It's not the tool, but how you use it. If someone shoots at me, they are the offender. If I attempt to shoot them afterward, I'm defending myself. I think the word you were really looking for is maybe something like "aggressive". I can use a gun defensively. I'm not required to attack someone, unprovoked, just because I'm using one.
Btw, giving your wallet is the smart decision in that scenario; I'd do the same. But if someone comes into my house in the middle of the night, and they're armed... that's another story.
FTA -...This would only happen if a password entered into the gun using a tiny keypad matched one stored in the cartridge.
When they are sold, cartridges could be programmed with a password that matches the purchaser's gun. An owner could set the gun to request the password when it is reloaded, or to perform a biometric check before firing. The gun could also automatically lock itself after a pre-set period of time has passed since the password was entered.
The system would undoubtedly cost more than a conventional gun, but many firearm enthusiasts would surely pay a premium for such added security.
So, I can only use this ammo in one firearm (too bad if I have another with the same calibre), then while dodging my assailaints bullets, I'm entering in a password. If I get the password wrong, or the solid state switch fails (*gasp!*), then I've got to try again, but the pre-set period of time re-locks the gun. For anyone dumb enough to buy this, I hope your assailant has bad aim! btw, firearm enthusiasts will not "surely pay a premium" as there is no "added security".
I've noticed this paradigm with new handguns that were designed in the last 5 years. Trying to make them safer so little Johnny doesn't blow his brains out on accident, but making the firearm near useless as a defense tool. Considering ~300% more children die each year from 5 gallon buckets, I don't think "safe guns" are a needed focus.
In the US if you are broadcasting something, everyone that can receive the signal has legal right to do so. That's why radar detectors are still legal. It doesn't matter who asked him to stop, if he's not on someone else's private property, and they're transmitting a signal, it's not illegal for him to receive it. Cops could request that I turn right after walking out my door instead of turning left, but if I'm not doing anything illegal, then it's just a request. If they didn't want him to use it, there are plenty of ways that they could have used to make that happen.
Remember C-band satillite dishes? Quite a few still in Oregon, I grew up with one since no other signal/cable company could reach us. Before they scrambled channels, we could view anything without paying any subscription because it's legal to receive a signal that's being broadcast to you (whether the sender likes it, or not). So, to stop people from viewing everything for free, the "senders" allowed dish owners to receive a scrambled signal. Still legal to receive, but you can't see anything. After paying for a subscription, they unlock the channel, and everything's cool. So if the coffee shop didn't like him (or other non-customers) using their signal, they could have used a WEP key, among other techniques.
Saying that they asked him to not use their Internet connection is kind of like an outdoor band telling a listener that they have to leave.
Sex offender? If he broke any parole/release rulings, throw the book at him!
I am reminded of Isaac Asmiov's Multivac stories, where the massive computer was always out in some deserted wasteland, far away from the bulk of humanity. It seems strange that the battle for Internet supremacy is taking place in the Northwestern United States.
It doesn't seem that strange to me, but I've grown up in Oregon. The Dalles (pronounced like Dallas, but without the last vowel, ending with a 'z' sound) has inexpensive land prices, enough population to get general labor (or attract specialized employees), but also is enough of a "wasteland" to provide enough space to build something this large. The real big plus is inexpensive electricity, probably the main reason for deciding on this locale since it is right next to the hydro-generator. I'm actually surprised that they didn't decide to build their center in Hermiston, but the population is so small that it could create problems finding people willing to work there.
Neat concept, but there are quite a few things that this could mess up. Well, maybe not. Who listens to cassettes, or uses floppies? Why use a compass when you can get GPS, unless there's no electricity around. Sensitive circuites could get wonky, and yea, any CRT you'd have to stay away from. "Hey buddy, can you wipe the dust off my screen? I've got mag-fingers."
How difficult would it be to get iron filings (or something similar) off your fingers? Oh yea, anyone realize that magnets are usually quite brittle? Smash your finger with a hammer and end up with chunks of metal floating around. I guess if you hit it hard enough it'll lose it's magnetic properties. Keep fingers away from any genital piercings... unless you're a masochist. Oh yea, that's why you got piercings in the first place.
