If you make the assumption that it the effect isn't temporary, then no, this isn't a very effective addition to the police arsenal. However, it is the opposite assertion made by this article. I am all for the investigation and innovation of new less-than-lethal methods of subduing suspects. What we have now can be used effectively, but if there's something that can MORE effectively subdue suspects then I'm all for it. For example, if they could create a long range gun that was guaranteed to completely stun someone for five minutes without causing any long term damage, I think that would be a great alternative to shooting them in the head. I'm certain that there are many better ways to peacefully end a situation where a new technology would be the key enabler. And I'm sure you would appreciate it when you're the suspect (guilty or not) and you do something stupid (like wave what looks like a gun around) and the police have three options instead of one before dropping you with their 9mm.
So something that uses considerably less force and causes less potential damage should only be used in exactly the same situation as you would use a gun? No freakin way. If I'm in a situation where use of a gun is appropriate level of force, I'm not going to hope that my blinding light will be an acceptible substitute. The RoE that lead up to shoot-to-kill are meant to be progressively higher force. Yes, I agree that now with this new technology they should evaluate situations that currently require use of firearm to see if they could potentially be replaced with this new device. But I wouldn't presume that the only time it should be used is when I've reached "shoot them" as the next level of force. I would say it is closer to using a nightstick than using a gun.
Oh, and I'd rather be temporarily blinded than beaten with a nightstick...
Why is it that the introduction of a non-lethal, safer-than-shooting-a-gun method of subduing a suspected criminal considered such a bad thing? If I were as paranoid of the government as you obviously are, I'd rather have them weilding a temporarily blinding light than to just save batteries and cram a load of C4 up my rear. Seriously, what's up with you people?
Are you a cell phone salesman? If not, I don't get what this guy's issue is with you submitting the story. If you are then whoopideedo, not like any vendor will sell different, better/worse plans than you. Waaaait...are you an Apple and/or AT&T exec? If so, then I totally agree with his response!
I'm saying that not enough regular joes would want to sell their gold cheap enough to bring down the gold seller site people. I'm saying that "a market" based on that would fail for lack of supply.
5. Since anyone can sell gold easily, the competition in the legit market would be huge.
I wouldn't participate in a market that demanded that I sell 1000 gold for less than what it goes for now on the average gold seller site. 1000g is a LOT of work to end up with..what $15? My feeling is that too many people would feel the same and just like auction house prices, you'd settle into a price that is, on average, profitable for the person selling and a good deal for the person buying. Yes there will be temporary and longer term fluctuations, but this isn't like selling stuff in the real world where people actually need it.
they can swear it's not lag...it just means they changed something. Seriously, changing on the fly to me means high probability of entire realms going down for hours on end because some codemonkey forgot a semi-colon.
I only get around 10 parcels of mail a day. It is typically 70% "spam" but it's relatively easy to sort because there are only 10 parcels. If each day I received 500 parcels with still only 3 being things I requested (bills, letters from home, etc..) then I would be severely put off and would definitely be causing a stink. It costs money to send snailmail spam though, so it ends up not being worth the cost in many cases. And I have never received a viagra/penis enlargement ad in the snailmail either...probably something to do with the questionable legality of most of those offers.
Okay, so if they were somehow able to locate the exact point in memory where the bad code was being called, and just do a jump around that bit of code, then maybe they could pull off such a thing as they described. The same level of "decompiling" is what it takes to crack most of the older serial # checkers on games. That's quite a bit different than having an issue, determining which module is the cause, decompiling it, finding the bug in decompiled version of the code, FIXING the bug, and the recompiling it and expecting it to somehow work fine with all the other code that you may or may not have decompiled. I just think this was random grandstanding geek-style. Someone using a very unrealistic situation to warrant the use of open source. If you have to stoop to lame ass reasons like that, then you don't have a good enough reason.
I am reporting that humans can breathe underwater without the aid of a breathing device...oh crap I'm wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning, FALSE!!!
I find a high probability of bullshit in the idea that they decompiled some binary to fix an issue. While I know it's possible, I *REALLY* doubt that you could find and fix a decompiled code related issue and recompile to a point where it would work with any success.
