Slashdot Mirror

Zynga doesn't do anything right. Cowclicker proved exceptionally well exactly what they are doing. They are pushing pointless game that are engineered to have game mechanics that are very addictive for a large number of apparently gullible people.

Its mostly just sad that so many people squander so much of their time and their money on a pointless waste of a life.

I've been a gamer for decades and they all tend to be kind of a waste, but the Zynga/FB genre has taken gaming to a new and epic low. If they are in fact appealing to women more than men then I'm not sure that says something good about women.

I'm just wishing that there were companies IPO'ing with $100 billion market caps that actually make things, like railroads in the 19th century, or cars and airplanes in the 20th century.

I'm not fan of companies making billions pushing crap ads with time wasting BS.

There's not much that can drag my ass out of bed at 5AM on a Saturday, but the first launch of Space Age 2.0 rises to that level.

What does it matter how easy the code was to write?

Because it goes directly to the claims that it infringing it was the source of a substantial quantity of Google's profits.

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/ [wired.com]

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracleâ(TM)s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

The decompiled files are a different issue than rangeCheck. Google didn't decompile them, Noser -- a contractor for Google -- did, against the express prohibition in the Google-Noser contract, which required all original work or open-source code, and expressly prohibited copying or decompiling proprietary code.

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracleâ(TM)s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

What does it matter how easy the code was to write?

Because it goes directly to the claims that it infringing it was the source of a substantial quantity of Google's profits.

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/ [wired.com]

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracleâ(TM)s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

The decompiled files are a different issue than rangeCheck. Google didn't decompile them, Noser -- a contractor for Google -- did, against the express prohibition in the Google-Noser contract, which required all original work or open-source code, and expressly prohibited copying or decompiling proprietary code.

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracleâ(TM)s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

But i interact with $400,000 worth of stuff most people don't have to do it.

Really, do you have this guy's kitchen? It does not take $400,000 worth of equipment to cook food. You could easily get by with a few hundred dollars....

What does it matter how easy the code was to write? And if it was so easy why did google need to copy it?

I tried to submit this over the weekend but it wasn't selected. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/google-oracle-decompile/

"Judge William Alsup ruled that evidence presented during the trial had shown that Google infringed on Oracle’s copyrights by decompiling eight Java files and copying them in their entirety for use with Android."

As someone who really likes Java and Google I don't like this lawsuit one bit.

Sun created Java and mostly gave it away for free except for the mobile part which they were licensing to create revenue. Sun and Google couldn't come to terms regarding licensing and Google decided to just make it themselves.

Sun didn't seem to care, or didn't have the money/will to fight it. Then comes Oracle.

Please resolve this amicably soon. I don't like it when mommy and daddy fight.

No - they just need a boarding pass. And not even a real one at that:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2006/10/make_your_own_f/
"Make Your Own Fake Boarding Pass" [Wired]

As I was saying, just don't put your stuff on the belt until the previous person has cleared. I imagine this type of crime is pretty rare, but why not just thwart it by waiting 20 seconds?

Example: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/are-smart-people-getting-smarter/ It is actually a pretty well documented occurrence.

This made me think of think of a recent wired article

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/ff_radioactivecargo/all/1

TL;DR The dirty bomb scanners at the port of Naples went ape shit over a container from Saudi Arabia. Turns out it was a container of scrap metal that an old radioactive element from a medical scanner had found its way into. Good times.

The apocryphal story is that of my old boss. When he started with my old employer (a medical testing lab) he was in the x-ray lab, and as such had to wear a radiation badge. After a while he began forgetting to take the badge off when he left for the day, and his walk home (always the same route) tended to take him past a couple of the busier streets. No big deal, since he'd just swap out his badge in the morning before starting a new shift. One morning he comes in and the lab is shut down, and everyone has their serious faces on.

Turns out the badge he'd turned in from the day before had come back as hot. Not the "bad badge" type of hot, but the "you were definitely exposed to a pretty solid dose of radiation" type of hot. Per protocol everything had to be shut down, tested, procedures reviewed, yadda yadda. In the end, everything in the lab tested fine, and his was the only bad badge found. Best guess was that a truck that went past him on his walk home that day was (knowingly or unknowingly) carrying something nasty.

