Can't vouch for hundreds, but I got hit with a trojan last year that installed a keylogger. Happily, the person who got my passwords was an idiot, and actually apologized to me when I tracked him down and sent him his own IP address. Long story short, though, Mac users shouldn't be too cavalier about malware; I got hit despite being pretty knowledgeable and careful about where I go on the web.
1. Digital watch: Does not provide access to the digitized sum of human knowledge from your wrist.
2. iPhone/other small web device: Does provide access to the digitized sum of human knowledge from your pocket.
The iPhone and its ilk provide an entirely different type of experience. In fifty years, the iPhone will be long gone, but it will still be known as one of the devices that popularized truly ubiquitous network computing.
Seriously, I see third year college students who still don't know what plagerism is. You can't convince me that they all know better than to use an encyclopedia as a primary source. And I see +5 Interesting posters who still don't know how to spell plagiarism.
Seriously, any college student who doesn't know better than to use an encyclopedia as a primary source doesn't actually belong in college.
Look: I take your car. Now I have a car, and you don't. I have clearly caused you harm: I have made it more difficult for you to go to work, spend time with your family, pick up groceries, and pay for a new car.
Now look again: You're sharing some music files. I download them from you. Now we both have a car... I mean, music files. I have not caused you harm- you still have your music that you (presumably) paid for. The only argument you can make is that I have caused harm to the RIAA (and those who work for it) and the artist. This may be the case, but it's not a given. If I was never going to buy that music to begin with, I haven't deprived anyone of anything. In fact, if I decide I like the music I would never have heard otherwise, I may decide to buy it somewhere down the road. I have caused no harm; I have simply gained a benefit, but not at anyone else's expense.
On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. That's pretty lousy, although a lot of people understandably have a lack of sympathy for uber-billionaire multinational corporations and their multi-billionaire hack artists. This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.
You paint this out to be black and white, but in truth, this situation is extremely nuanced, and the heart of the problem is that our current laws (and the RIAA's current business model) are in no way sufficient or even relevant for it.
Whoa there. Take a step back. Wikipedia (what the hell, it's the closest thing we've got to a community standard) explains theft thus: "In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent." I think that's a pretty fair description.
Let's play semantics for a moment, though. To me, "taking" another person's property necessarily leaves them without that property. This is the traditional connotation of theft, inherited from a non-digital world in which taking someone's boots or (more appropriately) cassette tape leaves them without the stolen item. Guess what? "Theft" of an mp3 track doesn't work that way.
When you or I "steal" an mp3 track using a P2P application, we gain a copy of it that we would not have had otherwise, yes, but no one loses that track. This makes the occurring transaction inherently different from the traditional understanding of theft. Assuming the downloader was never going to buy the track in question, no one has lost anything.
Follow? Maybe you don't. Let's take the example of a poor college student who doesn't have money to throw at the latest ridiculously priced CDs. Our hypothetical student hears that the latest U2 album is supposed to be somewhat decent (this is hypothetical, remember), and decides he wants it, but knows that no way does he have the money to shell out for it. In previous eras, this means he doesn't get that album. End of story. In our digital era, though, this means he goes to his favorite torrent site, locates the appropriate torrent, and downloads the album. Now here's the key point: he didn't have the money to buy the album anyway. The recording industry and the artist were never going to make money from selling that album to him, because he didn't have the resources to buy it. Now, instead of not having the money and not having the album, and the recording industry not receiving any money, he still doesn't have the money and the industry still doesn't receive any money, but the student gets the album. There's no net loss- only net gain, on the student's part.
I know a number of people who download music this way. They gain something that they would never otherwise have access to at no actual cost to the artist or industry. I don't think they deserve to be punished for that, especially because these are the same people who, when they do earn some spare money, spend most of it on music.
I suppose what I said could be read that way, but it's not what I meant. And please note, the "genes" they've been passing to the next generation of robots are those that are successful (i.e., from successful robots), not the ones they find interesting.
Evolution is essentially the passing on of genes by those who are best able to survive and pass them on. The most successful genes (and the most successful creatures) become more common. I fail to see how this is substantially different from the study in question.