Well, I can't find a link right now, but there is at least one company who claims they found a "vein" of pre-flood dirt somewhere. They pack it in jars and sell it for like $30 a pop claiming it is the most fertile land ever and can turn any arrid, no-plant producing land into fertile land again. I'd say that's profiting!
For less technical readers who might be wondering what I'm going on about...
I think it's pretty safe to say that by the time that sentence pops up, ALL less technical readers have given up trying to read the article.
Seriously. Fuck these people
It took some time and some creative googlemapping, but DONE!
and their little top ten list...
I'm still trying to find the right hole to do the same to this one though...
What's your point? 15 year olds get to drive with a parent. 16 year olds get to drive on their own. You can work increasingly more hours a week starting at 13 and going up. The world already offers graduated expectations towards minors. But to say you should abolish the entire idea of adolescence is ignorant of the fact that the general category of adolescence actually follows your own argument that as a child matures they are more than just a "minor."
What I assume you're trying to shoot for is something that currently isn't granted to those under the age of 18 or 21 and you either currently aren't able to do that oh so special thing because of your age, or you were annoyed by it being against the law when you were below the legal age. Yes, a teenager's brain goes through considerable growth and maturation from 12 to 19. But just because a brain or body has become physically mature, doesn't mean that person should immediately be granted immancipation. In fact, this is the time where they will learn the most about what it means to be responsible with their new found physical maturity.
All this ignores the fact that children mature at different rates, as well as the fact that a 14 year old likely has MUCH more physical development left to go, let alone mental development. Some people like the laws that limit driving, smoking, drinking, voting, sex with an adult, etc... because they want to keep the kids down (The Man). But I believe that most of the laws that exist to enforce the concept of a minor are acceptible and reasonable in their definition of who can do what and when.
While it would be great if we could bitchslap collectively stupid things like this right out of people, it's their right to believe what they choose. However, it is absolutely stupid...no absolutely fucking stupid...no....absolutely mother fucking idiotic to the degree that those responsible should be executed for being a waste of air consumption stupid that this would be done to avoid offending poor widdle muslim holocaust deniers. Cry more you fucked up noobs.
A single pixel (composed of three sub-pixels) and the number of colors it can display by itself are the issue. Now, they could just come back and say "we have millions of colors at lower resolutions" and that would end that because it's pretty common knowledge that at resolutions lower than the natural resolution of the monitor pixels are combined and therefore can be used together to create more color. I remember back in the earlier days of graphical programming, you typically had a choice between 640X480 16 color, or 320X240 256 color. Yes at 640X480 you could simulate more colors but not without sacrificing resolution in the area that you were simulating it.
I understand why it sounded that way, but no, I'm saying that a fear/hysteria over the very real possibility of millions of people being obliterated in seconds or irradiated to death over a slightly longer period of time is one of the root causes of technophobia over things such as microwave ovens.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a nuclear explosion, then again, I have an urge to cover my nether regions when standing in front of my microwave too....
Your example of the boy marrying the woman after her release is pretty lame. You could easily say he was psychologically damaged by the sexual acts committed against him where no consent was possible. Minors are deemed in general to not have the ability to consent to such things because they "don't know any better."
I don't get why so many/.ers are rising up against this. Show me a list of people who have been wrongly labeled sex offender. All I see are claims that it could be so horribly misused. Any law and enforcement of that law can be misused. I'm going to err on the side of protecting children. There are legal methods for getting sex offender label reversed if wrongly done. Until someone proves that the label is being applied en masse incorrectly, I don't see a problem. MySpace complying with supplying data does not erode anyone's rights.
As long as due process is given, it all fits within the constitution perfectly. You infringe on someone else's life or liberty and you should expect to lose yours in some way. How about sex crime = death like in some less civilized places? Then you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little heads that some sick fuck is having a hard time finding an acceptible location for his home. Waah waah boo hoo.