There's a lot of pretty foul stuff out there. The boy scout who build his breeder reactor a few years ago used radium paint that he found when his gieger counter tripped when driving past an antiques store. One of the post Fukushima radioactivity scares in Tokyo was caused by stored bottles of radium paint that had been forgotten decades ago. We'll probably see more stories like this, and I don't feel that's a bad thing. When it comes to stuff like this, stuff that causes cancer (actually causes cancer. Not like Cell Phones or wifi.), fuck your civil liberties. Public health & safety wins, even if its getting bought in the name of fighting "the terrrrrer"

the automobile aren't the same as the web, so the learned change wouldn't be of the same kind

Indeed. Probably the impacts from web use will be greater than those from some other sources because an increasing number of young children, with their highly plastic brains, are spending time accessing the Internet. Mostly it is adults who, say, drive an automobile.

Is this better? You're welcome.

to cynically assume the worst. You'll come up just a little short of reality but you won't be very surprised.

Considering the NSA is currently building the world's largest data warehouse / encryption system http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 ... and that google saves everything, and knows who asked the questions.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001799.html, you are well on your way to the NSA knowing what you were looking for, and devising ways to illegalize precrime and do away with the annoying unconstitutionality of prior restraint.

Can you point to me to any statements by Mozilla criticizing Apple for banning Firefox from the iPad and requesting it to be allowed?

They blew the moment that time and don't want to repeat that, probably.

From http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-08/ff_lilly :

Wired: Are you going to develop a version of Firefox for the iPhone?

Lilly: No. Apple makes it too hard. They say it's because of technical issues â" they don't want outsiders to disrupt the user experience. That's a business argument masquerading as a technological argument. We're focusing on more important stuff. The iPhone has been influential, but there's not that many of them. We're part of the LiMo Foundation â" Linux on Mobile. The Razr V2 is a LiMo phone, and you'll see more in the next year or so.

IOW, "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame".

Oh dear, is this the same Adrian Lamo who turned in Bradley Manning over the Wikileaks incident?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I don't know why anyone would ever talk to this guy again for the rest of his life.

I'd talk to him. He reported an Intelligence officer with access to sensitive information who was planning on leaking it because he was pissed off about the military's policy towards homosexuals. If you bother to read the conversations it's pretty fucking obvious that Manning had an axe to grind, went into the systems and dug up any and all information he thought might make the military look bad, and then leaked it. After the fact, he tried to claim that he was "blowing the whistle" on supposed war crimes which he never provided evidence to support.

If I was Lamo I'd have done the same thing. Manning was using him, he lied to him about his motivations in order to get assistance in leaking the material. Had I been told that there was War Crime evidence, I'd have been more than happy to help with a leak, but upon discovering that I was being sucked into some kind of personal vendetta against "the man" I'd also have gone to the authorities with the info.

Note that I am not defending the military's policy towards gays here, I think it's stupid. But it's not like it was some kind of secret when Manning signed up, either, and it's certainly not justification to sell out your countrymen who have little or no ability to influence or change such policies.

Oh dear, is this the same Adrian Lamo who turned in Bradley Manning over the Wikileaks incident?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I don't know why anyone would ever talk to this guy again for the rest of his life.

But that's precisely the way our framework of law and judicial oversight works. A question arises over whether a government activity is appropriate, the courts — often many layers of courts — examine the activity, and decide one way or the other. The courts do not always side with government, as can be seen by the recent SCOTUS GPS ruling — and even that ruling some take issue with, because it doesn't speak explicitly to integrated GPS capabilities in vehicles. Technology is moving faster than ever, more and more information is stored in an electronic form, the government has more technical capabilities than ever, and "the people" learn more, faster, and in more detail, about the activities of government than at any time in the history of our country.

