Compress the file then print it out in easily OCR'able format (QR codes, perhaps), then physically carry it out of the country.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."
STL files are nothing but sets of vertices - 3d points. The Zimmerman defense is easily applicable here. MY guess - the DoS is about to have their asses handed to them. Whether the files do fall under the purview of ITAR is irrelevant - with its current form, ITAR's restrictions on the dissemination of information are simply unconstitutional, and cannot be enforced as 3d design and printing technologies become so mainstream that people are building their own with little to no experience.
Again, completely incorrect, and incongruous with well-known historical perspectives from both sides of the Revolution[. Read some history before you bother posting again.
Incorrect again. The amendment has never been interpreted by the courts to have these limitations - thus far, limitations have been enforced either through executive mandate or by legislation through the Congress. The limitations on our ability to purchase fully automatic weapons is not based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it applies to individuals - it's based in a 1968 and a 1986 law that is yet to be challenged at the bench on that level.
The only auspices under which those limitations remain constitutional involve the interstate sale of the firearms (the commerce clause). As yet, the court hasn't ruled on privately produced and owned firearms that don't leave the boundaries of a state.
Sorta. If you're up on your rifle history, the first widespread, reliable autoloading rifles weren't available until almost the exact same time as the transistor (1950's).
This is why I don't fly anymore. Molest me, fine, it'll piss me off and I'll want to talk to a manager. Molest my kid, and I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
Bingo. Cell phones are really really REALLY good at this, and app developers are really really REALLY keen on you giving their app 'location information'.
Well, if it's the last piece of the pie, it's not much of a 'slippery slope' argument, now is it? In quite a real sense, we'd be giving the power to decrypt general internet communications to people who have a LOT to gain by using it against their political opponents.
Seriously, this has little use except to spy on the general public, while proposing encryption law that has been suggested and shot down in the past (think Clipper Chips?). It makes corporate/private encryption weaker, the entirety of our internet communications more vulnerable to attack, and could quite possibly restrict our ability, in the future, (yes, slippery slope) to encrypt our own data, as has already been done in the UK. This essentially serves all internet communications providers with the same order as the UK served their entire citizenry: you encrypt something, you have to give us the keys to decrypt it.
Wish I could mod you up. This kind of infraction by the government on its own people is inexcusable. Write your congressman, let them know how you feel, and vote!
No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order," Ms. Caproni said. "They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.
What hey're trying to legalize is rather heinous on the part of our government. Just because it's been made legal doesn't mean it's right or good. Seriously, between the ability to declare even American citizens terrorists because of what they've said (not necessarily what they've done), the ability to try anyone classified as a terrorist outside a civilian court, and now the "needed" capability to decrypt encrypted messages over the internet...what's to stop whoever is in the White House from 'disappearing' outspoken people they disagree with, without breaking the law?
I'm an American, and I value my freedom over a false sense of security. If you aren't comfortable with that, perhaps America isn't for you.
Actually, if you look at the other post I mentioned, you'd see that I acknowledge that our (yes, I am an American) government is a democratic republic. While that's all well and good, participating in the democratic process (there, happy?), and then being actively involved with the legislators who have been appointed to represent us, is still very important for the proper functioning of our government.
What I was suggesting was starting a civil discussion on how these new tools of empowerment/tools of entertainment could be used to further inform/involve our digital public as a whole. Whether the President was correct in naming different electronic boxes w.r.t their uses, what he's saying about our treatment of media and information is still pertinent, and deserves some deliberation.
A man who has two watches will pay attention to the one that doesn't misinform him time and again, should the two prove to report very differently. Just saying.
I do think distributed reporting and a flood of information (we already have this, IMHO), is a good thing too. But the reporters who are most accurate or are most trusted will likely have quite a significant following, although perhaps not quite as significant as the guy screaming about the end of the world as we know it on his blog. If it has cute pictures of cats.
Mm, very interesting point. As an honest discussion-starting question, what are ways these new technologies could be used to promote democracy and involvement? As another post in this story says (and I totally agree), one of the biggest problems in our current form of government is a lack of involvement in and lack of importance placed on our democracy.
The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks.
Personally, I think most of our population fails to recognize the magnitude of importance our right to vote and our basic form of government play into the rights and infrastructure we enjoy. We have indeed checked out, and we'll soon pay the price for it. Democracy's (even a democratic republic's, mind you) proper function hinges on the involvement of the people as a majority. That doesn't happen in the United States anymore.