Evolution: All that's going on here is that some defective genes that have forgotten how to work the way they originally did are being artificially preserved by an environment that encourages them.
There. I fixed that for you.
If you read the article, you'll notice that there is selection going on here, on the part of the researchers. They're combining the "genes" from the most successful robots of each generation to create the robots of the next generation. In other words, whether the genes of a given robot get passed on is dependent on how successful it is at "surviving".
Sounds an awful lot like evolution to me. It's no more intentional on the part of the individual robots than human evolution is on the part of Slashdotters who can't get a date, but it's evolution nonetheless.
Really? Linux is better? Considering that you have to throw out all investment in the software you have which runs on Windows? You need to forget everything you learned about Windows, and re-learn for Linux? That's a better idea?
Doubtful.
Bear in mind that not all of that software works on Vista, either. If your old software doesn't work on either system you're considering upgrading to (Linux or Vista, for example), you've got two options:
1. Stick with the system you've got. This may not actually be an option, depending on your circumstances.
2. Consider your old software a sunk cost. You paid for it, and now it doesn't work. That shouldn't be a sticking point when considering what new system to buy. The only question is what system offers a way to do what you need, and if more than one system offers that, which one does it better/more cheaply?
I agree with your initial point- survivors of a genocide should indeed get to call it what they want. But to imply that the genocide of the American Indians (or of ANY people) was any less horrific is ridiculous. Less organized, sure; no one person said, "Hey, we should eliminate this group of people based on race." An entire people just decided that they shouldn't get to keep their lives, their land, or their dignity. It might interest you to read about, for example, the Trail of Tears.
Genocide is genocide. It's evil no matter where, why, or how it happens.
I'm trying to think of the last time I read an article by Dvorak, and said "You know, he's got a good point". It's almost like he intentionally trolls his readership by stating the most outrageous possible point of view, just to stir up hits and discussion.
I agree with you wholeheartedly... with the single exception of this particular article. I've found myself contemplating the end of my control over my own information with some apprehension more than once since first reading about "software as a service." Regardless of how sensationalist this article may be (and I personally don't think it is, much), the man makes some legitimate points. An outage like this should make people think very seriously about the safety and accessibility of their data and their workflow. As Dvorak notes, this sort of thing can't happen with Linux, or even OS X; I don't think it's unreasonable for Windows users to ponder that fact.
As for me, I plan to keep my personal computers around and backed up even as my primary data and workflow move online. One day, there will be an outage, and while others are whining, I will be working. But maybe I'm just cynical.
Was "Can't Stop the Signal." The information those in power want hidden is out, and it can't be stopped. There are an infinity of ways and places to store and display this number, and the next, and the next after that. They've already lost- they just don't know it yet.
So what better tagline for the revolution than a quote from one of the very movies released on HD-DVD? "Can't stop the signal."
-OP
Is anyone else vaguely and unpleasantly reminded of the words "vertical monopoly?" I mean, yeah, there's Google, but just the idea of Microsoft actually having a significant market share (and 27% of the search market is significant) in another market really bothers me.
Teenagers predominantly using Windows? Hah. Say what you like about teens, they have an eye for what's new and pretty and (get this) what works; teenagers are flocking to the Mac. The only reason most teens use Windows is because that's what their parents and their schools have.
I bet you anything that Apple's market share continues climbing for the next few years as young adults who have gone through college using Mac OS X get into the job market; first, it'll be individuals, buying the computers that Just Worked at school. Then, they'll get into decision-making positions, and then it'll be small business, bigger businesses... you name it.
Teens know when they've got a good thing going, and Windows isn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
Off-topic: why do you misidentify Chelsea Manning in your sig while thanking her?
Can't vouch for hundreds, but I got hit with a trojan last year that installed a keylogger. Happily, the person who got my passwords was an idiot, and actually apologized to me when I tracked him down and sent him his own IP address. Long story short, though, Mac users shouldn't be too cavalier about malware; I got hit despite being pretty knowledgeable and careful about where I go on the web.