Slashdot Mirror
If you make the assumption that it the effect isn't temporary, then no, this isn't a very effective addition to the police arsenal. However, it is the opposite assertion made by this article. I am all for the investigation and innovation of new less-than-lethal methods of subduing suspects. What we have now can be used effectively, but if there's something that can MORE effectively subdue suspects then I'm all for it. For example, if they could create a long range gun that was guaranteed to completely stun someone for five minutes without causing any long term damage, I think that would be a great alternative to shooting them in the head. I'm certain that there are many better ways to peacefully end a situation where a new technology would be the key enabler. And I'm sure you would appreciate it when you're the suspect (guilty or not) and you do something stupid (like wave what looks like a gun around) and the police have three options instead of one before dropping you with their 9mm.
So something that uses considerably less force and causes less potential damage should only be used in exactly the same situation as you would use a gun? No freakin way. If I'm in a situation where use of a gun is appropriate level of force, I'm not going to hope that my blinding light will be an acceptible substitute. The RoE that lead up to shoot-to-kill are meant to be progressively higher force. Yes, I agree that now with this new technology they should evaluate situations that currently require use of firearm to see if they could potentially be replaced with this new device. But I wouldn't presume that the only time it should be used is when I've reached "shoot them" as the next level of force. I would say it is closer to using a nightstick than using a gun.
Oh, and I'd rather be temporarily blinded than beaten with a nightstick...
Why is it that the introduction of a non-lethal, safer-than-shooting-a-gun method of subduing a suspected criminal considered such a bad thing? If I were as paranoid of the government as you obviously are, I'd rather have them weilding a temporarily blinding light than to just save batteries and cram a load of C4 up my rear. Seriously, what's up with you people?
Dang! You must have enemies if you are the very first post and you get modded redundant. Time to work on some positive karma buddy...
You're right. I was thinking of the implanted defibulators. Though it was still a joke. Thank you for the correction.
wouldn't that be some sort of paradox...
Are you a cell phone salesman? If not, I don't get what this guy's issue is with you submitting the story. If you are then whoopideedo, not like any vendor will sell different, better/worse plans than you. Waaaait...are you an Apple and/or AT&T exec? If so, then I totally agree with his response!
I'm saying that not enough regular joes would want to sell their gold cheap enough to bring down the gold seller site people. I'm saying that "a market" based on that would fail for lack of supply.
I wouldn't participate in a market that demanded that I sell 1000 gold for less than what it goes for now on the average gold seller site. 1000g is a LOT of work to end up with..what $15? My feeling is that too many people would feel the same and just like auction house prices, you'd settle into a price that is, on average, profitable for the person selling and a good deal for the person buying. Yes there will be temporary and longer term fluctuations, but this isn't like selling stuff in the real world where people actually need it.
they can swear it's not lag...it just means they changed something. Seriously, changing on the fly to me means high probability of entire realms going down for hours on end because some codemonkey forgot a semi-colon.
I only get around 10 parcels of mail a day. It is typically 70% "spam" but it's relatively easy to sort because there are only 10 parcels. If each day I received 500 parcels with still only 3 being things I requested (bills, letters from home, etc..) then I would be severely put off and would definitely be causing a stink. It costs money to send snailmail spam though, so it ends up not being worth the cost in many cases. And I have never received a viagra/penis enlargement ad in the snailmail either...probably something to do with the questionable legality of most of those offers.
Who won the war of the roses?
Okay, so if they were somehow able to locate the exact point in memory where the bad code was being called, and just do a jump around that bit of code, then maybe they could pull off such a thing as they described. The same level of "decompiling" is what it takes to crack most of the older serial # checkers on games. That's quite a bit different than having an issue, determining which module is the cause, decompiling it, finding the bug in decompiled version of the code, FIXING the bug, and the recompiling it and expecting it to somehow work fine with all the other code that you may or may not have decompiled. I just think this was random grandstanding geek-style. Someone using a very unrealistic situation to warrant the use of open source. If you have to stoop to lame ass reasons like that, then you don't have a good enough reason.
I am reporting that humans can breathe underwater without the aid of a breathing device...oh crap I'm wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning, FALSE!!!
