Personally I think that a la carte programming is a terrible idea, and here's why:
Slashdoters have bemoaned the quality of "popular" programming like survivor, Dr. Phil, and Friends for time immemorial. If a la carte programming were to become the norm it is my opinion that the more esoteric channels would either be more expensive, or unavailable. Basically eliminating bundling would also eliminate indirect subsidies for a lot of less popular, but wholly worthwhile channels.
If I had to guess if the free market (a misnomer if there ever was one) decided the price for television programming I'd be paying more for fewer channels.
IMO the most imporant factor for rating a companies "greeness" is the prominace of the pharse "enviornmental stewardship" in its corporate mission statement.
Not only that but also toss in a red herring about net neutrality - just to fire people up a bit. As far as I can tell the patent application (of which at least I read the claims, BTW) only applies to social networks. If you are on someone elses network I have no problem with them controlling quotas, content, etc.
I am perfectly content to limit self-incrimination to the definition furnished in the constitution - actually testifying against yourself. I understand that you think that we deserve broader protection, I simply disagree. In the bank robber example I used earlier, of course the bank would have its own cameras, but it is very possible the perpetrators recording showed extra incriminating evidence, such as the planning or escape. These things happen, and if you don't want to produce evidence against yourself, either (a) don't commit a crime, or (b) don't collect evidence that can be used against you.
As for corporate retention, yes it is true that companies destroy their own documents so that they can't later be used against them, but why is this such a bad thing? First, there are laws surrounding document destruction and retention, and if a suit is brought against a company in a timely manner, and there is no possibility of discovery due to document destruction the court is very to take a very negative outlook on the defendant. Secondly, if a company routinely destroys documents that hinder advancements in its field (be it science, or marketing, or anything else.) This ought to encourage a timely pursuit of justice. If the documents are old, so are the memories. If you have a complaint it is much better for all parties to file as soon as possible. In the special case of delayed reactions to drugs or chemicals, registration data such as toxicology and environmental data is not only retained permanently by the manufacturer, but also by a regulatory agency.
Your idea of mounting cameras in your car, who's evidence only you could use would rapidly lead to a data collection arms race. Everyone (who could afford it,) would record everything, and privacy would be eroded in a much more serous way than with police searches. Couple that with how easy it would become for an interested third party to turn brother on brother, and I find the proposition very unsettling.
In a criminal case evidence is often hard to obtain because the perpetrator often takes it with him. Gang members keep weapons used for murder, which is critical for ballistic evidence. Without a search warrant it would be virtually impossible to get a conviction. Or what about this hypothetical: I abduct a woman (while wearing a mask - no 3rd party video evidence) and murder her in my basement. I dispose of the body in private, on my own land. The police might know that I'm guilty but be unable to act because all the evidence is mine, unable to be used against me, and confined to my private property.
And we add trial in absentia to boot. So while I'm being tried for embezzlement (I'm a really bad guy!) I get to have my expensive lawyers represent me while I lounge (without bond) in my mansion. If the trial looks like it isn't working out for me I flee to a non-extradition country, no one can bar me because I'm still innocent, especially if I use my own private transportation. Oh, and I'm free to intimidate witnesses sell company assets, continue to manipulate stock prices, etc. because, not only is it not in my best interest to cooperate, it is impossible for me to be found in contempt of court when I've not only never been there, but am unable to be compelled to appear.
I don't underestimate the cost of being not guilty and being involved in a police search, which is why there are safeguards in place. Their not perfect, and sometimes mistakes happen, but I fail to see how your system would improve this. Even with your system there would still be investigations and accusations, it would just make it much harder to actually convict someone. Yes, of course we should not make it too easy for police and prosecutors to get convictions, but after all isn't that what the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is supposed to do?
Which brings me to two last things that are tied together, and bother me a bit. The first is that you would have the victim, or the victim's representative, be the prosecutor, and the se
The difference between a recording made with pen and paper and one made by a video-recorder or a blackbox is one of degree, not kind.
This I absolutely agree with. Which is why I suggest that the data collected by black boxes is yours, but it can be subpoenaed with a proper warrant. I question why you think that evidence that someone created should not be able to be used against them, it is their stupid fault for creating it in the first place. The Fifth Amendment provides protection against being "compelled... to be a witness against [one]self." Your crux of your argument seems to be that the "black boxes" are an "electronic memory" and the Fifth Amendment should apply. Here I think there is a pretty serious difference in kind. Just because you carry an evidence-collecting box with you while committing a crime doesn't mean that you are testifying against yourself. If a bank robber videotapes a crime should that be protected material?