Okay, I guess there aren't very many negative consequences, unless you're a pilot.
... not created just because money existed somewhere. It used to be, for the most part, that something was taxed because it incurred costs on the gov't. However, now it seems that anytime a politician sees money somewhere, we have to figure out a way to tax it.
The Italy scenario has started to be a standard (I know it's the same way in the state of Oregon). When the legislature cannot budget properly, they look for money elsewhere; anywhere. If voters let this happen, we reward financial irresponsibility instead of telling them to get it right next time.
One of my favorite jokes is when driving by a school to ask anybody with me, "School or prison? School or prison?" They both have small windows, chain-linked barbed-wire fences, and outdoor basketball courts. Not to mention that in high-school I realized that I was in a facist state, and from the sounds of it, it's only gotten worse since then.
...of law enforcement. Shall we have our police officers teaching and managing our schools now? I can't even fathom why a school would want to take on this responsibility. I bet that if this keeps up, a few years down the road parents are going to be yelling at the schools for not catching Jonny's 'illegal' blog. What a mess. Now only if the parents would make the same committment!
... and put it in the form of a common media/format? What if all the players for that type of media/format impose DRM and won't play what I've just created? I'll put up with big companies acting like jerks, I'm one of the few people I know that just won't give them my money (and I don't steal from them). But when they start creating a future where they are the only ones with the ability to approve what everyone hears/sees/etc; then it becomes a much bigger issue. hmmmm maybe I should start stealing from them before they get any further.
This may seem like a long-term investment that is way too long-term. But there is a payoff with manifest destiny. Since the major powers on Earth decided that no government should own extra-terrestrial property (and signed a treaty to make it official) it's quite fair game for any private entity. Mining, colonization, production in zero-G (where it benefits, if it does) could all be ROI.
Well, considering that most hard-core conservatives think that if you don't give condoms to kids that they won't have sex; they probably think that by providing ".xxx" that it will encourage people to make porn sites. Also, it'll be easier for youngsters to find porn since they can type virtually any phrase or word followed by.xxx . I know, how can you not find one anyway, but this is the hard-core conservatives' way of thinking (at least in my part of the U.S.).
I really don't see what the big deal is. It's not like anyone is going to be able to tell all porn sites that they have to use.xxx, so it will be voluntary, and blocking might be a bit easier, but all of today's "porn site problems" will still exist.
First off... some people do not want a game console. I am sure you know the type: They think games are silly and won't consider anything that might be related.
Just to clarify... I have never wanted a game console, but I love games (all kinds, board games, role-playing, computer, card, etc). Don't think that because somebody doesn't have a passion for over-priced hardware, over-priced less-featured software, displayed on the worst video format available (NTSC), that they think games are silly. In fact, it's my seriousness of gaming that causes me to prefer computer games over console due to the better display and input devices.
Last I knew, we (Amerikuns) don't get CNNi (International), or MTV International (if it still exists). When I was in Norway, during the summer of 1991, I was shocked at the amount of near real news comming out of CNNi. It was "info-rich" compared to the fluff they broadcast domestically. The CNNi Headline News actually spent the whole half hour talking about world events. The domestic version would spend 5-10 minutes on world events, 10-15 minutes on domestic "news", then spend the last 5 minutes or so with a useless story like how some people have pot bellied pigs as pets (interviewing owners, footage of the pigs, etc).
Back then MTV played music videos (I know, I'm dating myself); but even the international version was waaaaaaay better than what we received in the US. By 1991, Beavis and Butthead were the only source of non-pop music videos (Zombie owes his successful exposure to them) on MTV; everything else was so tightly controlled by the RIAA (I think), that there was no creativity or diversification. However, MTV International played a broad range of music videos, mostly from popular bands around the world; but I had never seen The Gypsy Kings, or KLF on "domestic" MTV.
It started to make me wonder if people outside the USA have a better picture of what's going on (even in our own country) since we are so "sheltered" from information. How many more networks/info-outlets perform this "double broadcasting"?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the tool, but how you use it. If someone shoots at me, they are the offender. If I attempt to shoot them afterward, I'm defending myself. I think the word you were really looking for is maybe something like "aggressive". I can use a gun defensively. I'm not required to attack someone, unprovoked, just because I'm using one.