Yep, that's why Macs haven't made any strides toward becoming popular on the deskt- wait a sec.
Mod parent up.
In grand old /. tradition:
No 3g. Less space than an iPhone. Lame.
Should be interesting to see where this leads.
Let's take stock:
1. Digital watch: Does not provide access to the digitized sum of human knowledge from your wrist.
2. iPhone/other small web device: Does provide access to the digitized sum of human knowledge from your pocket.
The iPhone and its ilk provide an entirely different type of experience. In fifty years, the iPhone will be long gone, but it will still be known as one of the devices that popularized truly ubiquitous network computing.
I like "Terrorism and Radicalization Prevention Act". It's one letter-switch away from being a TRAP.
Seriously, any college student who doesn't know better than to use an encyclopedia as a primary source doesn't actually belong in college.
Talk about your bad car analogy.
Look: I take your car. Now I have a car, and you don't. I have clearly caused you harm: I have made it more difficult for you to go to work, spend time with your family, pick up groceries, and pay for a new car.
Now look again: You're sharing some music files. I download them from you. Now we both have a car... I mean, music files. I have not caused you harm- you still have your music that you (presumably) paid for. The only argument you can make is that I have caused harm to the RIAA (and those who work for it) and the artist. This may be the case, but it's not a given. If I was never going to buy that music to begin with, I haven't deprived anyone of anything. In fact, if I decide I like the music I would never have heard otherwise, I may decide to buy it somewhere down the road. I have caused no harm; I have simply gained a benefit, but not at anyone else's expense.
On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. That's pretty lousy, although a lot of people understandably have a lack of sympathy for uber-billionaire multinational corporations and their multi-billionaire hack artists. This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.
You paint this out to be black and white, but in truth, this situation is extremely nuanced, and the heart of the problem is that our current laws (and the RIAA's current business model) are in no way sufficient or even relevant for it.
I can't help but laugh when I see a misused apostrophe in someone's sig.
Whoa there. Take a step back. Wikipedia (what the hell, it's the closest thing we've got to a community standard) explains theft thus: "In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent." I think that's a pretty fair description.
Let's play semantics for a moment, though. To me, "taking" another person's property necessarily leaves them without that property. This is the traditional connotation of theft, inherited from a non-digital world in which taking someone's boots or (more appropriately) cassette tape leaves them without the stolen item. Guess what? "Theft" of an mp3 track doesn't work that way.
When you or I "steal" an mp3 track using a P2P application, we gain a copy of it that we would not have had otherwise, yes, but no one loses that track. This makes the occurring transaction inherently different from the traditional understanding of theft. Assuming the downloader was never going to buy the track in question, no one has lost anything .
Follow? Maybe you don't. Let's take the example of a poor college student who doesn't have money to throw at the latest ridiculously priced CDs. Our hypothetical student hears that the latest U2 album is supposed to be somewhat decent (this is hypothetical, remember), and decides he wants it, but knows that no way does he have the money to shell out for it. In previous eras, this means he doesn't get that album. End of story. In our digital era, though, this means he goes to his favorite torrent site, locates the appropriate torrent, and downloads the album. Now here's the key point: he didn't have the money to buy the album anyway. The recording industry and the artist were never going to make money from selling that album to him, because he didn't have the resources to buy it. Now, instead of not having the money and not having the album, and the recording industry not receiving any money, he still doesn't have the money and the industry still doesn't receive any money, but the student gets the album. There's no net loss- only net gain, on the student's part.
I know a number of people who download music this way. They gain something that they would never otherwise have access to at no actual cost to the artist or industry. I don't think they deserve to be punished for that, especially because these are the same people who, when they do earn some spare money, spend most of it on music.
I suppose what I said could be read that way, but it's not what I meant. And please note, the "genes" they've been passing to the next generation of robots are those that are successful (i.e., from successful robots), not the ones they find interesting.
Evolution is essentially the passing on of genes by those who are best able to survive and pass them on. The most successful genes (and the most successful creatures) become more common. I fail to see how this is substantially different from the study in question.