You also seem to advocate a very fundamental change in due process.
I am opposed to compulsory testimony, or to trespass or theft against those not declared guilty
How are we to collect evidence in support of a trial if this is the case? Or do we do away with the notion of presumed innocence? IMO warrants and probable cause are fundamental to pursuit of justice, without them we wouldn't only be unable to convict anyone, we wouldn't even be able to arrest and try anyone who simply remains on their private property after commission of a crime. The police, if acting in good faith, through the proper channels, should not have to make restitution for a search that doesn't yield evidence, unless of course material harm has been inflicted. Since there is no such thing as a trespass contract, any award would be punative, how much would a fruitless, good faith, police search be worth, and do we really want to disrupt the polices ability to investigate crimes this much?
As far as mandatory insurance, I maintain that it is a necessary evil. Certainly I would prefer if the guilty party had to make restitution, but the fact of the matter is that they wouldn't be able to, especially if the cost of the accident included medical bills. No amount of wages garnered from McDonalds or Wal-Mart would ever be able to cover the costs associated with some auto accidents, so the best option is to mandate that they carry insurance. You advocate debtor's prisons, but then how would I be reimbursed when I can't even take money from the guilty parties minimum wage job - I'm shooting myself in the foot. Which is precisely the reason that people realized debtors prisons were a horrible idea in the 19th century. While I acknowledge that I still have to carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, I still think that mandatory and enforced insurance laws help keep the cost down in the long run. Besides imagine the increase in hit and run accidents that would occur if people knew that they were going to jail for a loong time for the fender-bender (the other reason debtor's prisons are a terrible idea - disproportionate punishment). Unless you are very rich you cannot assume the responsibility for driving yourself; I, for one, unfortunately don't have $300,000 I can stick in escrow - to cover only the liability portion of my insurance.
I'm on the fence on this one - but your argument is unconvincing to me.
If any unpublished data is the property of the person who made it, you would have a hard time convincing me that the data the car records was made by you. Sure you might own the car, but just because you own your house doesn't mean the police can't collect evidence against you there. Same story with your computer. If I committed a crime, and recorded it in my (paper) journal, and the police found it you know as well as I that it would be used against me. The only think that makes this driving data different is that it is made without your effort (I think that we can both agree that you should be notified - which means that it was not made without your knowledge.)
Compare the car data to a video camera in a public place, or a red light camera, or a policeman's radar gun. All that data can be used against you. I think that what is important is that due process be preserved in these cases. If you committed a crime (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) and the police have reason to believe that they will be able to gather evidence against you they should be allowed to seek a warrant and obtain that information.
My fears regarding this technology don't surround self-incrimination; rather that law enforcement will see them as an investigational short cut. The police should NOT be able to download anyone's data to see who was speeding, or if you were in an accident etc. They should NEED to have probable cause to search your electronic equipment.
What really bothers me though is less the thought of getting a speeding ticket from a machine on my dash, and more the thought of insurance companies compelling, or coercing drivers to report data on their driving habits to them. The insurance company is not a government agency; they are not entitled to any information about me (beside that which I provide them and that which they can obtain through public records.) Their marriage to the government is what I consider a necessary evil, I don't trust everyone to do the right thing, and I don't want to be on the hook because some people can't handle the responsibility associated with driving an automobile (I'd rather have lack of insurance be a criminal offense than have my insurance be 30% more expensive.) They should not be able to leverage this position to watch me. I think that my insurance premiums should be based on my driving history, and my demographic risk factors. If I've never been in an accident, and haven't had a speeding ticket since I was 16 I shouldn't have to pay more if I get up to 85mph 60% more often than the average person.
Re:Blog First, Then Scientific Journals.
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 1
I am also very much not an expert in the field, but my reading of the blog, and similar other accounts, tells me that dark matter does in fact interact with normal matter, and itself, and light, but all through (and only through ?) gravity. It is just "collision proof."
If dark matter didn't interact with regular matter you wouldn't expect it to be concentrated in galaxies - which is what made this discovery possible.
I'm certain that I've missed some of the finer details, and I may be wholly wrong (some one will doubtlesssly let me know,) but that is my impression.
Serious question, has a vaccine ever produced a birth defect when administered to someone who wasn't pregnant at the time?