Btw, giving your wallet is the smart decision in that scenario; I'd do the same. But if someone comes into my house in the middle of the night, and they're armed... that's another story.
FTA - ...This would only happen if a password entered into the gun using a tiny keypad matched one stored in the cartridge.
When they are sold, cartridges could be programmed with a password that matches the purchaser's gun. An owner could set the gun to request the password when it is reloaded, or to perform a biometric check before firing. The gun could also automatically lock itself after a pre-set period of time has passed since the password was entered.
The system would undoubtedly cost more than a conventional gun, but many firearm enthusiasts would surely pay a premium for such added security.
So, I can only use this ammo in one firearm (too bad if I have another with the same calibre), then while dodging my assailaints bullets, I'm entering in a password. If I get the password wrong, or the solid state switch fails (*gasp!*), then I've got to try again, but the pre-set period of time re-locks the gun. For anyone dumb enough to buy this, I hope your assailant has bad aim! btw, firearm enthusiasts will not "surely pay a premium" as there is no "added security".
I've noticed this paradigm with new handguns that were designed in the last 5 years. Trying to make them safer so little Johnny doesn't blow his brains out on accident, but making the firearm near useless as a defense tool. Considering ~300% more children die each year from 5 gallon buckets, I don't think "safe guns" are a needed focus.
In the US if you are broadcasting something, everyone that can receive the signal has legal right to do so. That's why radar detectors are still legal. It doesn't matter who asked him to stop, if he's not on someone else's private property, and they're transmitting a signal, it's not illegal for him to receive it. Cops could request that I turn right after walking out my door instead of turning left, but if I'm not doing anything illegal, then it's just a request. If they didn't want him to use it, there are plenty of ways that they could have used to make that happen.
Remember C-band satillite dishes? Quite a few still in Oregon, I grew up with one since no other signal/cable company could reach us. Before they scrambled channels, we could view anything without paying any subscription because it's legal to receive a signal that's being broadcast to you (whether the sender likes it, or not). So, to stop people from viewing everything for free, the "senders" allowed dish owners to receive a scrambled signal. Still legal to receive, but you can't see anything. After paying for a subscription, they unlock the channel, and everything's cool. So if the coffee shop didn't like him (or other non-customers) using their signal, they could have used a WEP key, among other techniques.
Saying that they asked him to not use their Internet connection is kind of like an outdoor band telling a listener that they have to leave.
Sex offender? If he broke any parole/release rulings, throw the book at him!
I am reminded of Isaac Asmiov's Multivac stories, where the massive computer was always out in some deserted wasteland, far away from the bulk of humanity. It seems strange that the battle for Internet supremacy is taking place in the Northwestern United States.
It doesn't seem that strange to me, but I've grown up in Oregon. The Dalles (pronounced like Dallas, but without the last vowel, ending with a 'z' sound) has inexpensive land prices, enough population to get general labor (or attract specialized employees), but also is enough of a "wasteland" to provide enough space to build something this large. The real big plus is inexpensive electricity, probably the main reason for deciding on this locale since it is right next to the hydro-generator. I'm actually surprised that they didn't decide to build their center in Hermiston, but the population is so small that it could create problems finding people willing to work there.
btw, Google, thanks for helping Oregon's economy!
Neat concept, but there are quite a few things that this could mess up. Well, maybe not. Who listens to cassettes, or uses floppies? Why use a compass when you can get GPS, unless there's no electricity around. Sensitive circuites could get wonky, and yea, any CRT you'd have to stay away from. "Hey buddy, can you wipe the dust off my screen? I've got mag-fingers."
How difficult would it be to get iron filings (or something similar) off your fingers? Oh yea, anyone realize that magnets are usually quite brittle? Smash your finger with a hammer and end up with chunks of metal floating around. I guess if you hit it hard enough it'll lose it's magnetic properties. Keep fingers away from any genital piercings... unless you're a masochist. Oh yea, that's why you got piercings in the first place.
Okay, I guess there aren't very many negative consequences, unless you're a pilot.