This discussion is case-in-point. The problem is that people constantly take something like the international terrorism and international narcotics exemption and take it to mean that it must be there to allow for illegal spying, all the time. Whenever a surveillance capability is used domestically for any purpose, even those you might agree with, there is always a chance that a US Person may be collected upon — though the courts have upheld that surveillance from aircraft does not constitute a search, the US military is prohibited from engaging in routine law enforcement activities by a comprehensive and well-understood body of statute and case law. Drones are here — they're another technology. Do we enjoin our own military from flying manned aircraft over our own country? What prevents abuse? The same thing that always has: the law. That's the system we have. Does it mean no government activity has ever constituted an abuse? No, but it also doesn't mean all activities are abuse, all the time. What it means is that we develop regulations, rules, guidance, and safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate abuse.

The rule of law is a core framework of our society. In this example, we can clearly see an extension of that process which seeks to expressly specify what happens IF information relating to a US Person is encountered during the course of other activities, such as routine operations or assistance to civil authorities.

Jeng, you're talking to people who think that the Air Force, which currently is YEARS behind on the drone data it already has, now has nothing better to do than spy on Americans.

Furthermore, this is not even just anything that might be suspicious seen during operations. It's only "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," which is a very narrow scope under US law.

Cue the conspiracy theory: "But, but, but, the big bad Utah Data Center is going to mine this data automatically! The idea is to not need people to analyze this footage! The Air Force is going to blanket the nation in drones, and the NSA is going to analyze it all with computers! The exception for international terrorism and narcotics is just a subterfuge, a sleight of hand, to distract us from their true intent!"

Yes, people really think this. It would be amusing if it weren't so shameful and sad.

To say nothing of the US military satellite systems and manned US military aircraft that fly over the US every day, and have been used in civil assistance and force protection for decades. But hey, this is the slashdot comments section: facts and sense need not apply!

Why would he be particularly immortalized? For example if you're looking for the first human to be killed by robots, you don't have to wait for "I, robot" to become reality as that happened already back in 1979.

Perhaps you don't know what immortalized means. You've already demonstrated why that person would likely be immortalized. You've found an article about the first person to be killed by a robot. The first person killed by an automated car will likely also have many an article written about him.

Why would he be particularly immortalized? For example if you're looking for the first human to be killed by robots, you don't have to wait for "I, robot" to become reality as that happened already back in 1979. Doesn't mean that robots have went away, people are quite regularly maimed or killed for neglecting safety zones, getting caught in presses and grinders and such. My prediction is that the first person killed by a computer-controlled car will be a Darwin Award winner that would have been killed by a human driver too, had there been one. Don't get me wrong, a computer-controller car won't be better than the people who programmed it and it surely will have bugs, but that one can be refined and get better whereas today every year we let loose a new generation of unskilled teens on the road.

Perhaps the best analogy is healthcare, you know those life-and-death situations you'd think keep everyone on their toes constantly. Well, nurses and doctors are humans too and they make mistakes, not often but they do. Electronic systems that make sure people always get the right medication in the right dosage at the right time, that they don't get dangerous combinations or medicines they're allergic to has helped save lives. Start counting the times the system corrects the nurses versus the times the nurses corrects the system and you'll find out who is actually the more important part of the two.

And that's why I think computer driven cars will win out in the end, they will always stick to protocol. They'll obey all speed limits, keep distance to those in front, always change lanes cleanly, always signal, always yield, always drive defensively and eventually all the accidents that don't happen because a human was tired or angry or sloppy or fiddling with the radio or his phone or whatnot will outperform the "creative" thinking capability of humans. Our ability to make good split-second decisions in an emergency situation is overrated, not to mention the choices are rather limited to break, turn and possibly in a few situations give gas. Many people panic and actually make it worse than just slamming the brakes.

I expect these cars also will have the ability to record near-accidents which you can use for analysis, you don't actually have to have an accident. Here we just managed to perform an emergency brake for a pedestrian who suddenly walked out into the road, could we have done better? Was our response optimal given the data we had? I see a whole new level of preventive improvement possible here. There's no significant learning for me from having one incident every decade, but if you can collect thousands of situations from millions of drivers it can learn to handle the 0.01% situations that we never have any training for or guidelines for what to do.

Well... I do; for the US that is.

It was Henry Bliss. He was a real estate agent in NY (no surprise here), killed by a taxicab (still no surprise).

What is interesting, it was an electric car. We got to stay with gas just for the sake of children. http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2011/09/0913first-us-pedestrian-killed-by-car/

And what, exactly, makes you think you have any privacy, or expectation of any privacy, on public roads?