Vaccines are given as a one time (or in a single series) application. If you aren't pregnant when recieving the drug you shouldn't be able to cause developmental birth defects. Cases like Thalidomides are drugs that the woman is taking during pregnancy.
Sure there is the chance that the drug causes chromosomal damage in the eggs before fertilization, but shouldn't there be a relatively simple in vitro test for that?
IMO this should be modded up, not because I agree with it, but because it makes an extremely interesting point.
I don't think that it is fair to say that liberals are to blame for lenient punishments. I think that they'd like to take credit for more humane treatment of prisoners, but I don't think that they can say anything about actual prison sentences...
This is one of the places where the standard left vs. right view of politics breaks down. It seems intuitive to blame "bleeding heart liberals" for being soft on crime, but when you look at the problem more holistically there are a slew of contradictions right under the surface.
For starters look at one of the main problem with prisons, overcrowding. Then ask what most people are in prison for - drugs. On the surface this looks like conservatives being hard on crime, but the ultimate consequence is that there just isn't enough room, and people get let out early, deals are cut, etc. all of which essentially undermines the threat of punishment.
Now look at another issue, so-called "white collar crime." Traditional republican (conservative) values support big business, coupled with the fact that non-violent criminals are less scary to a jury and you find disproportionately weak sentences for people who defraud the public of millions.
Now as for hanging traitors - I don't think the reason we see fewer treason trials is not a result of liberals, but rather a result of the fact that we are not engaged in a conventional conflict between nation-states. While Russia, Japan, Germany, Germany again, and so on back to England may have had the resources to train full fledged operatives, who are capable of committing overt acts of treason, terrorists are not. Also terrorists don't need information on strategy, weapons, or troop positions, they just want to blow something up in as public a way as possible; having operatives committing treason, is a waste of their resources.
I never liked it when people trot out any argument containing the phrase, "the good old days," but looking at Camp X-ray, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it looks to me that we are closer to the wild west than any more civilized time since.
One last point, I don't care how the terrorists treat people that they capture. We have no business compromising our values and our morals. I know the government needs "human intelligence," but my moral compass tells me something is wrong when my government is using techniques developed in the Inquisition like waterboarding. Part of that whole "basic human rights" thing that we spout off about whenever we want to get our way.
What I'm concerned a bit about is that no one with credibility is saying what the government is doing.
Not only that but I'm sympathize with the argument that the government needs to be able to make some information classified. To trot out a tired old example I wouldn't want the details of the Manhattan project to get out, I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,) and I don't think that we necessarilly have the right to know exactly whom the CIA is getting information from.
The problem is all those examples place some trust in the government, the less trustworthy a government the more transparancy its citizens should demand. Dragnet domestic wiretapping is an abuse of the trust we've placed in law enforcement, and in theory anyways, it is from our trust that they gain their power. The only way to prevent abuse of trust from being a self defeating mechanism is to steer away from democracy and towards autocracy, which reverses the equation.
That is what really scares me. Now while I don't expect George W, or most of the senators to recognize this, I am fully convinced that there are some puppet masters behind the curtain who are all too aware.
I think the state of file sharing indicates that we are in fact practicing civil disobedience. It might not be for entirely altruistic, but it is certainly disobedient.
Part of civil disobedience is that you still suffer the consequences of your actions, even if you disagree with the statute in the first place. Hopefully the laws will change and others won't have to suffer the same as you.
The problem with this analogy is that the consumers are, in most cases, actually doing something wrong. The dragnet approach might not be what you or I consider ethical, but it is really hard to mount a defence in one of these cases if you know you are guilty.
If we followed your analogy through, it would be like the UAW going to the automakers and saying that they don't want to work, and still want to get paid. Oh wait...
I'm replying to myself because I thought about my post and wanted to *ahem* retract a few things...
The parent isn't legally responsible for the kid, but assuming the kid is a minor, the proper cause of action in a civil suit is probably name the kid in the complaint, and sue the parents. Whether the parents are responsible is probably an issue of semantics - the parents will be paying either way.
Oh, and I looked up secondary liabilty, and if it was a minor child it looks (to my non-expert eye) like the RIAA could have made a case, regardless of what the ACLU and EFF say. It seems the RIAAs problem is that they wanted the mom to be both primarily, and secondarily liable at the same time - probably the kind of contradiction that gets you thrown out of court...
