So they are looking for an Inexpensive Flying Armored Personal Carrier?
Take an attack chopper, get rid of all the pointy bits, strap more armor onto it. Done. Now how hard was that. For next weeks discussion we can talk about how impractical it would be to train people to fly it, to transport effectively 3 or 4 people, and how much resources it would take to keep these operational both in maintenance and fuel.
For a slightly more practical effort, simply make more Blackhawks, or cargo craft outfitted for troop deployment. Then the enemy can make as many IED's as they want and you can watch them try and throw them as far as possible. Likely portable Surface to Air missiles are harder to come by.
Or you could just stop randomly invading countries. Use the Trillions instead on your poor, or to make the world love you. Or just give it to wall street, your call.
I think the major hurtle for humankind is our inability to think/plan long term. Our puny lives are only 70-80 rotations of our planetary orbit. Our organizational systems do not seem to be able to handle 5-10 years let alone 40 or 50 years. 100 to 300 years?
As you say relativity is a bitch, which is likely why we haven't been contacted already. It is either impossible, or so difficult and life on average so short lived that the distances and time involved make it at the very least impractical. I also do think we can't make things that last a long time either, so making autonomous robots or something is also a long way off.
However I did like your post, and I do agree that it could polarize or focus some of our population with fascination. However I think one of the larger problems to be overcome is the simple fact that the sentiment "that's all very well and good, however we have more pressing problems here on Earth" will continue to trump those that wish to explore. Unless something dramatic happens, and I mean BIG, the path that we are following only leads to more hardship and ruin. Food. Population. Resources. Too much of one, and not enough of the other two, which inevitably leads to conflict and war.
Anyway not trying to be cynical, but that is what I see for our immediate future, and I have seen nothing that would change or alter our course yet.
Though one thing I think the "NEW" star wars got right was the Trading Guild... sorta.
Only that in interstellar war, what gets you I think are the logistics. Distances are great, etc... Now if you made self replicating robots killers, well then you might have something. (Of course the ones in SW were not self replicating, but whatever)
Of course then they become self aware, and take over everything and make Brian Herbert write books etc...
The people working at DoJ probably didn't know what the magic sticks were or couldn't figure out where to stick them, so just gave them to security...:)
I once heard that the easiest way to conduct industrial espionage was to make a virus that would make a back door to the security systems, load it onto a USB thumb drive, casually walk to the outside smoking area of the company building you wish to infect, have a smoke, covertly drop the USB thumb drive somewhere in the area. For extra points, take a generic thumb drive and put the company logo on the side for authenticity. 10$ says some idiot will pick it up and plug it into his system when he gets back to his office to see what is on it, or who it might belong to. Bypassing all firewalls and security (at least initially).
Now remotely connect to your hearts content and start downloading.
Everyone is talking about a police officer strolling up your driveway and physically sticking a black box to your car.
Could be more sinister than that. Most people have cell phones these days, and that number is increasing. Most have GPS capabilities or will soon. What if this decision simply allows the police to force the telco to simply toggle your cell GPS at will? They could track anyone they please without having to lift a finger.
OK I am sure the smart students came up with some great devious well thought out ideas, but I am more interested in the students who got a failing grade in the class and what they came up with...
Probably looked something like this:
Make bomb using internet recipe, my own limited understanding of basic chemistry, and whatever I can find in my kitchen.
and
Put bomb in my shoe, walk on plane.
or
Put bomb in my underpants, walk on plane.
In either case, hide personal features using an obscuring Al-Qaeda beard.
The difference is that they want to take that purchasing choice AWAY from you. They want to make it illegal and force you to pay the premium for their audio book. That's how I see it anyway.
Yeah the whole point, is that consumers should be able to make that choice themselves and decide if the service is worth the fee, that is what capitalism is all about. What they propose is basically to sue your friend for acting it out in the garden shed as illegal and breach of copyright.
I was about to argue that shouldn't the customer have the right to make decisions about what they are willing to pay for? I mean it might not be as nice as a professional reader, but I might say I am willing to buy it because it is half the cost...
then... "should have a say in how a work is performed"
Your seriously telling me that the Author of a work has the RIGHT to tell ME how I READ his book?
I am pretty sure if I want to read it backwards, upside down, in Klingon, to my best friend, I have the right to do so. If I wish to have a computer synthesize voice for me, I think I have that right too.