I think the answer has already been given by the SCOTUS in the warrantless GPS tracking case: see here for details. The SCOTUS decided that, even though drivers used public roads, the amount of tracking the police was doing was orders of magnitude above the normal expectation for a public place, both in individual tracking and in the sheer number of trackers that could be active simultaneously. Of course, the decision in this case applies to governments, but I believe the same arguments work identically for the Google car.

Yes, it couldn't possibly be adversaries, and people want to do harm to the United States, in an environment where people like you firmly believe that everything must be a "false flag" operation designed to somehow take away your rights.

...

Or, it could be this:

Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf

Occupying the Information High Ground: Chinese Capabilities for Computer Network Operations and Cyber Espionage
http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2012/USCC%20Report_Chinese_CapabilitiesforComputer_NetworkOperationsandCyberEspionage.pdf

How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html

China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html

FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html

NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm

Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-dot-s-dot-space-technology

Report: Hackers Seized Control of Computers in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/jet-propulsion-lab-hacked/
http://oig.nasa.gov/congressional/FINAL_written_statement_for_%20IT_%20hearing_February_26_edit_v2.pdf

Chinese hackers took control of NASA satellite for 11 minutes
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/chinese-hackers-took-control-of-nasa-satellite-for-11-minutes-20111119/

Chinese hackers suspected of interfering with US satellites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/27/chinese-hacking-us-satellites-suspected

Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china

China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/

Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing

Java creator James Gosling stated that Google totally slimed Sun and favors Oracle in the trial. “While I have differences with Oracle, in this case, they are in the right,” he wrote on his blog. “We were all really disturbed, even [former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz] just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun.”

• dodgy deals in Kenya
• search neutrality issues on several occasions (i.e. favouring own products)
• WiFi sniffing was first an unintentional mistake, then a single individual action, then the supervisors knew about it ...
• circumventing Safari privacy protection ...

So, while I do not like simple comparisons like "is Google the new Microsoft?", they have their share of morality issues like most large corporations...

The story here is Uncle Tom Obama http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ is Uncle Tom (the betrayer) Obama. This is corruption in the US administration from the top down.

Pretty much screw the people Obama is going where the money is. Not saying the Republicans are better but you dozy bloody Americans just let Obama slime he was through the primaries completely unchallenged, baa, baa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa,_Baa,_Black_Sheep.

See this is why I love to LMAO at the FOSSies, they are so "There is but one true god!" they can't even think, its like a cross between village idiot and conspiracy nut, all rolled into one!

You want some fresh bitch slapping? Be careful what you wish for FOSSie, how about a nice kernel exploit? Or how about the guy that wrote EEEBuntu saying Ubuntu sucks which considering they are the current savior of Linux kinda tells you something. But why don't you say "Use Distro X" and then have the balls to name the X so i can show its just as big a POS, huh? BTW frankly everyone has stop giving a fuck about your OS, you aren't even newsworthy anymore really. Now its all Win 7&8, OSX&iOS, and of course Android which just shows what happens when a company bitch slaps the community and takes it away from them, why it actually fucking runs!

How sad that even with a bug spreading through OSX there are writers pointing out that's no reason to torture yourself with Linux , after all even a virus ridden OSX actually runs which is more than most distros LOL! But hey, you can always tell them they can fix it otherwise they don't need that right? LOL! And I noticed you just couldn't fricking resist screaming "Nigger!" which in FOSSie is done by screaming PaidMicrosoftShill, hey you think you could throw in one more FOSSie cliche please? Then I'll have a FOSSie Flush ROFL!

But if you didn't have cliches and your pathetic attempts at insults why then you might have to have an independent thought and realize what everybody knows that even when MSFT put out a universally reviled OS you STILL got curb stomped, does that give you ANY clues? or all they all brainwashed by those black choppers that have been following you? Hell when the Chinese were given the choice of your "free OS" or pirating Windows they chose the latter even if it meant staying on XP and using IE fricking 6, LOL! Does that ring ANY bells? A smart person would say "what are we doing wrong the other guy is doing right?" but a FOSSie who is just like a Moonie in that they blindly follow, instead says "Its all a conspiracy! They are all shills keeping the masses from true salvation!" and then you wonder why we all laugh at you because you DON'T Listen, you DON'T learn, and Torvalds could take a big steaming dump and hand it to you and you'd thank him for his generous gift. So enjoy that fresh bitchslapping loony, enjoy the fact that the world really doesn't care...but I do, I enjoy slapping you, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

That's right.. it's so stupid that Better Place raised $700 million to do it.