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the parent has ever been legally responsible for what their kid does, providing they didn't encourage or facilitate anything.
If the RIAA wanted to go after the kid, and the kid had fessed up they probably would have won. But as it is they basically said, "we know you didn't do it, but we're still going to sue you anyway," which seems like a hallmark of frivolity to me. "Oh, and by the way we're going to tack on a charge of 'secondary liability' to boot." If a lawyer is reading slashdot, and can explain "secondary liability" to me I'd love to hear it.
Now, I don't recall the specific details of this case, but keep in mind kid doesn't neccessarily mean minor-child.
The same way you make nano particles of titanium dioxide, which is already mass produced for paint. Large bead (media) mills, with ~1mm zirconia beads.
Not as a paint, but as an overcoating - protecting the finish. Also this stuff is probably very viscous even at 0 shear. If you coated your car first with paint, then with "liquid armor" then the clear coat, you could concievably greatly enhance the durability of the finsh.
There is an interesting point in there, spray applications are characterized as extremely high sheer. It seems that the armor was basically saturated with this stuff, spray coating would probably be impossible, this stuff would turn into a rock in your sprayer. If this were to make it to an auto market it might have to be applied with a squeegee, or a dip process.
The real selling point of this stuff in car finishes wouldn't be that your car is now bullet proof (although that would make a good bullet point in the brochure.)
Consider this:
We drove this new Ford(TM) Mustang(TM) with DuPont(TM) Protectoguard(TM) coating on the Jersy turnpike, for 200 miles, in construction, behind a Peterbuilt(TM) dumptruck. We recorded 390 discrete stone strikes. But thanks to the Miricles of Science (TM) there isn't a single paint chip in the finish. Blah Blah Blah. Now that's a BOLD move.(TM)
Not really, polyetylene glycol (PEG) != ethylene glycol.
But anyway, both PEG, and sand are really cheap, so depending on what is published you should be able to make this at home if you are so inclined.
I'd also expect the DuPont company to try to bring this to market - maybe in their auto paints? I'd be willing to bet they provided significant funding based on the fact that the demo utilized kevlar, and that the research was done at the university of delaware.
I wonder how simple this really is, while PEGs vary greatly in molecular weight, and there is an infinite span of concentrations, really, knowing only what the video told us, anyone with an interest should be able to figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I think that a la carte programming is a terrible idea, and here's why:
Slashdoters have bemoaned the quality of "popular" programming like survivor, Dr. Phil, and Friends for time immemorial. If a la carte programming were to become the norm it is my opinion that the more esoteric channels would either be more expensive, or unavailable. Basically eliminating bundling would also eliminate indirect subsidies for a lot of less popular, but wholly worthwhile channels.
If I had to guess if the free market (a misnomer if there ever was one) decided the price for television programming I'd be paying more for fewer channels.
IMO the most imporant factor for rating a companies "greeness" is the prominace of the pharse "enviornmental stewardship" in its corporate mission statement.
Not only that but also toss in a red herring about net neutrality - just to fire people up a bit. As far as I can tell the patent application (of which at least I read the claims, BTW) only applies to social networks. If you are on someone elses network I have no problem with them controlling quotas, content, etc.
I am perfectly content to limit self-incrimination to the definition furnished in the constitution - actually testifying against yourself. I understand that you think that we deserve broader protection, I simply disagree. In the bank robber example I used earlier, of course the bank would have its own cameras, but it is very possible the perpetrators recording showed extra incriminating evidence, such as the planning or escape. These things happen, and if you don't want to produce evidence against yourself, either (a) don't commit a crime, or (b) don't collect evidence that can be used against you.
As for corporate retention, yes it is true that companies destroy their own documents so that they can't later be used against them, but why is this such a bad thing? First, there are laws surrounding document destruction and retention, and if a suit is brought against a company in a timely manner, and there is no possibility of discovery due to document destruction the court is very to take a very negative outlook on the defendant. Secondly, if a company routinely destroys documents that hinder advancements in its field (be it science, or marketing, or anything else.) This ought to encourage a timely pursuit of justice. If the documents are old, so are the memories. If you have a complaint it is much better for all parties to file as soon as possible. In the special case of delayed reactions to drugs or chemicals, registration data such as toxicology and environmental data is not only retained permanently by the manufacturer, but also by a regulatory agency.