Perhaps if his administration had the transparency he promised on the campaign trail, it would be easy to get the information people are seeking from credible, reliable sources.
Whether the President and his administration like it, this form of information sharing is very likely here to stay. Perhaps the best reaction would be to embrace it and use it as a positive differentiator from other administrations.
I do quite a bit of intense numerical analysis and I rarely get to the point where I need 64-bit operations. I've encountered it before, but only in special cases (very stiff ODE's, for example). Personally, I use FreeMat (an open-source MATLAB clone - its environment is much more like MATLAB's than octave, far as I'm concerned). FreeMat's 64-bit build handles extremely large datasets as well, and that's exactly what drove me to use its 64-bit build as well.
I mean come on, 86 F? Oh NO! Not 12 degrees cooler than body temperature! I've worked on plant floors where the ambient temperature for my 16 hour day was >110 on average, and in some spots >125.
Do I make more money than them? Yes. Do I have more freedom than they likely do? Yes. Is my job less menial? Likely. But 86f? Please.
The energy applied to the target by a bullet is less than or roughly equal to the energy applied to the gun, flesh, other springy elements in between the bullet and hand or shoulder of the shooter.
FTFY. It's a small textual change, but has huge implications in terms of terminal ballistics. What you can easily absorb as the shooter is pretty significantly different than what you can absorb as impact on your flesh from the bullet side. Believe me, you can kill someone with the blunt force trauma that dissipating the energy from a bullet instantaneously would induce.
I also agree with your statement, although perhaps not the presentation. It's important that we share as much data and models as possible. If you're trying to hide your model because of some private interest, that's one thing. If your research is owned by the American people, it's not yours to censor, and you'd be surprised how intelligent other people are, and what interesting things they may glean from the knowledge you've cataloged.
If your models truly work (and they don't represent a trade secret), what, exactly, do you expect to gain by hiding them? If your models truly work, you'd certainly want everyone to see that they're indisputable.
Slashdot Mirror
Compress the file then print it out in easily OCR'able format (QR codes, perhaps), then physically carry it out of the country.
"You can't stop the signal, Mal."
STL files are nothing but sets of vertices - 3d points. The Zimmerman defense is easily applicable here. MY guess - the DoS is about to have their asses handed to them. Whether the files do fall under the purview of ITAR is irrelevant - with its current form, ITAR's restrictions on the dissemination of information are simply unconstitutional, and cannot be enforced as 3d design and printing technologies become so mainstream that people are building their own with little to no experience.
...all we need is a Garden of Eden Creation Kit and a few vaults...we'll be fine :D
I said "history of the Bill of Rights". Nice straw-man though.
Again, completely incorrect, and incongruous with well-known historical perspectives from both sides of the Revolution[. Read some history before you bother posting again.
Incorrect again. The amendment has never been interpreted by the courts to have these limitations - thus far, limitations have been enforced either through executive mandate or by legislation through the Congress. The limitations on our ability to purchase fully automatic weapons is not based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it applies to individuals - it's based in a 1968 and a 1986 law that is yet to be challenged at the bench on that level. The only auspices under which those limitations remain constitutional involve the interstate sale of the firearms (the commerce clause). As yet, the court hasn't ruled on privately produced and owned firearms that don't leave the boundaries of a state.
You're completely off. Any self-respecting history of the Bill of Rights contradicts directly everything you just suggested.
Sorta. If you're up on your rifle history, the first widespread, reliable autoloading rifles weren't available until almost the exact same time as the transistor (1950's).
This is why I don't fly anymore. Molest me, fine, it'll piss me off and I'll want to talk to a manager. Molest my kid, and I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
Bingo. Cell phones are really really REALLY good at this, and app developers are really really REALLY keen on you giving their app 'location information'.
Well, if it's the last piece of the pie, it's not much of a 'slippery slope' argument, now is it? In quite a real sense, we'd be giving the power to decrypt general internet communications to people who have a LOT to gain by using it against their political opponents.
Seriously, this has little use except to spy on the general public, while proposing encryption law that has been suggested and shot down in the past (think Clipper Chips?). It makes corporate/private encryption weaker, the entirety of our internet communications more vulnerable to attack, and could quite possibly restrict our ability, in the future, (yes, slippery slope) to encrypt our own data, as has already been done in the UK. This essentially serves all internet communications providers with the same order as the UK served their entire citizenry: you encrypt something, you have to give us the keys to decrypt it.
Hope that satisfied you logically.
Yes.
