Well Thata all fine and dandy but when can I get my nuclear fireworks. This regualr black powder ani't quite doing it for me anymore.
What?! no Nuke Fireworks?! Then where the hell am I supposed to get my fix?
Next thing you know their gonna ban my A-Bombs out-right.
What?! BANNED Already?! Mine are Pre Ban anyway. I can keep em.
Fetch the comfy chair!
For those of you who didn't figure it out that was a reference to the monty python's spanish inquisition sketch. Using a comfy chair as a torture device rarely yields many confessions, and is somehow linked to my 2 cents (or it was a desparate atempt to say something funny). Anyway it is understandable that something tied to the internet like spyware laws are hard to enforce, same thing with spam. OF course there is one thing that can keep these laws from seeming useless if they are hard to enforce and that is grossly inflated penalties. Even if only a small percentage of spyware jerks were caught I think a good 15 year sentence would be a decent deterent. Wouldn't stop everybody but it would be something. MAybe something worse would work better. I used to live in Sicily where laws are not well enforced. However most non-traffic laws are obeyed pretty well and the italian police, the Caribineiri are treated pretty well by the citizens. Why, because if you sh!t on the Caribinieri they will mess you up. Crumple you up like a paper bag and toss you in the corner. People some times argue with the Care Bears (nickname) but only softly and not when the care bears are being firm. So why not this, if you are responsible for spyware, your name, adress, and picture will be posted on a public registry, you are barred from using computers, your assets are siezed, and you have to do hard time. Works for me. Even if its hard to enforce sometimes all you need is an example
I am actually quite interested in this thing. The big question is what plant species have the best acoustics (i never thought id say that). Would it be better to have a plant with large leaves, small leaves, one stem, bushy, or do flowers sound better. If someone knows something about this please share. And I wouldn't consider this a mere novelty. In the narrow sense, yes it it to people like me but for what I think is the targeted demographic, people who own a hackey sack (or frisbee) collection, whittle wood, are always wearing a "Phish" t-shirt, and watch "willie wonka and the chocolate factory" on a weekly basis, having a musical plant is a major advance in critical technology. Unfortunately, the marketing strategy failed to notice that the young and avid gardeners of modern society don't keep their house plants lying around the house, out in the open where any one can find them, like say, the police.
I think that once some acoustic testing gets done I'm gonna have to invest everything I Have in the bonzai tree industry. Once the word gets out about the acoustics I'll be making a nickel for every tree manufactured and assembled in factories nation wide.
But seriously, what factors would make the difference for better sound?
I love all this news about nukes in the states. Can we really say, "how dare they develop nukes!" When we in the US have the largest aresenal in the world. I guess if I were in living in switzerland or fiji or some other country with out nukes (of course I am not sure if this is a true statement about said countries) i would have every right as a member of the human race to get pissed about someone trying to build nukes or thwarting other countries with them. But in the US if you wanna get mad about other people having nukes without taking a long hard look at our own country then thats just plain old hypocracy.
I can hardly blame some of these other countries for try to get these things. And there isn't a single nation that develops these things for any reason other than keeping up with jones-skis. The simple fact that these things exsist in the first place is too scary. But why should we distrust North Korea over, say, england? Because their Commie? It shouldn't be because its an unstable government like Kazikstan(who has plenty of nukes), NK been doing its thing for quite some time now. Even if NK could be a menace to South Korea is that reason for me to fear for my life? The nuke scare is getting old. Not that it isn't real but its not likely and its not something that invading NK is going to fix. You can't change the laws of physics and you can't blame a country from trying to keep its enemies at bay especially if your country is Nuclear arse-i-nal # 1. You can't ever be completely safe but for us in america there is one thing that should make you feel better:
As long as other countries have nukes then thats too bad they got nukes, but can they deliver? None of these "Axis of Evil" nations have the means to get the nuke to our door step without smuggling it in. There aren't any countries friendly enough to tell you how to make an ICBM.
Besides its not the countries with nukes that scare me, its the people with nukes.
We can wish these things were never developed or we can whish the laws of physics were a bit different. So for those that believe in magic elves or maybe even jesus, the next time your talking to god ga ahead and let him know how you feel, "Way to screw things up...Again! dumbass!" But otherwise its just another intangible risk that you only give a crap about when its in the news. I wasn't thinking about nukes yesterday, and I probably wont give em a second thought tomorrow. Or maybe I;ll just be thinking how nice it would be to have one of my own. That way, no one would mess with me. And it would be a nice thing to bring out at parties
Maybe this is legal with the PATRIOT act. As long as its the government doing it. Too bad terrorist don't tend to use web cams. But I would bet John Ascroft is just drooling at the prospect of bringing criminal masturbators to justice. No point in waiting for god to chastise those sinners.