Evolution: All that's going on here is that some defective genes that have forgotten how to work the way they originally did are being artificially preserved by an environment that encourages them.
There. I fixed that for you.
If you read the article, you'll notice that there is selection going on here, on the part of the researchers. They're combining the "genes" from the most successful robots of each generation to create the robots of the next generation. In other words, whether the genes of a given robot get passed on is dependent on how successful it is at "surviving".
Sounds an awful lot like evolution to me. It's no more intentional on the part of the individual robots than human evolution is on the part of Slashdotters who can't get a date, but it's evolution nonetheless.
You, sir, have a bastardly sig. Well done.
Really? Linux is better? Considering that you have to throw out all investment in the software you have which runs on Windows? You need to forget everything you learned about Windows, and re-learn for Linux? That's a better idea?
Doubtful.
Bear in mind that not all of that software works on Vista, either. If your old software doesn't work on either system you're considering upgrading to (Linux or Vista, for example), you've got two options:
1. Stick with the system you've got. This may not actually be an option, depending on your circumstances.
2. Consider your old software a sunk cost. You paid for it, and now it doesn't work. That shouldn't be a sticking point when considering what new system to buy. The only question is what system offers a way to do what you need, and if more than one system offers that, which one does it better/more cheaply?
Ack... I meant to mod this "insightful" but accidentally clicked "overrated". So I'm breaking my moderation by posting.
I agree with your initial point- survivors of a genocide should indeed get to call it what they want. But to imply that the genocide of the American Indians (or of ANY people) was any less horrific is ridiculous. Less organized, sure; no one person said, "Hey, we should eliminate this group of people based on race." An entire people just decided that they shouldn't get to keep their lives, their land, or their dignity. It might interest you to read about, for example, the Trail of Tears.
Genocide is genocide. It's evil no matter where, why, or how it happens.
No one wants to wear their wrists out holding up something to read it.
Yes, this is precisely why books failed so miserably as a product. Wait...
I can hold it! I can hold it!
What? No flames? No holy wars? You must be new here.
*looks at respective user IDs* Oh. Heh. Okay, I think you just earned all the Slashdot-related respect I had to give.
I'm trying to think of the last time I read an article by Dvorak, and said "You know, he's got a good point". It's almost like he intentionally trolls his readership by stating the most outrageous possible point of view, just to stir up hits and discussion.
I agree with you wholeheartedly... with the single exception of this particular article. I've found myself contemplating the end of my control over my own information with some apprehension more than once since first reading about "software as a service." Regardless of how sensationalist this article may be (and I personally don't think it is, much), the man makes some legitimate points. An outage like this should make people think very seriously about the safety and accessibility of their data and their workflow. As Dvorak notes, this sort of thing can't happen with Linux, or even OS X; I don't think it's unreasonable for Windows users to ponder that fact.
As for me, I plan to keep my personal computers around and backed up even as my primary data and workflow move online. One day, there will be an outage, and while others are whining, I will be working. But maybe I'm just cynical.
Was "Can't Stop the Signal." The information those in power want hidden is out, and it can't be stopped. There are an infinity of ways and places to store and display this number, and the next, and the next after that. They've already lost- they just don't know it yet. So what better tagline for the revolution than a quote from one of the very movies released on HD-DVD? "Can't stop the signal." -OP
Is anyone else vaguely and unpleasantly reminded of the words "vertical monopoly?" I mean, yeah, there's Google, but just the idea of Microsoft actually having a significant market share (and 27% of the search market is significant) in another market really bothers me.
Teenagers predominantly using Windows? Hah. Say what you like about teens, they have an eye for what's new and pretty and (get this) what works; teenagers are flocking to the Mac. The only reason most teens use Windows is because that's what their parents and their schools have.
I bet you anything that Apple's market share continues climbing for the next few years as young adults who have gone through college using Mac OS X get into the job market; first, it'll be individuals, buying the computers that Just Worked at school. Then, they'll get into decision-making positions, and then it'll be small business, bigger businesses... you name it.
Teens know when they've got a good thing going, and Windows isn't it.