state may sanction marriage between a minister and any woman other than a virgin (Levitious 21:13-14).
AMENDMENT XXXIX
No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
AMENDMENT XXXX
No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).
Hello? Did they think of running their design past a security specialist to get a sniff-test, and then just forget? Maybe it fell off their to-do list and nobody thought "oh wait! the product's name is 'Secure'! Let's see if it really is!" Nutz.
I've been using Webjay almost since it went beta. What I find super-cool about WJ: the new music. I should say "new" music, because a lot of it's been out there awhile, it's only new to me. There's a guy who collects world music, another collects human beat-boxers, kids rock, adult videos, comedy of Bill Hicks. Electronica. Pr0nk.
It's also become a bit of a bootleggers' haven. There's plenty of weird stuff for all to hear.
1) You shut down one road, they'll just use another. Blocking isn't apprehending or interdiction.
2) Of the illegal drugs sold around the U.S., much are sent through FedEx, UPS and like services. Should we shut down those companies because they facilitate the transport of illegal drugs? Because they are the "road" on which the drugs travel into cities?
What you're looking for is variously called "video mixer," "live switcher," and "video switcher."
These are hardware devices, although it can be done in software. At the bottom-end they start around $500-$1000 and work on up to however much yo' mamma's house is worth, and much more.
B+H Photo is one place to start looking.
While I'd like to agree, just to stick it to the Republikkkins, Lockyer's a Democrap, he was elected to the position of AG (not appointed by the gov.), and it looks like he may be running for goverbator against Ah-nuld in 2006.
At protests around the U.S. in the last six years, the police have been actively employing preemptive arrest tactics, which have almost always have resulted in dismissals or "not guilty" decisions.
Not always of course, but much of the time (comparing numbers arrested against numbers inidicted and then convicted.)
Americans say they're for freedom of speech, but anytime a large, public act of communication takes place (mainly demonstrations for this point, but the implications are similar for pirate radio imo), there's always a government entity duly empowered to curb that expression, so that it doesn't have quite so strong the impact its creators put into it. For example, the FCC, appointed by the Executive, and the police and FBI, appointed by that jurisdiction's executive, or, in some cases, elected by the public (yet still a single human with much power over many.)
It's the imperfect, political humans controlling those speech-altering government entities who have the power, here, not the citizens. Too much power in the hands of too few. The U.S. is no longer a good model of a participative democracy. Look toward northern Europe for better examples of directly-involved citizens.
"Fair Use" isn't defined by whether you plan to make a profit from it or not. If that were the case, then none of the profitable newspapers nor broadcast outlets would be able to use footage or quotage from other outlets.
The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security."
It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.
Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 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.
I'm not sure there is anyone left in that party that could have won the nomination that would have made a good President. Thats a key reason they Republicans are in power, the Democrats really are a bad party
Yeesh. The republicans are in power because they stole the last election.
Rush Limbaugh has really taken hold of and infected your brain. Turn off the AM talk radio. Go back on your meds. Drop out of the "other people are to blame for blah-blah" bullsh!t. Go talk to people who work for a living and find out that trickle-on economics aren't helping them so much as it helps their bosses get wealthier quicker without having to pay them cost of living increases.
This has already been done a lot in music.
This isn't exactly that... going into the studio and remixing rappahs over Beatles or what-have-you.
Webjay seems to be about creating playlists from mp3s and video on the internet... some of them generally interesting. I've found a ton of free (e.g. given away by the bands/labels on their site) music via Webjay.
big news companies can be sued...Small indy shops can get away with fabricating
c -News, you've got much greater latitude, because you've got the bux to throw at lawyers. When you're the little guy, you gotta watch your step, coz you don't got the big bux to mount a defense.
What? When you're Fox-owned-by-billionaire-media-mogul-Rupert-Murdo