Seriously though, I find this more interesting than alarming. Maybe because the apeal of web cam are for sex and sex only (and I don't have one). Also as previously mentioned the types who use web cams are not the bold model types, using the internet as a confidence buffer. The one thing that I would mention is that confused teenage girls with low self esteem have a tendency to use webcams to striptease their boyfriends or just people who sweet talk them on the internet. Of course if they're dumb enough to stream x-rated video to anyone, than a worm that looks in isn't doing much more harm. I don't use webcams neither have I ever watched a webcam from my computer, so this kind of surveilance is not that scary. but privacy is important. I also think that the likely hood of some sleezey hacker looking in on what I do is not likely to effect my life at all. There is some blackmail prospects there but not really. I would be more concerned about this kind of insideous worm being used by some kind of government or corperate organization. Big Brother is scarier than habitual-matsturbator Bob.
There tends to be a lot of bad info out there and lots of unfortunately missguided ideas regaring the symbiosis of Computer science and Nueroscience. For those interested, there are lots of sources out there in the relm of cybernetics that are worth looking at. I would personally recommend a book called, "Natural Born Cyborgs" by Andy Clark. The author is legit and has lots of cred in the field. One of the most important points in the book (I guess it is the point) is that the human mind is more compatible with cybernetics then we think. Many of the amazing examples used in the book are very compelling. The author would argue that there is no reason why a grown human couldn't form the nessesary neurological circuits to interface with this kind of stuff. So don't think you have to brain surgery on an infant with probes in his head. You can probably get it yourself. Any one interested in the field would gain much from reading it.
As for where this could benefit from open source. I think mostly in the basic sense that when you are trying to hack the mind, there would be alot of hurdles and one person may not have the answer but someone else might see it plainly. I think the OS benefits are mostly the same as always. As for the dangers, hah, I'd rather trust neuro-computer equipment from an open community, with nothing to gain but progress, than something as surreptitious and central as microsoft. I love the idea of using neuro interfacing to expand our capabilities and progress is made in leaps and bounds but we may not have another leap or bound in this field for a while. The field is growing so hopefully the extra attenction will accelerate a few things. I'm not as interested in thinking at my computer as I am in using my computer to help me think.
Slashdot Mirror
Well Thata all fine and dandy but when can I get my nuclear fireworks. This regualr black powder ani't quite doing it for me anymore. What?! no Nuke Fireworks?! Then where the hell am I supposed to get my fix? Next thing you know their gonna ban my A-Bombs out-right. What?! BANNED Already?! Mine are Pre Ban anyway. I can keep em.
Fetch the comfy chair! For those of you who didn't figure it out that was a reference to the monty python's spanish inquisition sketch. Using a comfy chair as a torture device rarely yields many confessions, and is somehow linked to my 2 cents (or it was a desparate atempt to say something funny). Anyway it is understandable that something tied to the internet like spyware laws are hard to enforce, same thing with spam. OF course there is one thing that can keep these laws from seeming useless if they are hard to enforce and that is grossly inflated penalties. Even if only a small percentage of spyware jerks were caught I think a good 15 year sentence would be a decent deterent. Wouldn't stop everybody but it would be something. MAybe something worse would work better. I used to live in Sicily where laws are not well enforced. However most non-traffic laws are obeyed pretty well and the italian police, the Caribineiri are treated pretty well by the citizens. Why, because if you sh!t on the Caribinieri they will mess you up. Crumple you up like a paper bag and toss you in the corner. People some times argue with the Care Bears (nickname) but only softly and not when the care bears are being firm. So why not this, if you are responsible for spyware, your name, adress, and picture will be posted on a public registry, you are barred from using computers, your assets are siezed, and you have to do hard time. Works for me. Even if its hard to enforce sometimes all you need is an example
I am actually quite interested in this thing. The big question is what plant species have the best acoustics (i never thought id say that). Would it be better to have a plant with large leaves, small leaves, one stem, bushy, or do flowers sound better. If someone knows something about this please share. And I wouldn't consider this a mere novelty. In the narrow sense, yes it it to people like me but for what I think is the targeted demographic, people who own a hackey sack (or frisbee) collection, whittle wood, are always wearing a "Phish" t-shirt, and watch "willie wonka and the chocolate factory" on a weekly basis, having a musical plant is a major advance in critical technology. Unfortunately, the marketing strategy failed to notice that the young and avid gardeners of modern society don't keep their house plants lying around the house, out in the open where any one can find them, like say, the police. I think that once some acoustic testing gets done I'm gonna have to invest everything I Have in the bonzai tree industry. Once the word gets out about the acoustics I'll be making a nickel for every tree manufactured and assembled in factories nation wide. But seriously, what factors would make the difference for better sound?
