I appreciate the privacy concerns that usually drive these discussions. This surveillance business is much to 1984 for my taste, but the reality is elsewhere, as illustrated in a recent report by the NYLCU (see http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2006/12/80970.html. It reports that:
There are an estimated 50,000 surveillance cameras in use in New York City today.
The police currently operate/have direct access to less than 1% of those cameras. Indeed, they are proposing to expand the number of cameras to about 1% (from about 250 to about 500).
The number of cameras has grown by more than an order of magnitude in just eight years, from around 2400 in 1998. The article includes a great map of the number of cameras that have been identified in just one neighborhood. The picture suggests that it simply isn't possible to walk down 125th Street in Manhattan without being continuously recorded by perhaps a dozen cameras at once.
The NYCLU report not only opposes the expansion of the number of police operated candidates. It proposes an "immediate moratorium on the installation of any and all new surveillance cameras in the city". I think this raises an important question. Don't I have a right to install a video surveillance camera in my window, if only so I can put a live view of the park outside my window on my computer screen? How dare these folks attack my right to bear cameras.:-)
I give you credit. You really threw the kitchen sink into this post. I'll cut to the core issue and then add some clarifications of your other points.
The core issue, of course, remains eminent domain, and it doesn't surprise me, given your very strong views, that you have some property that is at risk of being condemned. Neither does it surprise me, given your whacked out fringe views on other issues, that your eminent domain issue is one that the recent Supreme Court decision has no real bearing on. Eminent domain has been long accepted as necessary for the creation of public works like highways (that's what the Elvis movie I referred to was about), but there are always people among the displaced who take extreme views on the subject. The movie raised all the issues you do, including "can there ever be adequate compensation for the value of a home" and "corrupt politicians".
Hint: the only approach that ever works consistently is to identify a unique ecosystem that will be destroyed forever (with the likely extinction of a unique species) if the public work is built. Residents of Long Island, New York still spend hours driving in traffic through New York City when heading up into New England because a bridge was stopped using that tactic.
As for compensation, it is supposed to represent the fair market value of your property. You should be able to get other property for an equivalent price. Not everybody is happy with that compensation. Those who aren't often sue. They sometimes succeed (usually when they can show that the compensation was not a fair market value). Property tax assessments and appeals are meaningless in this context. Property taxes are generally based on a percentage of the fair market value and property tax appeals (in my experience) often succeed, but only if you can show that your properties appraisal is significantly higher than equivalent properties. I have appealed property tax increases twice. One time I got a 35% reduction. The other time I got a smaller, but still significant reduction. I know other people who have succeeded as well. Simple complaints about tax increases, however, almost never succeed. One way or another, taxes only go up. You have to show that the appraisal of your otherwise unimproved property went up more than your neighbor's did.
Property prices go up sometimes. Property prices go down sometimes. Right now we're in a down cycle. I can name towns in Michigan where property values are lower than they were 40 years ago. There is swampland in Florida that still isn't worth what people bought it for fifty years ago. Where I am right now, property values are down significantly from where they were six months ago. I don't think anywhere is up at the moment. The good news is that if price are down for your property, they are probably down for the property next door as well.
As for your so called land grab, what you describe is not a case of corrupt politicians being paid off by developers. Its a highway (the very definition of a public work). Overpasses every 20 miles seems extreme, so you must really be in the middle of nowhere. If there is a plan to add rail as well, it is because trains can carry freight long distance for a lot less than individual trucks can (and usually faster and for less than ocean shipping). I probably wouldn't worry too much about terrorists attacking "choke points". Terrorists like targets that have television cameras pointing at them. If cameras can't be there in five minutes, they generally aren't interested. Sounds like that lets out your locale altogether.
I would reiterate. You have not identified a new attack on your rights.