Don't get me wrong, if it is going to be distributed in voice, or film or something, then sure. But I have the right to do what I want with it after I buy it so long as I don't copy it and claim it as my own or try to sell copies. Gah!
Capitalism doesn't solve everything, but when you take choice away from the consumer, it solves nothing.
That is where things fall down. That is the current plight of all our woes in all our shared economies. All things being equal it works, problem is, rarely are things even remotely equal.
If audio books provide a service I want, and I am willing to pay that price, then I buy that product. If I am willing to settle for a lower price, and perhaps lesser quality for text to speech then I will pay that price.
What is happening here is the industry is getting afraid that should a market establish itself, technology improvements will follow, and they will lose their monopoly as the only game in town for audio books. Because if the trend continued, and demand increased, likely people would try to improved the technology more aggressively for profit.
Where if you make it illegal you have the opposite effect, slowing the advance of the technology, increasing the amount of time you can take advantage of people. Thus you have industries now, making things that are ubik, illegal as it is the only way they can make money anymore.
Have you bought an audio book lately? Most the ones I have seen cost a lot more than a paper back book.
If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?
Another example of industry not keeping up with technology and trying to use the courts and copyright laws to enforce their business model.
This is about greed, pure and simple. Considering the type of people that most buy audio books (blind and/or old people) I find it kind of despicable.
Before paying what you paid for a service you could really only get one way it was hard to feel bad about the premium. Now that it is available more readily for cheaper and for all titles, and they want to force you to still pay more for the privilege? Sick.
Slashdot Mirror
So they are looking for an Inexpensive Flying Armored Personal Carrier?
Take an attack chopper, get rid of all the pointy bits, strap more armor onto it. Done. Now how hard was that. For next weeks discussion we can talk about how impractical it would be to train people to fly it, to transport effectively 3 or 4 people, and how much resources it would take to keep these operational both in maintenance and fuel.
For a slightly more practical effort, simply make more Blackhawks, or cargo craft outfitted for troop deployment. Then the enemy can make as many IED's as they want and you can watch them try and throw them as far as possible. Likely portable Surface to Air missiles are harder to come by.
Or you could just stop randomly invading countries. Use the Trillions instead on your poor, or to make the world love you. Or just give it to wall street, your call.
Two words: Fire. Wire.
Hows that working out for you?
Does that mean your illiterate?
I think the major hurtle for humankind is our inability to think/plan long term. Our puny lives are only 70-80 rotations of our planetary orbit. Our organizational systems do not seem to be able to handle 5-10 years let alone 40 or 50 years. 100 to 300 years?
As you say relativity is a bitch, which is likely why we haven't been contacted already. It is either impossible, or so difficult and life on average so short lived that the distances and time involved make it at the very least impractical. I also do think we can't make things that last a long time either, so making autonomous robots or something is also a long way off.
However I did like your post, and I do agree that it could polarize or focus some of our population with fascination. However I think one of the larger problems to be overcome is the simple fact that the sentiment "that's all very well and good, however we have more pressing problems here on Earth" will continue to trump those that wish to explore. Unless something dramatic happens, and I mean BIG, the path that we are following only leads to more hardship and ruin. Food. Population. Resources. Too much of one, and not enough of the other two, which inevitably leads to conflict and war.
Anyway not trying to be cynical, but that is what I see for our immediate future, and I have seen nothing that would change or alter our course yet.
I'll wait for NetCraft thank you very much!
Though one thing I think the "NEW" star wars got right was the Trading Guild... sorta.
Only that in interstellar war, what gets you I think are the logistics. Distances are great, etc... Now if you made self replicating robots killers, well then you might have something. (Of course the ones in SW were not self replicating, but whatever)
Of course then they become self aware, and take over everything and make Brian Herbert write books etc...
When talking about the "FORCE" and where it comes from or that is exists...
To quote DarthVader "I find your lack of faith disturbing..."
I am pretty sure he would have force strangled George for that one.
Pfft whatever.
The people working at DoJ probably didn't know what the magic sticks were or couldn't figure out where to stick them, so just gave them to security... :)
I think what the parent is trying to say that it isn't a "Phone".
Sure you could put Skype or I guess now the new Google service, but strictly speaking it isn't a cell phone.