I find a high probability of bullshit in the idea that they decompiled some binary to fix an issue. While I know it's possible, I *REALLY* doubt that you could find and fix a decompiled code related issue and recompile to a point where it would work with any success.
Well, I can't find a link right now, but there is at least one company who claims they found a "vein" of pre-flood dirt somewhere. They pack it in jars and sell it for like $30 a pop claiming it is the most fertile land ever and can turn any arrid, no-plant producing land into fertile land again. I'd say that's profiting!
I think it's pretty safe to say that by the time that sentence pops up, ALL less technical readers have given up trying to read the article.
It took some time and some creative googlemapping, but DONE!
and their little top ten list
I'm still trying to find the right hole to do the same to this one though...
What's your point? 15 year olds get to drive with a parent. 16 year olds get to drive on their own. You can work increasingly more hours a week starting at 13 and going up. The world already offers graduated expectations towards minors. But to say you should abolish the entire idea of adolescence is ignorant of the fact that the general category of adolescence actually follows your own argument that as a child matures they are more than just a "minor."
What I assume you're trying to shoot for is something that currently isn't granted to those under the age of 18 or 21 and you either currently aren't able to do that oh so special thing because of your age, or you were annoyed by it being against the law when you were below the legal age. Yes, a teenager's brain goes through considerable growth and maturation from 12 to 19. But just because a brain or body has become physically mature, doesn't mean that person should immediately be granted immancipation. In fact, this is the time where they will learn the most about what it means to be responsible with their new found physical maturity.
All this ignores the fact that children mature at different rates, as well as the fact that a 14 year old likely has MUCH more physical development left to go, let alone mental development. Some people like the laws that limit driving, smoking, drinking, voting, sex with an adult, etc... because they want to keep the kids down (The Man). But I believe that most of the laws that exist to enforce the concept of a minor are acceptible and reasonable in their definition of who can do what and when.
While it would be great if we could bitchslap collectively stupid things like this right out of people, it's their right to believe what they choose. However, it is absolutely stupid...no absolutely fucking stupid...no....absolutely mother fucking idiotic to the degree that those responsible should be executed for being a waste of air consumption stupid that this would be done to avoid offending poor widdle muslim holocaust deniers. Cry more you fucked up noobs.
What online rights is this about? Your right to post videos on the internet without being held accountable for what they contain?
A single pixel (composed of three sub-pixels) and the number of colors it can display by itself are the issue. Now, they could just come back and say "we have millions of colors at lower resolutions" and that would end that because it's pretty common knowledge that at resolutions lower than the natural resolution of the monitor pixels are combined and therefore can be used together to create more color. I remember back in the earlier days of graphical programming, you typically had a choice between 640X480 16 color, or 320X240 256 color. Yes at 640X480 you could simulate more colors but not without sacrificing resolution in the area that you were simulating it.
I understand why it sounded that way, but no, I'm saying that a fear/hysteria over the very real possibility of millions of people being obliterated in seconds or irradiated to death over a slightly longer period of time is one of the root causes of technophobia over things such as microwave ovens.
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a nuclear explosion, then again, I have an urge to cover my nether regions when standing in front of my microwave too....
Your example of the boy marrying the woman after her release is pretty lame. You could easily say he was psychologically damaged by the sexual acts committed against him where no consent was possible. Minors are deemed in general to not have the ability to consent to such things because they "don't know any better."
/.ers are rising up against this. Show me a list of people who have been wrongly labeled sex offender. All I see are claims that it could be so horribly misused. Any law and enforcement of that law can be misused. I'm going to err on the side of protecting children. There are legal methods for getting sex offender label reversed if wrongly done. Until someone proves that the label is being applied en masse incorrectly, I don't see a problem. MySpace complying with supplying data does not erode anyone's rights.
I don't get why so many
As long as due process is given, it all fits within the constitution perfectly. You infringe on someone else's life or liberty and you should expect to lose yours in some way. How about sex crime = death like in some less civilized places? Then you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little heads that some sick fuck is having a hard time finding an acceptible location for his home. Waah waah boo hoo.