Wish I could mod you up. This kind of infraction by the government on its own people is inexcusable. Write your congressman, let them know how you feel, and vote!
No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order," Ms. Caproni said. "They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.
What hey're trying to legalize is rather heinous on the part of our government. Just because it's been made legal doesn't mean it's right or good. Seriously, between the ability to declare even American citizens terrorists because of what they've said (not necessarily what they've done), the ability to try anyone classified as a terrorist outside a civilian court, and now the "needed" capability to decrypt encrypted messages over the internet...what's to stop whoever is in the White House from 'disappearing' outspoken people they disagree with, without breaking the law?
I'm an American, and I value my freedom over a false sense of security. If you aren't comfortable with that, perhaps America isn't for you.
Actually, if you look at the other post I mentioned, you'd see that I acknowledge that our (yes, I am an American) government is a democratic republic. While that's all well and good, participating in the democratic process (there, happy?), and then being actively involved with the legislators who have been appointed to represent us, is still very important for the proper functioning of our government.
What I was suggesting was starting a civil discussion on how these new tools of empowerment/tools of entertainment could be used to further inform/involve our digital public as a whole. Whether the President was correct in naming different electronic boxes w.r.t their uses, what he's saying about our treatment of media and information is still pertinent, and deserves some deliberation.
The only place we haven't gone yet is dynastic succession.
The Dodds, Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons of the world would disagree. It's just less thinly veiled than one might expect, _at the moment_.
A man who has two watches will pay attention to the one that doesn't misinform him time and again, should the two prove to report very differently. Just saying.
I do think distributed reporting and a flood of information (we already have this, IMHO), is a good thing too. But the reporters who are most accurate or are most trusted will likely have quite a significant following, although perhaps not quite as significant as the guy screaming about the end of the world as we know it on his blog. If it has cute pictures of cats.
Mm, very interesting point. As an honest discussion-starting question, what are ways these new technologies could be used to promote democracy and involvement? As another post in this story says (and I totally agree), one of the biggest problems in our current form of government is a lack of involvement in and lack of importance placed on our democracy.
The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks.
Personally, I think most of our population fails to recognize the magnitude of importance our right to vote and our basic form of government play into the rights and infrastructure we enjoy. We have indeed checked out, and we'll soon pay the price for it. Democracy's (even a democratic republic's, mind you) proper function hinges on the involvement of the people as a majority. That doesn't happen in the United States anymore.
Perhaps if his administration had the transparency he promised on the campaign trail, it would be easy to get the information people are seeking from credible, reliable sources.
Whether the President and his administration like it, this form of information sharing is very likely here to stay. Perhaps the best reaction would be to embrace it and use it as a positive differentiator from other administrations.
I know I shouldn't self-reply, but...FreeMat also has the 64-bit functionalities under discussion.
I do quite a bit of intense numerical analysis and I rarely get to the point where I need 64-bit operations. I've encountered it before, but only in special cases (very stiff ODE's, for example). Personally, I use FreeMat (an open-source MATLAB clone - its environment is much more like MATLAB's than octave, far as I'm concerned). FreeMat's 64-bit build handles extremely large datasets as well, and that's exactly what drove me to use its 64-bit build as well.
I mean come on, 86 F? Oh NO! Not 12 degrees cooler than body temperature! I've worked on plant floors where the ambient temperature for my 16 hour day was >110 on average, and in some spots >125.
Do I make more money than them? Yes. Do I have more freedom than they likely do? Yes. Is my job less menial? Likely. But 86f? Please.
The energy applied to the target by a bullet is less than or roughly equal to the energy applied to the gun, flesh, other springy elements in between the bullet and hand or shoulder of the shooter.
FTFY. It's a small textual change, but has huge implications in terms of terminal ballistics. What you can easily absorb as the shooter is pretty significantly different than what you can absorb as impact on your flesh from the bullet side. Believe me, you can kill someone with the blunt force trauma that dissipating the energy from a bullet instantaneously would induce.
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=465
'If I have nothing to hide, then DON'T SEARCH ME'
I also agree with your statement, although perhaps not the presentation. It's important that we share as much data and models as possible. If you're trying to hide your model because of some private interest, that's one thing. If your research is owned by the American people, it's not yours to censor, and you'd be surprised how intelligent other people are, and what interesting things they may glean from the knowledge you've cataloged.
If your models truly work (and they don't represent a trade secret), what, exactly, do you expect to gain by hiding them? If your models truly work, you'd certainly want everyone to see that they're indisputable.