He didn't say "hard to resent something nobody will ever buy", now did he. Personaly, I didn't buy a DVD player untill the encryption had been broken, AND DVD-R drives and disks were available. Untill that point, VHS worked just fine.
Besides, you're not making a fair comparison. DVD was a superior format to VHS, so many people were willing to put up with the fact that they were unable to copy the discs, and/or control playback at certain times. This "patent" isn't meant to be used on any new technology, it's meant to be implemented in TV sets and possibly cable/satelite boxes. There's still plenty of old TV's and boxes floating around, and even if all major western brands begin implementing this "feature", I'm sure the Chinese will be manufacturing ones without it anyway. So there's no comparison.
Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.'"
So 30 years ago, he was right and all the capitalist pigs were just trying to keep him down and poison the environment. Today, he's right, and the rest of the environmentalist movement "needs to update it's views".
you'll notice that most of the first set of site that come up are not affiliated with the military, or even research labs. they're random guys, with too much time. don't forget that 1) al-qaeda has intellignet people on its side too
The majority of these aren't even hitting 600fps. They're still large, AND they're slow as all fuck. A 230fps railgun isn't going to do much to a tank. On the bright side, the gunner will be too busy laughing to bother firing back. Maybe if you distract them enbough with your railgun, you can get up close and drop a granade in the hatch.
2) you're not only gonna be fighting against afghan rebels that hide out in caves, based upon america's track record of treading on people's toes.
Treading on....yah. Let's not go there.
Which country exactly do you envision developing usable railguns before the US does? And do you envision said country going to war with the US?
What are the posibilities? China? Maybe? That's about the only one I can think of, and even that one's pretty unlikely. It's certainly not going to be Lower-East-Tungstinasia.
and also, one of the recent successful designs of a railgun is only around four metres long. plenty small enough to be vehicle mounted. more likely set up in a building though.
Possible. But once again, not a threat now, and not a likely threat for several decades at least. So just because maybe in 2050 we may be facing railgun equiped terrorists, we shouldn't bother with active armour today? Nonsense. By that logic we shouldn't be giving our soldiers any armour either.
Yah, the smallest succesfull railgun so far was mounted on a battleship. Generaly speaking, tanks don't have to worry about being engaged by ships. Also, even if that weren't the case, I'm thinking Al Qaeda might have a tough time purchasing a battleship and a railgun.
RPG's are a threat because they're small, they're mobile, they're cheap, and they're everywhere. None of that is true for railguns today, and probably none of that will be true even 60 years from now.
In other words, you may as well be arguing that this system is useles because it can't stop lightsabers.
The 4th amendmend applies to the government, not to private individuals or corporations. Why do people keep getting that wrong? The constitution DOES NOT place ANY restrictions on the actions of individuals or businesses.
....do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? While I might not like the idea of MS dicking around with my computer, this law is actualy an improvement on the status quo. The only "rights" it's stripping is the rights of corporations to infect your computer with spyware. Stop being a doofus and either explain why you're opposed to the law, or stfu.
Where I live we have this saying: "The brave lives until the coward decides"
Wonderful. As soon as I read that, I pictured a knight in shining armour, atop his glorious steed, surrounded by a horde of deranged peasants. What a great ideal. Why strive to be the best that we can personaly achieve when, instead, we can tear down those better than us and bring them to our level. Your mindset is truly a sign of the times.
A soldier does not die "for his employer". I wouldn't expect you to understand that though. And there will always be wars to fight, and people to kill. The only thing that's constantly changing is how we approach conflict and killing.
Ofcourse we're a means to an end. So is every employee of every company in the world. Why's that tragic?
What's truly tragic is that, unfortiunately, uninformed opinions like yours are far from unique. But that's fine. We don't need your support or approval, and we certainly don't need your permission.
They are rich because they know how to start wars.
Ah yes. Just like doctors are in business because they know how to cause cancer, sickness, and broken bones. Those bastards all carry voodoo-dolls around with them 24/7. You think hey don't have a vested interest in making you sick? Dentists too. Those fuckers plant little microchips in your teeth to create cavities. Then they trigger them using CIA satelites controled by an NSA compter program which monitors your e-mails. Every time you use the phrase "allah ackbar" it sends a signal to the chip which causes a cavity to form.