Thank you for pointing out how difficult it would be if they ran out. It's not like one switch station with 15 batteries could swap batteries for over 2500 EVs. and each station would cost 1/2 the cost of a gas station.. and the batteries could be swapped out in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/03/better-place-denmark-plan-gives-glimpse-of-battery-exchange-cost.html
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/
http://www.autoobserver.com/2010/04/battery-swap-program-begins-in-tokyo-with-taxi-company-demo.html

You're such a genius for pointing how wrong they are.

*snip*Here are the concerns I have with it:

All power rails appear to be exposed. While they are on the back, this could be a significant safety (personnel and/or fire) issue. Considering that you can up to 500A @ 12.5V DC running through the zone power rails, and potentially more for the main cabinet DC power rails, exposed seems like a bad idea.

*snip*

That appears to be an illustrative picture. An image from a different article of an "in production" or "active testing" rack shows grounded shields around the bus bars. This is the wired.com article I'm referring to. The picture is somewhere in the bottom third.

They are. Microsoft is a Linux kernel contributor.

How could anyone tell that there are no encrypted files?

The usual first mistake is a sticky note with the password on it.

Common mistake number two is a big icon on the quicklaunch bar labeled "SuperSecretCryptoAccess."

You think I kid?

...In 2005... law enforcement agents raided the home of one of the alleged spies. There, they found a set of password-protected disks and a piece of paper, marked with “alt,” “control,” “e,” and a string of 27 characters. When they used that as a password, the G-Men found a program that allowed the spies “to encrypt data, and then clandestinely to embed the data in images on publicly available websites.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/alleged-spies-hid-secret-messages-on-public-websites/

No, "its head". Also http://xkcd.com/585/

No, "its fin".

Neanderthals were 90% right-handed as well.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/neanderthals-right-handed/

The United States is incredibly dependent on its space assets in support of national objectives. Directed energy weapons can not only provide offensive ASAT capabilities, but can serve as a significant defense against missile- or even space-based kinetic ASAT weapons. The advantage of a directed energy weapon is that it has the ability to travel at the speed of light and target missiles during their vulnerable boost phase within seconds. During the 1990s and 2000s, the United States pursued directed energy weapons based on megawatt-class chemical lasers. Two of systems, the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL), were complementary, but never made it beyond the early testing phase.

The concept of the Airborne Laser came to fruition on a modified Boeing 747 known as the YAL-1A Airborne Laser Testbed (ABLT). In early 2010, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that ABLT successfully destroyed two test missiles, saying at the time that "The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies." Unfortunately, ABLT was $4 billion over budget and eight years behind schedule. Political and economic realities meant that the US could "no longer continue to do everything and explore every potential technology". On February 14, 2012, MDA announced that the ABLT program was terminated, transitioning into long-term storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis Monthan AFB — "the Boneyard".

The Space-Based Laser (SBL) concept is the notion of locating a high-powered laser in space, with a similar ability to target missiles in their boost phase. A constellation of 20 SBLs would be able to provide continuous global coverage, and target nearly any launch -- including ASAT weapons. A test firing of a Space-Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL-IFX) was originally schedule for 2012 to demonstrate SBL's capabilities. This project became so complex and expensive that MDA suspended research and development in 2002 — another victim of economic priorities, and a desire to focus resources on existing, proven kinetic systems.