I once heard that the easiest way to conduct industrial espionage was to make a virus that would make a back door to the security systems, load it onto a USB thumb drive, casually walk to the outside smoking area of the company building you wish to infect, have a smoke, covertly drop the USB thumb drive somewhere in the area. For extra points, take a generic thumb drive and put the company logo on the side for authenticity. 10$ says some idiot will pick it up and plug it into his system when he gets back to his office to see what is on it, or who it might belong to. Bypassing all firewalls and security (at least initially).
Now remotely connect to your hearts content and start downloading.
Everyone is talking about a police officer strolling up your driveway and physically sticking a black box to your car.
Could be more sinister than that. Most people have cell phones these days, and that number is increasing. Most have GPS capabilities or will soon. What if this decision simply allows the police to force the telco to simply toggle your cell GPS at will? They could track anyone they please without having to lift a finger.
Alternate Alternate suggestion: attach the gps unit to your neighbors cat "Ms. Snookiums"
OK I am sure the smart students came up with some great devious well thought out ideas, but I am more interested in the students who got a failing grade in the class and what they came up with...
Probably looked something like this:
Make bomb using internet recipe, my own limited understanding of basic chemistry, and whatever I can find in my kitchen.
and
Put bomb in my shoe, walk on plane.
or
Put bomb in my underpants, walk on plane.
In either case, hide personal features using an obscuring Al-Qaeda beard.
The difference is that they want to take that purchasing choice AWAY from you. They want to make it illegal and force you to pay the premium for their audio book. That's how I see it anyway.
That's no cloud...
Apparently I forgot a few!
I'll add one more no one got...
.
.
.
112) Mission Impossible Theme Song.
Pick your Engine sound:
1) Default Camcord
2) Italian Sports Car
3) Half ton Truck
4) Harley Davidson Motorcycle
5) Tank
6) Horse and Buggy
7) Monty Python
8) Ice Cream Truck
9) VW anything
10) F1
11) Flubber
12)...
Sort of unrelated, but I thought at least they picked a pretty cool name for the can anyway...
Yeah the whole point, is that consumers should be able to make that choice themselves and decide if the service is worth the fee, that is what capitalism is all about. What they propose is basically to sue your friend for acting it out in the garden shed as illegal and breach of copyright.
Your kidding right?
I was about to argue that shouldn't the customer have the right to make decisions about what they are willing to pay for? I mean it might not be as nice as a professional reader, but I might say I am willing to buy it because it is half the cost...
then... "should have a say in how a work is performed"
Your seriously telling me that the Author of a work has the RIGHT to tell ME how I READ his book?
I am pretty sure if I want to read it backwards, upside down, in Klingon, to my best friend, I have the right to do so. If I wish to have a computer synthesize voice for me, I think I have that right too.
Don't get me wrong, if it is going to be distributed in voice, or film or something, then sure. But I have the right to do what I want with it after I buy it so long as I don't copy it and claim it as my own or try to sell copies. Gah!
Capitalism doesn't solve everything, but when you take choice away from the consumer, it solves nothing.
That is where things fall down. That is the current plight of all our woes in all our shared economies. All things being equal it works, problem is, rarely are things even remotely equal.
If audio books provide a service I want, and I am willing to pay that price, then I buy that product. If I am willing to settle for a lower price, and perhaps lesser quality for text to speech then I will pay that price.
What is happening here is the industry is getting afraid that should a market establish itself, technology improvements will follow, and they will lose their monopoly as the only game in town for audio books. Because if the trend continued, and demand increased, likely people would try to improved the technology more aggressively for profit.
Where if you make it illegal you have the opposite effect, slowing the advance of the technology, increasing the amount of time you can take advantage of people. Thus you have industries now, making things that are ubik, illegal as it is the only way they can make money anymore.
In my book (pardon pun), that's lame.
I would agree totally. However who should make that choice, the customer, or the lawyers?
last that long in my fridge!
Or....
Have you bought an audio book lately? Most the ones I have seen cost a lot more than a paper back book.
If I have the ability to buy a 10$ paper back book and have it read to me, why the hell would I buy the 40$ audio book?
Another example of industry not keeping up with technology and trying to use the courts and copyright laws to enforce their business model.
This is about greed, pure and simple. Considering the type of people that most buy audio books (blind and/or old people) I find it kind of despicable.
Before paying what you paid for a service you could really only get one way it was hard to feel bad about the premium. Now that it is available more readily for cheaper and for all titles, and they want to force you to still pay more for the privilege? Sick.
Ya, and because they own a Mac, the marketing/sales drones know they likely have a bunch of money, and are easily distracted by shiny things.