Dammit. Now I'm gonna have to go to the dentist again.....
A) There's enough demand for weaponry out there that it makes no sense to start new wars in order to make money. Demand is generaly higher than supply. International laws do create some problems however, so the logical course of action for any industry with that much influence would be to lobby for those laws to be changed. Why spend your time and money getting your countrymen to start wars and get themselves killed when you can spend that time and money to increase your market by getting laws changed, or exemptions granted, and then selling weapons to the uncivilized savages who are killing eachother with stones and machettes?
B) Humans aren't pitbulls and neither is the military. Your inability to grasp the nature of modern combat, or even understand the mindset of those of us who fight on your behalf, in no way gives you the right to depict us as mindless barbarians. In other words, go fist yourself.
Well that's probably the biggest load of horse-shit I've ever seen. You could fill the Exon Valdes with that.
Our defense contractors can stay fed by selling new shit to our military, while unloading old technology on other nations. There's plenty of wars out there to keep all of them rich; there's no requirememnt to start new ones.
As for "testing out all our cool new weapons, while using up the old ones", weapons are tested well before they're actually deployed, and old stocs are used up in training, or are sold off once they start reaching the end of their service life.
Finaly, "field-testing new soldiers" is rather pointless, as human nature rarely changes. Training is standardized and does not decrease in effectivness. Therefore the only thing to be gained by sending soldiers to war is the development of new tactics and doctrine. However, those things tend to change from conflict to conflict anyway, so starting wars just to develop new tactics is also rather pointless.
Wars have historicaly never been "satisfactorily explained". There was never any need. Vietnam is special in that it was the first war where the majority of the people actively opposed the foreign policy of the government and the overseas actions of their own military. That has very little to do with the conflict itself, and a lot more to do with the mindset of the American public at that point in history.
If you look farther back you'll see that Korea was a very similar war, which was "explained" even more poorly, yet had very little in the way of opposition, and a LOT of support.
Not be positive. ACT in a positive manner. There's a big difference.
Yeah, if you're getting your ass pounded into the ground by a 300lb gorilla of an assailant, it's not going to do you much good to think positively. Thinking "well, at least he doesn't weigh 400lbs" just aint gonna cut it. On the other hand, punching him in the nuts and then stomping on his head would at that point be a positive action.
Acting positively means doing what's required to fix the problem while not creating a bigger problem in the proccess. So kicking the crap out of a bully could be a positive action if you've exhausted all other options. On the other hand, shooting him in the head would be a pretty negative action because, while it might remedy your current problem, it'll also lead to you being someone's "wife" for the next 10-20 years. Your apparent inability to grasp the concept just proves the point of the parent post. Parents need to teach their children how to relate to people, and how to deal with hostile situations. We spend 12 years brainwashing kids with knowledge that they learn and forget a year later, while neglecting to teach them basic skills which they'll be using every day for the rest of their lives.
You're forgetting the fact that the majority of/. readers are geeks and nerds and may have been picked on in high school. Of couse it's going to be modded up...
Are you one of us? Or one of them? O.o
I'm assuming the "us vs them" thing was meant as a joke. If not then you've got some problems...
To answer the question though, I was both. I was a book/computer nerd in middle school, so I got picked on for a while. Luckily I'd also taken some karate and judo, so I kicked the crap out of one of the bullies, and then I got left alone. By the time I hit grade 10 I'd lost some fat, built more muscle, shaved my head, and suddenly I was popular. Thinking back I realize that some of my actions after that point were probably seen as "bulying" by the people they were aimed at, however it didn't seem that way to me at the time. A lot of what you'd define as bullying is unintentional - none of my actions were meant to be hurtful, and if someone had approached me about it I would have gladly apologized and made sure to be more careful in the future. Granted, a lot of bullies probably aren't that reasonable, however I can gaurantee that a lot of the problems that kids who claim to have been "bullied" have are created by their total unwilingness to confront the other person. Sometimes you can confront him with words and solve the situation reasonably, other times it has to be done by involving a third party, or ultimately through the use of force. But unless you're willing to start the process, things will never get better.