If such systems are thought to have so much potential and capability, why are they no longer pursued? The answer is primarily one of cost. Further, if the US possessed such a comprehensive anti-missile and anti-ASAT capability, it is unlikely that an adversary would use a kinetic ASAT weapon. As adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran turn to cyber, it becomes more likely that cyber, conventional jamming, and EW capabilities would be used to target US space systems. It is reasonable that the US response should be in kind. One example: China is currently fielding the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Instead of using complicated missile defense systems or directed energy weapons to target it, and the current US strategy is indeed one of jam, spoof — and then shoot, if necessary, with the idea being to "break as many links as possible" in the chain, including via cyber and EW. Cyber can act as a significant force multiplier against even conventional weapons systems — which can work both for and against us. China has already demonstrated the potential effectiveness of cyber capabilities against US space systems. Resources devoted to enhancing our offensive and defensive cyber capabilities in the context of space systems and missile defense is money well spent.

Just because today's evolutionary pressures are harder to define, it doesn't mean they are not there. For instance, natural selection will favor people with fast reflexes and better depth perception because most of us drive cars. College graduates are favored because they typically get higher paying jobs and therefore better healthcare.

Keep looking. Evolution isn't done with us yet.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Autism/Aspergers is partially a function of evolutionary response to a technological lifestyle rather than an agricultural one. Name another genetic disease that occasionally provides benefits. I'll betcha Autism spectrum disorders are nothing more than Mother Nature trying out new ideas for human brain version X+1, currently in beta and still a little buggy.

How about governments stops meddling with every single business and person out there, introducing all these nonsense laws, while actively snooping on everybody on this planet without any justification, cause and mandate?

Just this NSA data center is a much bigger privacy risk than any number of employees who are dumb enough to ask for FB access of their potential hires and these potential workers being dumb and unprincipled enough to give it to them.

How about NSA stops doing THAT? Never mind the extra-judicial murder the president is involved in.

Shouldn't laws apply to the government first?

Shouldn't the government not be allowed to do things that an individual isn't allowed to do in the first place?

I'm not sure why this article even brings up Black-Scholes. If you were going to blame the crisis on an equation (dubious proposition though that is), you'd want to point your finger at the Gaussian copula function that was used to estimate the risk of the bundled mortgage securities that were at the center of the storm. This Wired article from forever ago explains the situation much better.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

Yes, the model makes assumptions. And yes, they are demonstrably invalid. And yes, the Black-Scholes equation is a parabolic P.D.E. that can be transformed into the one-dimensional heat equation and solved (although that isn't the only, or even IMO a particularly insightful way of arriving at the Black-Scholes option pricing formulae). None of this means the Black-Scholes model is useless, or that it caused the credit crunch.

To avoid writing an absurdly huge essay, I'll try and keep myself to a collection of reasonably concise points.

1. As someone else has already pointed out, Black-Scholes does not assume that markets do not trend (if by 'trend' you mean non-stochastic drift). You don't understand risk-neutral valuation, but sadly you have plenty of company, even amongst those who use it on a daily basis.
2. For a model to be invalid, it is not sufficient for its assumptions to be invalid. It also has to be sensitive to those assumptions. The whole point of a model is to selectively ignore certain aspects of a complex system in order to make it tractable, in the hope of achieving insights that apply to real-world system despite the simplifications that permitted the model to be constructed. Pointing at the assumptions of Black-Scholes and crying out "Continuous hedging? You've got to be kidding!" is not, on its own, an insightful critique of the model.
3. There are many markets and many models. Black-Scholes is the simplest option pricing model in one of the simplest markets, equity derivatives. The models used in practice vary widely depending on requirements. Nobody, or at least nobody competent, thinks Black-Scholes is all there is, though it actually is perfectly adequate for some limited uses. Why do all these other models exist? Is it just because lots of MIT students wanted to show off how clever they are? Partly, perhaps. But it's also because people in finance are perfectly aware of the limitations of Black-Scholes, and of all the other models out there, and are continually trying to do better. (It is true, though, that option pricing models generally live within a framework that was generalised from Black-Scholes.)
4. The credit crisis is/was just that: a credit crisis. Black-Scholes isn't a credit model, it's an option pricing model. The crisis didn't originate in the equities markets (or anything similar to it), so it wasn't the fault of Black-Scholes. If any model is to blame, it's copula models, as this article points out: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant.
5. Mathematical modelling is a perfectly valid way of reasoning about complex systems. Aside from modelling, what are the alternatives? There's intuition, of course, and there's qualitative economic thinking (quantitative economic thinking is mathematical modelling). Both of those obviously should be applied, no argument there. What else? Technical analysis? That's pretty dubious IMO, but I guess it has its place. But these don't take the place of quantitative analysis, they are complementary to it. Maths is one of the tools available to market participants, and they would be silly to ignore it.
6. That said, anyone who mistakes a model for reality is an idiot. And sadly there are plenty of idiots out there.
7. And even if you're not an idiot, the ways models interact with markets is complex and poorly understood. A model on its own doesn't do anything. What matters is how people use it. What happens when a model is used? What is it used for? When it's used does it change the market? Does it change the market in such a way as to make the model more or less valid? Here's a fascinating read on those kinds of topics: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10841.