Your idea of mounting cameras in your car, who's evidence only you could use would rapidly lead to a data collection arms race. Everyone (who could afford it,) would record everything, and privacy would be eroded in a much more serous way than with police searches. Couple that with how easy it would become for an interested third party to turn brother on brother, and I find the proposition very unsettling.
In a criminal case evidence is often hard to obtain because the perpetrator often takes it with him. Gang members keep weapons used for murder, which is critical for ballistic evidence. Without a search warrant it would be virtually impossible to get a conviction. Or what about this hypothetical: I abduct a woman (while wearing a mask - no 3rd party video evidence) and murder her in my basement. I dispose of the body in private, on my own land. The police might know that I'm guilty but be unable to act because all the evidence is mine, unable to be used against me, and confined to my private property.
And we add trial in absentia to boot. So while I'm being tried for embezzlement (I'm a really bad guy!) I get to have my expensive lawyers represent me while I lounge (without bond) in my mansion. If the trial looks like it isn't working out for me I flee to a non-extradition country, no one can bar me because I'm still innocent, especially if I use my own private transportation. Oh, and I'm free to intimidate witnesses sell company assets, continue to manipulate stock prices, etc. because, not only is it not in my best interest to cooperate, it is impossible for me to be found in contempt of court when I've not only never been there, but am unable to be compelled to appear.
I don't underestimate the cost of being not guilty and being involved in a police search, which is why there are safeguards in place. Their not perfect, and sometimes mistakes happen, but I fail to see how your system would improve this. Even with your system there would still be investigations and accusations, it would just make it much harder to actually convict someone. Yes, of course we should not make it too easy for police and prosecutors to get convictions, but after all isn't that what the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing is supposed to do?
Which brings me to two last things that are tied together, and bother me a bit. The first is that you would have the victim, or the victim's representative, be the prosecutor, and the se
You also seem to advocate a very fundamental change in due process. How are we to collect evidence in support of a trial if this is the case? Or do we do away with the notion of presumed innocence? IMO warrants and probable cause are fundamental to pursuit of justice, without them we wouldn't only be unable to convict anyone, we wouldn't even be able to arrest and try anyone who simply remains on their private property after commission of a crime. The police, if acting in good faith, through the proper channels, should not have to make restitution for a search that doesn't yield evidence, unless of course material harm has been inflicted. Since there is no such thing as a trespass contract, any award would be punative, how much would a fruitless, good faith, police search be worth, and do we really want to disrupt the polices ability to investigate crimes this much?
As far as mandatory insurance, I maintain that it is a necessary evil. Certainly I would prefer if the guilty party had to make restitution, but the fact of the matter is that they wouldn't be able to, especially if the cost of the accident included medical bills. No amount of wages garnered from McDonalds or Wal-Mart would ever be able to cover the costs associated with some auto accidents, so the best option is to mandate that they carry insurance. You advocate debtor's prisons, but then how would I be reimbursed when I can't even take money from the guilty parties minimum wage job - I'm shooting myself in the foot. Which is precisely the reason that people realized debtors prisons were a horrible idea in the 19th century. While I acknowledge that I still have to carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, I still think that mandatory and enforced insurance laws help keep the cost down in the long run. Besides imagine the increase in hit and run accidents that would occur if people knew that they were going to jail for a loong time for the fender-bender (the other reason debtor's prisons are a terrible idea - disproportionate punishment). Unless you are very rich you cannot assume the responsibility for driving yourself; I, for one, unfortunately don't have $300,000 I can stick in escrow - to cover only the liability portion of my insurance.
I'm on the fence on this one - but your argument is unconvincing to me.
If any unpublished data is the property of the person who made it, you would have a hard time convincing me that the data the car records was made by you. Sure you might own the car, but just because you own your house doesn't mean the police can't collect evidence against you there. Same story with your computer. If I committed a crime, and recorded it in my (paper) journal, and the police found it you know as well as I that it would be used against me. The only think that makes this driving data different is that it is made without your effort (I think that we can both agree that you should be notified - which means that it was not made without your knowledge.)
Compare the car data to a video camera in a public place, or a red light camera, or a policeman's radar gun. All that data can be used against you. I think that what is important is that due process be preserved in these cases. If you committed a crime (speeding, reckless driving, etc.) and the police have reason to believe that they will be able to gather evidence against you they should be allowed to seek a warrant and obtain that information.