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
Or so says L. Ron Hubbard anyway. Seems like this Starwars Kid would make a great Scientologist. The lawsuit was "settled" meaning no judgement was ever awarded. So the kid used intimidation-by-lawyer to harass these 3 kids and their families into giving him loads of cash. Did he have a legal position? Highly doubtful. I can't see this playing out in his favour if the families had chosen to pursue it. Exactly why they settled I don't know, but I hate to see the law being misused in this fashion.
+2 for being Insightful? Talk about an abuse of mod points. This post is about as flamebait as you can get. We've got it all - baseless accusations, strawman arguments, red herrings, sterotyping, and open insults. Whoever moded this crap up needs a quick boot to the side of the head.
As for you Tiger-boy, what in the hell is your major malfunction? You got teased, so you wanted to go around executing whoever didn't like you? Generaly speaking, psychological counseling might have been a little more productive. If you'd seen a shrink early enough, you probably wouldn't have all these anger issues today.
"Mark Klein is a true American hero," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T's involvement with the government's invasive surveillance program."
So GI Joe has stopped being the "true American hero", and passed the honours on to a retired, balding computer-geek:) Now that's progress.
Anyway, guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court.
I'm a liberterian myself but I tend to focus on defending rights that actually make sense. Such as getting rid of the idiotic restrictions on certain substances, technologies, or proffessions. But interception of communications? I really don't get the uproar over it. How is it ever going to affect me? Or you? And what does it have to do with totalitarianism? Sure it makes targeting for totalitarian policies easier, however, you still need to bring those policies into play. A totalitarian state can EASILY implement a much more sophisticated surveilance system. If your goal is the total control of a nation, it makes no sense to put the surveilance infrastructure in place first and only then bring in laws and policies to oppress the populace; that's about as backwards as trying to create an OS by first desinging the GUI.
Ofcourse, if you wanted to argue that some of the current laws and policies are unneccesarily restrictive, you'd have a good point, but none of it constitutes anything even remotely resembling a totalitarian state.
Oh, and by the way, the Constitution means what the courts say it means, and they have said since soon after the invention of the telephone that the government needs permission from the courts to intercept communications.
So if I get on my roof and start yelling private info at my neighbour, the government needs a court order to listen in? Wow, crazy shit. I guess being a government employee I've violated that rule many, many times. Heck, I guess I'm not even allowed to listen to anyone talking unless their words are directed at me, right?
Or, wait. I'm reading these comments on slashdot. Does that mean I'm intercepting your communications? Shit, there I go again, violating all your freedoms. It's all part of the governments evil plot to oppress slashdot geeks.
Only certain forms of communication are protected. As far as I'm aware, internet communication doesn't fall into that category. If you have info to the contrary though, I'd be more than happy to look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. I always love it when I go to re-author a DVD, and find that out of 7.5 gigs of content, the movie only takes up 4.2. Thanks a lot Holywood.
He didn't say "hard to resent something nobody will ever buy", now did he. Personaly, I didn't buy a DVD player untill the encryption had been broken, AND DVD-R drives and disks were available. Untill that point, VHS worked just fine.
Besides, you're not making a fair comparison. DVD was a superior format to VHS, so many people were willing to put up with the fact that they were unable to copy the discs, and/or control playback at certain times. This "patent" isn't meant to be used on any new technology, it's meant to be implemented in TV sets and possibly cable/satelite boxes. There's still plenty of old TV's and boxes floating around, and even if all major western brands begin implementing this "feature", I'm sure the Chinese will be manufacturing ones without it anyway. So there's no comparison.
Typical.
Which country exactly do you envision developing usable railguns before the US does? And do you envision said country going to war with the US?
What are the posibilities? China? Maybe? That's about the only one I can think of, and even that one's pretty unlikely. It's certainly not going to be Lower-East-Tungstinasia. Possible. But once again, not a threat now, and not a likely threat for several decades at least. So just because maybe in 2050 we may be facing railgun equiped terrorists, we shouldn't bother with active armour today? Nonsense. By that logic we shouldn't be giving our soldiers any armour either.