... not created just because money existed somewhere. It used to be, for the most part, that something was taxed because it incurred costs on the gov't. However, now it seems that anytime a politician sees money somewhere, we have to figure out a way to tax it.
The Italy scenario has started to be a standard (I know it's the same way in the state of Oregon). When the legislature cannot budget properly, they look for money elsewhere; anywhere. If voters let this happen, we reward financial irresponsibility instead of telling them to get it right next time.
One of my favorite jokes is when driving by a school to ask anybody with me, "School or prison? School or prison?" They both have small windows, chain-linked barbed-wire fences, and outdoor basketball courts. Not to mention that in high-school I realized that I was in a facist state, and from the sounds of it, it's only gotten worse since then.
...of law enforcement. Shall we have our police officers teaching and managing our schools now? I can't even fathom why a school would want to take on this responsibility. I bet that if this keeps up, a few years down the road parents are going to be yelling at the schools for not catching Jonny's 'illegal' blog. What a mess. Now only if the parents would make the same committment!
... and put it in the form of a common media/format? What if all the players for that type of media/format impose DRM and won't play what I've just created? I'll put up with big companies acting like jerks, I'm one of the few people I know that just won't give them my money (and I don't steal from them). But when they start creating a future where they are the only ones with the ability to approve what everyone hears/sees/etc; then it becomes a much bigger issue. hmmmm maybe I should start stealing from them before they get any further.
This may seem like a long-term investment that is way too long-term. But there is a payoff with manifest destiny. Since the major powers on Earth decided that no government should own extra-terrestrial property (and signed a treaty to make it official) it's quite fair game for any private entity. Mining, colonization, production in zero-G (where it benefits, if it does) could all be ROI.
Well, considering that most hard-core conservatives think that if you don't give condoms to kids that they won't have sex; they probably think that by providing ".xxx" that it will encourage people to make porn sites. Also, it'll be easier for youngsters to find porn since they can type virtually any phrase or word followed by .xxx . I know, how can you not find one anyway, but this is the hard-core conservatives' way of thinking (at least in my part of the U.S.).
.xxx, so it will be voluntary, and blocking might be a bit easier, but all of today's "porn site problems" will still exist.
I really don't see what the big deal is. It's not like anyone is going to be able to tell all porn sites that they have to use
They probably won't since his link is broken.
With nanos in possesion of tobacco and firearms the FDA can hand their responsibilities over to the ATF
...of the pharmecuticals, now we know we'll only get nanotechnology that kills our kidneys and liver before causing a heart-attack.
That's cool! I like the:
/160 pounds * 4000 feet in Calories/
;)
search even better
First off... some people do not want a game console. I am sure you know the type: They think games are silly and won't consider anything that might be related.
Just to clarify... I have never wanted a game console, but I love games (all kinds, board games, role-playing, computer, card, etc). Don't think that because somebody doesn't have a passion for over-priced hardware, over-priced less-featured software, displayed on the worst video format available (NTSC), that they think games are silly. In fact, it's my seriousness of gaming that causes me to prefer computer games over console due to the better display and input devices.
Last I knew, we (Amerikuns) don't get CNNi (International), or MTV International (if it still exists). When I was in Norway, during the summer of 1991, I was shocked at the amount of near real news comming out of CNNi. It was "info-rich" compared to the fluff they broadcast domestically. The CNNi Headline News actually spent the whole half hour talking about world events. The domestic version would spend 5-10 minutes on world events, 10-15 minutes on domestic "news", then spend the last 5 minutes or so with a useless story like how some people have pot bellied pigs as pets (interviewing owners, footage of the pigs, etc).
Back then MTV played music videos (I know, I'm dating myself); but even the international version was waaaaaaay better than what we received in the US. By 1991, Beavis and Butthead were the only source of non-pop music videos (Zombie owes his successful exposure to them) on MTV; everything else was so tightly controlled by the RIAA (I think), that there was no creativity or diversification. However, MTV International played a broad range of music videos, mostly from popular bands around the world; but I had never seen The Gypsy Kings, or KLF on "domestic" MTV.
It started to make me wonder if people outside the USA have a better picture of what's going on (even in our own country) since we are so "sheltered" from information. How many more networks/info-outlets perform this "double broadcasting"?