Does all of this mean that quants are angels, models are great and bankers are all wonderful people? No. Greed had plenty to do

I think they are blaming the wrong formula here.

Loans are rarely ever priced using Black-Scholes formula. Neither are the CDOs comprised of these loans priced using Black-Scholes. Black-Scholes is the equity option pricing model. There are variants of it used to price futures, bonds etc. but none of them went into the derivatives that caused the crash. Blaming Black-Scholes is like blaming the inventor of the transistor for someone hacking into a bank account. They are all related, but very distantly.

A much more direct formula to fault is The Gaussian Copula approach.. This formula tries to estimate the default probability of a CDO which is comprised of many loans/mortgages of varying credit-risks, maturities etc.

When CDO's became common, there was a need for a model to predict default risk on it. It was all hit-or-miss until this formula came along and everyone from bankers to buyers to rating agencies came to rely on the Copula function to estimate default probability. At its heart what the formula says that the chances of default of a CDO comprising of loans in California and Connecticut are a function of correlation of asset prices in CT and CA. Since historically CT housing prices and CA housing prices have not moved up together (dot com booms , 9/11, storms, earthquakes etc. were regional) the model predicted that a CDO comprising of a geographically diversified loan will not default. Worsening the problem was that these asset price histories only go back 30-40 years in the best case. There is no reliable record of credit histories or even houses going back to the depression. The model also completely missed the fact that there are hidden correlations in terms of a nationwide boom in house prices and that the US economy itself becomes very linked in case of disasters.

I do not like blaming formulas for disasters, but if any should be blamed, then the Copula function is more to blame than Black-Scholes.

What BBC is doing is to dust off their old documentary called "Midas Formula" which they made in early 2000's when "Long Term Capital Management" blew up. The authors of the Black-Scholes worked there, so at that time it was apposite. Now, maybe not so much.

I wonder what happened to the Dobelle Eye... same style but wired directly into the visual cortex: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision_pr.html

It's not surprising, especially with that great big giant new data center that the NSA is building (built?) in Utah (see http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1). Now they have a legal method to populate their data, again without checks, balances, etc.

Not that they didn't before, but now it sounds like that ISPs don't even have the illusion of choice anymore.

Is it just me, or is this getting out of control?

Pffft, I just posted anonymously - like that is going to do any good anymore....
#z@#$
NO CARRIER

Wired had an article somewhat related to this.. It was a decent read.

Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.

Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.

Yahoo was the company that caused an uproar just a couple of years ago when someone posted a copy of their price list for what amounts to espionage services available to world governments. I'd call that abusive, personally.

A couple of points about this. First, if the recent Wired article on the under-construction Utah data center is accurate, mass spying is already underway with increasing volumes being planned. So I think it is fair to say that this is a reflection of Total Information Awareness and the post-Admiral Poindexter philosophy of spying: build it and let 'em try and take it away later. CISPA, then, is best thought of as a legal framework around existing and planned hardware buildouts. While I do not expect the Obama White House to be forthcoming with its real reasoning for threatening a veto, I presume that the real reason is that CISPA does not go far enough so far as the executive branch is concerned.

However, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to put the same content on another type of reader completely outside of the kindle system, but that would probably be considered another argument.