Yah, the smallest succesfull railgun so far was mounted on a battleship. Generaly speaking, tanks don't have to worry about being engaged by ships. Also, even if that weren't the case, I'm thinking Al Qaeda might have a tough time purchasing a battleship and a railgun.
RPG's are a threat because they're small, they're mobile, they're cheap, and they're everywhere. None of that is true for railguns today, and probably none of that will be true even 60 years from now.
In other words, you may as well be arguing that this system is useles because it can't stop lightsabers.
THIS is a forcefield!
Either way, both concepts are relatively old; I'm surprised the articles are only showing up now on slashdot.
Who's to say the projectile will hit? Well, the computer for one. It doesn't bother shooting down projectiles which it knows won't hit the vehicle.
And reactive armnour is rather limited in it's appliation.
You can call it a waste of money if you want, but losing the vehicle and the personnel inside it is a LOT more expensive.
Comparing this new system to the crap used on the the T90 is sort of like comparing a modern assault rifle to an old muzzle-loader musket.
The 4th amendmend applies to the government, not to private individuals or corporations. Why do people keep getting that wrong? The constitution DOES NOT place ANY restrictions on the actions of individuals or businesses.
A soldier does not die "for his employer". I wouldn't expect you to understand that though. And there will always be wars to fight, and people to kill. The only thing that's constantly changing is how we approach conflict and killing.
Ofcourse we're a means to an end. So is every employee of every company in the world. Why's that tragic?
What's truly tragic is that, unfortiunately, uninformed opinions like yours are far from unique. But that's fine. We don't need your support or approval, and we certainly don't need your permission.
It'd be rather disturbing actually. Think of how much better we could have been without hundreds of thousands of years of incest.
Dammit. Now I'm gonna have to go to the dentist again.....
wow. you're RTFO buds.
A) There's enough demand for weaponry out there that it makes no sense to start new wars in order to make money. Demand is generaly higher than supply. International laws do create some problems however, so the logical course of action for any industry with that much influence would be to lobby for those laws to be changed. Why spend your time and money getting your countrymen to start wars and get themselves killed when you can spend that time and money to increase your market by getting laws changed, or exemptions granted, and then selling weapons to the uncivilized savages who are killing eachother with stones and machettes?
B) Humans aren't pitbulls and neither is the military. Your inability to grasp the nature of modern combat, or even understand the mindset of those of us who fight on your behalf, in no way gives you the right to depict us as mindless barbarians. In other words, go fist yourself.
Right then. What did you do for the marines exactly? Refill a coke machine?
Well that's probably the biggest load of horse-shit I've ever seen. You could fill the Exon Valdes with that.
Our defense contractors can stay fed by selling new shit to our military, while unloading old technology on other nations. There's plenty of wars out there to keep all of them rich; there's no requirememnt to start new ones.
As for "testing out all our cool new weapons, while using up the old ones", weapons are tested well before they're actually deployed, and old stocs are used up in training, or are sold off once they start reaching the end of their service life.
Finaly, "field-testing new soldiers" is rather pointless, as human nature rarely changes. Training is standardized and does not decrease in effectivness. Therefore the only thing to be gained by sending soldiers to war is the development of new tactics and doctrine. However, those things tend to change from conflict to conflict anyway, so starting wars just to develop new tactics is also rather pointless.
Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Wars have historicaly never been "satisfactorily explained". There was never any need. Vietnam is special in that it was the first war where the majority of the people actively opposed the foreign policy of the government and the overseas actions of their own military. That has very little to do with the conflict itself, and a lot more to do with the mindset of the American public at that point in history.
If you look farther back you'll see that Korea was a very similar war, which was "explained" even more poorly, yet had very little in the way of opposition, and a LOT of support.
Not be positive. ACT in a positive manner. There's a big difference.