My fears regarding this technology don't surround self-incrimination; rather that law enforcement will see them as an investigational short cut. The police should NOT be able to download anyone's data to see who was speeding, or if you were in an accident etc. They should NEED to have probable cause to search your electronic equipment.
What really bothers me though is less the thought of getting a speeding ticket from a machine on my dash, and more the thought of insurance companies compelling, or coercing drivers to report data on their driving habits to them. The insurance company is not a government agency; they are not entitled to any information about me (beside that which I provide them and that which they can obtain through public records.) Their marriage to the government is what I consider a necessary evil, I don't trust everyone to do the right thing, and I don't want to be on the hook because some people can't handle the responsibility associated with driving an automobile (I'd rather have lack of insurance be a criminal offense than have my insurance be 30% more expensive.) They should not be able to leverage this position to watch me. I think that my insurance premiums should be based on my driving history, and my demographic risk factors. If I've never been in an accident, and haven't had a speeding ticket since I was 16 I shouldn't have to pay more if I get up to 85mph 60% more often than the average person.
I am also very much not an expert in the field, but my reading of the blog, and similar other accounts, tells me that dark matter does in fact interact with normal matter, and itself, and light, but all through (and only through ?) gravity. It is just "collision proof."
If dark matter didn't interact with regular matter you wouldn't expect it to be concentrated in galaxies - which is what made this discovery possible.
I'm certain that I've missed some of the finer details, and I may be wholly wrong (some one will doubtlesssly let me know,) but that is my impression.
Serious question, has a vaccine ever produced a birth defect when administered to someone who wasn't pregnant at the time?
Vaccines are given as a one time (or in a single series) application. If you aren't pregnant when recieving the drug you shouldn't be able to cause developmental birth defects. Cases like Thalidomides are drugs that the woman is taking during pregnancy.
Sure there is the chance that the drug causes chromosomal damage in the eggs before fertilization, but shouldn't there be a relatively simple in vitro test for that?
I'm confused, who's policies are you advocating?
IMO this should be modded up, not because I agree with it, but because it makes an extremely interesting point.
I don't think that it is fair to say that liberals are to blame for lenient punishments. I think that they'd like to take credit for more humane treatment of prisoners, but I don't think that they can say anything about actual prison sentences...
This is one of the places where the standard left vs. right view of politics breaks down. It seems intuitive to blame "bleeding heart liberals" for being soft on crime, but when you look at the problem more holistically there are a slew of contradictions right under the surface.
For starters look at one of the main problem with prisons, overcrowding. Then ask what most people are in prison for - drugs. On the surface this looks like conservatives being hard on crime, but the ultimate consequence is that there just isn't enough room, and people get let out early, deals are cut, etc. all of which essentially undermines the threat of punishment.
Now look at another issue, so-called "white collar crime." Traditional republican (conservative) values support big business, coupled with the fact that non-violent criminals are less scary to a jury and you find disproportionately weak sentences for people who defraud the public of millions.
Now as for hanging traitors - I don't think the reason we see fewer treason trials is not a result of liberals, but rather a result of the fact that we are not engaged in a conventional conflict between nation-states. While Russia, Japan, Germany, Germany again, and so on back to England may have had the resources to train full fledged operatives, who are capable of committing overt acts of treason, terrorists are not. Also terrorists don't need information on strategy, weapons, or troop positions, they just want to blow something up in as public a way as possible; having operatives committing treason, is a waste of their resources.
I never liked it when people trot out any argument containing the phrase, "the good old days," but looking at Camp X-ray, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it looks to me that we are closer to the wild west than any more civilized time since.
One last point, I don't care how the terrorists treat people that they capture. We have no business compromising our values and our morals. I know the government needs "human intelligence," but my moral compass tells me something is wrong when my government is using techniques developed in the Inquisition like waterboarding. Part of that whole "basic human rights" thing that we spout off about whenever we want to get our way.
Of course not.
What I'm concerned a bit about is that no one with credibility is saying what the government is doing.
Not only that but I'm sympathize with the argument that the government needs to be able to make some information classified. To trot out a tired old example I wouldn't want the details of the Manhattan project to get out, I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,) and I don't think that we necessarilly have the right to know exactly whom the CIA is getting information from.
The problem is all those examples place some trust in the government, the less trustworthy a government the more transparancy its citizens should demand. Dragnet domestic wiretapping is an abuse of the trust we've placed in law enforcement, and in theory anyways, it is from our trust that they gain their power. The only way to prevent abuse of trust from being a self defeating mechanism is to steer away from democracy and towards autocracy, which reverses the equation.