Well, this is one reason (maybe the main reason) why ebook DRM still exists - not to benefit the authors or publishers, but to lock buyers into the Kindle system (or equivalent). The locks are easy to pick, of course, and with even mainstream sites like Wired linking to DRM stripping guides, you have to wonder how long this will be sustainable:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/01/how-to-strip-drm-from-kindle-e-books-and-others/

This makes removal so easy and seamless, you almost (as with DVD DRM) forget it exists. Now that Amazon has such a strong market position, perhaps they'll decide this minimal 'protection' has served its purpose and get rid of it, just as Apple did with audio DRM when iTunes had blown away the competition.

Anyone old enough to remember INSLAW? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw.html

Coincidentally, it looks like Planetary Resources (a new company backed by several well-known billionaires) is going to formally announce tomorrow their plans to launch 2-5 orbital telescopes in the next 18-24 months. The primary of the telescopes will be to look for near-Earth asteroids to mine, although this will of course also be useful for detecting potentially-dangerous asteroids. They also plan on selling orbital telescopes at a cost of a few million dollars each, which is cheap enough that you could probably get a decent planetary protection effort going on Kickstarter. ;)

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11339522-billionaire-backed-asteroid-mining-venture-starts-with-space-telescopes
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining/

You're convinced they brought it down just as they claim? You may know something that I don't, being that you're formerly of the Air Force, but it sounds kinda like bullshit to me.

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

Considering the majority of the gas reserves are in the North Sea off the coast of Scotland it seems unlikely that London (seemingly the only city in the UK that most have heard of) will suffer any form of earth quakes, though they may well lose out if Scotland is granted their independence in 2014 when the vote comes.

while i VERY much agree with what you say we will NOT be "granted" independence we will vote for it in a referendum and thus we will decide ourselves
i'd like to see what happens if westminster tries to deny the will of the Scottish people.

even now after all the years that have passed since april 6th 1320 when robert the Bruce co-wrote and signed the "Declaration of Arbroath" the people of Scotland, in legal terms are regarded as "sovereign" under Scottish Law which is separate and distinct from english law. And there was a legal judgement in Scotland where a court of Session(highest court in Scotland) Judge even said outright that in Scotland the people were sovereign under Scottish law as opposed to england where parliament was sovereign.

but basically.. aye... we will decide and the way things are looking with the likes of Peter Crudass admitting that the tory govt were faking opposition to scotland becoming independence so as to position themselves to try and screw Scotland in a settlement, johan lamont, the Scottish labour leader already saying that, in the up coming coincil elections to take place in May, they already concede defeat adn expect to come in second..... to the Scottish tory leader ruth davidson who , in her big conference speech actually said that "if the people of Scotland vote NO in the referendum them the tories would cut the Scottish budget by 2,500 per person per year"!!! yeah.. there's a carrot to dangle! ... the lid dems... total non entity.. that party is gonna go tits up and rightly so..

Scotland is actually IN SURPLUS but with 8.6% of the "uk" population" paying 9.8% of the total tax revenue we get humped by westminster
total Scottish revenue is just over 126 billions per year when you count in the tax raised in "extra regio territories"(ie the place westminster try to hide the scottish oil/gas income) and we get about 30 billions back.. YET with that we STILL have universal free healthcare with free precription medicines, universal free education.. ie no college/university fees, and so much more that has been done while the tories sell everything off after labour SHAT on it all
and before anyone starts about universal free healthcare being some commie crap... no it's not.. we just give enough of a fuck about our own people to want them to be healthy and , when you think about it . that is good for employers too! a healthy workforce!
Saor Alba!

After all, the Thames estuary can't be hurt by a few anthropogenic earthquakes, now? Can it?

I'd be far more worried about the water laced with sand and chemicals that is shot down into the Earth to release this gas from the shale. They can't leave it down there for fear of it seeping into the water table and when they suck it up, what do they do with it? And in some US states, it appears that when people think they are affected by it the company responsible doesn't have to tell them what their area was exposed to. It's well known that it contaminates water supply but greed can overpower any environmental problems. Luckily we should be able to watch Pennsylvania screw up their own water and hopefully other states will take a different approach. I wonder how many laws and regulations UKELA will let slide in order for England to "catapult into the top ranks of global producers."

hate to break it to you but ALL the offshore gas mentioned is in Scottish territorial waters and we'll be taking them with us after the 2014 Independence referendum win ;)