I love all this news about nukes in the states. Can we really say, "how dare they develop nukes!" When we in the US have the largest aresenal in the world. I guess if I were in living in switzerland or fiji or some other country with out nukes (of course I am not sure if this is a true statement about said countries) i would have every right as a member of the human race to get pissed about someone trying to build nukes or thwarting other countries with them. But in the US if you wanna get mad about other people having nukes without taking a long hard look at our own country then thats just plain old hypocracy. I can hardly blame some of these other countries for try to get these things. And there isn't a single nation that develops these things for any reason other than keeping up with jones-skis. The simple fact that these things exsist in the first place is too scary. But why should we distrust North Korea over, say, england? Because their Commie? It shouldn't be because its an unstable government like Kazikstan(who has plenty of nukes), NK been doing its thing for quite some time now. Even if NK could be a menace to South Korea is that reason for me to fear for my life? The nuke scare is getting old. Not that it isn't real but its not likely and its not something that invading NK is going to fix. You can't change the laws of physics and you can't blame a country from trying to keep its enemies at bay especially if your country is Nuclear arse-i-nal # 1. You can't ever be completely safe but for us in america there is one thing that should make you feel better: As long as other countries have nukes then thats too bad they got nukes, but can they deliver? None of these "Axis of Evil" nations have the means to get the nuke to our door step without smuggling it in. There aren't any countries friendly enough to tell you how to make an ICBM. Besides its not the countries with nukes that scare me, its the people with nukes. We can wish these things were never developed or we can whish the laws of physics were a bit different. So for those that believe in magic elves or maybe even jesus, the next time your talking to god ga ahead and let him know how you feel, "Way to screw things up...Again! dumbass!" But otherwise its just another intangible risk that you only give a crap about when its in the news. I wasn't thinking about nukes yesterday, and I probably wont give em a second thought tomorrow. Or maybe I;ll just be thinking how nice it would be to have one of my own. That way, no one would mess with me. And it would be a nice thing to bring out at parties
Maybe this is legal with the PATRIOT act. As long as its the government doing it. Too bad terrorist don't tend to use web cams. But I would bet John Ascroft is just drooling at the prospect of bringing criminal masturbators to justice. No point in waiting for god to chastise those sinners. Seriously though, I find this more interesting than alarming. Maybe because the apeal of web cam are for sex and sex only (and I don't have one). Also as previously mentioned the types who use web cams are not the bold model types, using the internet as a confidence buffer. The one thing that I would mention is that confused teenage girls with low self esteem have a tendency to use webcams to striptease their boyfriends or just people who sweet talk them on the internet. Of course if they're dumb enough to stream x-rated video to anyone, than a worm that looks in isn't doing much more harm. I don't use webcams neither have I ever watched a webcam from my computer, so this kind of surveilance is not that scary. but privacy is important. I also think that the likely hood of some sleezey hacker looking in on what I do is not likely to effect my life at all. There is some blackmail prospects there but not really. I would be more concerned about this kind of insideous worm being used by some kind of government or corperate organization. Big Brother is scarier than habitual-matsturbator Bob.
There tends to be a lot of bad info out there and lots of unfortunately missguided ideas regaring the symbiosis of Computer science and Nueroscience. For those interested, there are lots of sources out there in the relm of cybernetics that are worth looking at. I would personally recommend a book called, "Natural Born Cyborgs" by Andy Clark. The author is legit and has lots of cred in the field. One of the most important points in the book (I guess it is the point) is that the human mind is more compatible with cybernetics then we think. Many of the amazing examples used in the book are very compelling. The author would argue that there is no reason why a grown human couldn't form the nessesary neurological circuits to interface with this kind of stuff. So don't think you have to brain surgery on an infant with probes in his head. You can probably get it yourself. Any one interested in the field would gain much from reading it. As for where this could benefit from open source. I think mostly in the basic sense that when you are trying to hack the mind, there would be alot of hurdles and one person may not have the answer but someone else might see it plainly. I think the OS benefits are mostly the same as always. As for the dangers, hah, I'd rather trust neuro-computer equipment from an open community, with nothing to gain but progress, than something as surreptitious and central as microsoft. I love the idea of using neuro interfacing to expand our capabilities and progress is made in leaps and bounds but we may not have another leap or bound in this field for a while. The field is growing so hopefully the extra attenction will accelerate a few things. I'm not as interested in thinking at my computer as I am in using my computer to help me think.