That is what really scares me. Now while I don't expect George W, or most of the senators to recognize this, I am fully convinced that there are some puppet masters behind the curtain who are all too aware.
Clearly they're trying to develop brand loyalty in these youngsters. It is a page right out of Phillip Morris's marketing playbook.
And i just collected a Miss Veluptia - she had 450 homeruns last season.
I'm looking to complete the set, so if anyone has Foxy Downtown let me know, I'd be willing to trade.
I think the state of file sharing indicates that we are in fact practicing civil disobedience. It might not be for entirely altruistic, but it is certainly disobedient.
Part of civil disobedience is that you still suffer the consequences of your actions, even if you disagree with the statute in the first place. Hopefully the laws will change and others won't have to suffer the same as you.
You mean like the EFF?
The problem with this analogy is that the consumers are, in most cases, actually doing something wrong. The dragnet approach might not be what you or I consider ethical, but it is really hard to mount a defence in one of these cases if you know you are guilty.
If we followed your analogy through, it would be like the UAW going to the automakers and saying that they don't want to work, and still want to get paid. Oh wait...
I'm replying to myself because I thought about my post and wanted to *ahem* retract a few things...
The parent isn't legally responsible for the kid, but assuming the kid is a minor, the proper cause of action in a civil suit is probably name the kid in the complaint, and sue the parents. Whether the parents are responsible is probably an issue of semantics - the parents will be paying either way.
Oh, and I looked up secondary liabilty, and if it was a minor child it looks (to my non-expert eye) like the RIAA could have made a case, regardless of what the ACLU and EFF say. It seems the RIAAs problem is that they wanted the mom to be both primarily, and secondarily liable at the same time - probably the kind of contradiction that gets you thrown out of court...
(That will teach me to go off half-cocked)
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the parent has ever been legally responsible for what their kid does, providing they didn't encourage or facilitate anything.
If the RIAA wanted to go after the kid, and the kid had fessed up they probably would have won. But as it is they basically said, "we know you didn't do it, but we're still going to sue you anyway," which seems like a hallmark of frivolity to me. "Oh, and by the way we're going to tack on a charge of 'secondary liability' to boot." If a lawyer is reading slashdot, and can explain "secondary liability" to me I'd love to hear it.
Now, I don't recall the specific details of this case, but keep in mind kid doesn't neccessarily mean minor-child.
Opium?
Or bought all the coca and poppy fields of the world outright.
Add a nice dose of racism, since it was mostly Mexicans and "jazz musicians" that were smoking it and to paint a more accurate picture.
The same way you make nano particles of titanium dioxide, which is already mass produced for paint. Large bead (media) mills, with ~1mm zirconia beads.
Not as a paint, but as an overcoating - protecting the finish. Also this stuff is probably very viscous even at 0 shear. If you coated your car first with paint, then with "liquid armor" then the clear coat, you could concievably greatly enhance the durability of the finsh.
There is an interesting point in there, spray applications are characterized as extremely high sheer. It seems that the armor was basically saturated with this stuff, spray coating would probably be impossible, this stuff would turn into a rock in your sprayer. If this were to make it to an auto market it might have to be applied with a squeegee, or a dip process.
The real selling point of this stuff in car finishes wouldn't be that your car is now bullet proof (although that would make a good bullet point in the brochure.)
Consider this:
We drove this new Ford(TM) Mustang(TM) with DuPont(TM) Protectoguard(TM) coating on the Jersy turnpike, for 200 miles, in construction, behind a Peterbuilt(TM) dumptruck. We recorded 390 discrete stone strikes. But thanks to the Miricles of Science (TM) there isn't a single paint chip in the finish. Blah Blah Blah. Now that's a BOLD move.(TM)
Not really, polyetylene glycol (PEG) != ethylene glycol.
But anyway, both PEG, and sand are really cheap, so depending on what is published you should be able to make this at home if you are so inclined.
I'd also expect the DuPont company to try to bring this to market - maybe in their auto paints? I'd be willing to bet they provided significant funding based on the fact that the demo utilized kevlar, and that the research was done at the university of delaware.
I wonder how simple this really is, while PEGs vary greatly in molecular weight, and there is an infinite span of concentrations, really, knowing only what the video told us, anyone with an interest should be able to figure it out.