Yeah, if you're getting your ass pounded into the ground by a 300lb gorilla of an assailant, it's not going to do you much good to think positively. Thinking "well, at least he doesn't weigh 400lbs" just aint gonna cut it. On the other hand, punching him in the nuts and then stomping on his head would at that point be a positive action.
Acting positively means doing what's required to fix the problem while not creating a bigger problem in the proccess. So kicking the crap out of a bully could be a positive action if you've exhausted all other options. On the other hand, shooting him in the head would be a pretty negative action because, while it might remedy your current problem, it'll also lead to you being someone's "wife" for the next 10-20 years. Your apparent inability to grasp the concept just proves the point of the parent post. Parents need to teach their children how to relate to people, and how to deal with hostile situations. We spend 12 years brainwashing kids with knowledge that they learn and forget a year later, while neglecting to teach them basic skills which they'll be using every day for the rest of their lives.
To answer the question though, I was both. I was a book/computer nerd in middle school, so I got picked on for a while. Luckily I'd also taken some karate and judo, so I kicked the crap out of one of the bullies, and then I got left alone. By the time I hit grade 10 I'd lost some fat, built more muscle, shaved my head, and suddenly I was popular. Thinking back I realize that some of my actions after that point were probably seen as "bulying" by the people they were aimed at, however it didn't seem that way to me at the time. A lot of what you'd define as bullying is unintentional - none of my actions were meant to be hurtful, and if someone had approached me about it I would have gladly apologized and made sure to be more careful in the future. Granted, a lot of bullies probably aren't that reasonable, however I can gaurantee that a lot of the problems that kids who claim to have been "bullied" have are created by their total unwilingness to confront the other person. Sometimes you can confront him with words and solve the situation reasonably, other times it has to be done by involving a third party, or ultimately through the use of force. But unless you're willing to start the process, things will never get better.
+2 for being Insightful? Talk about an abuse of mod points. This post is about as flamebait as you can get. We've got it all - baseless accusations, strawman arguments, red herrings, sterotyping, and open insults. Whoever moded this crap up needs a quick boot to the side of the head.
As for you Tiger-boy, what in the hell is your major malfunction? You got teased, so you wanted to go around executing whoever didn't like you? Generaly speaking, psychological counseling might have been a little more productive. If you'd seen a shrink early enough, you probably wouldn't have all these anger issues today.
Ah. Must have missed that part.
:) Now that's progress.
I especialy like this bit though:
"Mark Klein is a true American hero," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T's involvement with the government's invasive surveillance program."
So GI Joe has stopped being the "true American hero", and passed the honours on to a retired, balding computer-geek
Anyway, guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court.
I'm a liberterian myself but I tend to focus on defending rights that actually make sense. Such as getting rid of the idiotic restrictions on certain substances, technologies, or proffessions. But interception of communications? I really don't get the uproar over it. How is it ever going to affect me? Or you? And what does it have to do with totalitarianism? Sure it makes targeting for totalitarian policies easier, however, you still need to bring those policies into play. A totalitarian state can EASILY implement a much more sophisticated surveilance system. If your goal is the total control of a nation, it makes no sense to put the surveilance infrastructure in place first and only then bring in laws and policies to oppress the populace; that's about as backwards as trying to create an OS by first desinging the GUI.
Ofcourse, if you wanted to argue that some of the current laws and policies are unneccesarily restrictive, you'd have a good point, but none of it constitutes anything even remotely resembling a totalitarian state.
Oh, and by the way, the Constitution means what the courts say it means, and they have said since soon after the invention of the telephone that the government needs permission from the courts to intercept communications.
So if I get on my roof and start yelling private info at my neighbour, the government needs a court order to listen in? Wow, crazy shit. I guess being a government employee I've violated that rule many, many times. Heck, I guess I'm not even allowed to listen to anyone talking unless their words are directed at me, right?
Or, wait. I'm reading these comments on slashdot. Does that mean I'm intercepting your communications? Shit, there I go again, violating all your freedoms. It's all part of the governments evil plot to oppress slashdot geeks.
Only certain forms of communication are protected. As far as I'm aware, internet communication doesn't fall into that category. If you have info to the contrary though, I'd be more than happy to look at it.