That said, some clarifications:
Neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson were part of any whacked out fringe. Jefferson, from your perspective, would have been a member of the lunatic left. He generally thought effective government regulation (creating a monopoly post office to support the wide distribution of gover
You said it perfectly. The only way a person could compare any version of Windows to OS/2 and come out thinking that Windows was even close to as good is because they never used it. In truth, even with Mac, Linux, and Windows screens staring back at me, I miss OS/2. It was an order of magnitude easier to use and program to than any of them. Heck, I had an OS/2 server that NEVER went down, never needed a reinstall, and never needed a reboot for five years. At the beginning it was a desktop. At the end it was a web server. All I ever had to do to make the transitions was delete and add software (generally a directory at a time). Among the the major platforms today, only Linux has anything close to that kind of durability.
Davis
This isn't about religion and its relationship to science. Its about a test that doesn't do what its supposed to do but still identifies large numbers of people as having lied.
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_iacono .html, where an expert tells the Senate judiciary committee that "No spy has ever been uncovered because of a failed polygraph test", that "can learn to defeat these tests", and that, when tested, "innocent people fare little better than chance on these tests, with 40% or more failing on average".
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html, where another expert indicates (after criticizing the first for hyperbole) that one particular spy had been given at least three polygraph tests, passed them all, and "did more than 90 percent of the damage he did in the interval between his first and second tests." The witness goes on the real that he knows "of no security procedure that would have stopped" the spy's "first venture into espionage."
Good security is based in good research rather than faulty methodologies.
There clearly has been and is testing going on. Downloadable images of Sugar and the proposed software environment have been out for a while. Testing of etoys has been underway for a while as well. The other apps all appear to be adaptations of widely used Linux software and are in teh downloadable image.
Many of the comments so far have suggested that the XO machines interface was limited, and it does appear that some things look more restrictive than they probably ought to be.
Still, the thing that most struck me in the demo was how easy it was for kids to build applications using EToys, a "Logo, Smalltalk, Hypercard, and StarLogo" influenced (see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar_EToys "authoring system"/direct manipulation programming language. The demo didn't take that very far, unless you consider the game widget that was demoed. Clearly, this "langauge" provides a lot of room for kids to step beyond other limitations of the system. Etoys applications can apparently be uploaded, shared, and played through the browser. I can't tell if the browser can be used from within etoys, but it would be interesting if it could be.
Beyond that, it appears that it is possible to install other software on the XO laptop (see http://http//wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar#Hacking. Does anyone know if how easily children will be able to do this? I assume this means that a child can grow the function of laptop over time (to do things like extending the word processor with the functionality that is now missing).
The OLPC laptop wiki addresses the question indirectly, by stating that (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_software_task_list)"the $100 laptop will not be tied to a specific set of software or content. It will have the flexibility to change with the requirements of the student. Individuals will inevitably find individualized uses; certainly local, regional, and national requirements will drive much of the base configuration." But that is a statement of requirements rather than function. Where do things actually stand relative to that goal?
Yes, the fundamentals of education, according the the educational minimalists who like to strip public education of other subject matters, are Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, otherwise known as the 3R's.
Isn't it wonderful that computers help us to teach all three... and that the Internet provides access to a much wider range of knowledge?
Here and in other discussions you seem to be speaking from direct knowledge when you talk about this. Can it be reasonably presumed that you have used the browser as it is delivered with the XO Computers UI and it does in fact work as advertised. That would put an end to back on forth on the issue.
Beyond that, it seems clear, looking at the OLPC laptop wiki (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Web_Browser) that it is possible to install other browsers, including other modifications of GECKO (e.g. Firefox). I assume the general process for doing this follows the outline described at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar#Hacking.
Actually, many countries claim to have 90 plus percent literacy, even those that supply as little as one year of education. When literacy figures are yes/no, the claims tend to be that they are quite high.
The extent of literacy is more important.
There, access to reading materials is important. For many countries, a town full of $200 laptops would be cheaper than building and maintaining a library with any significant amount of reading material.
That's were the 3R people are missing the point. A low cost computer is cheaper than paper, pencil, and books over even a short period of time.
But isn't this "fundamentalist" stuff off topic? I'm pleased to see that most subsequent threads focus on the UI.
Interesting observation. Hard to change at this point, as it is the name of the machine (the XO computer), but it does raise interesting issues of language and interpretation.
The reference to Microsoft Bob has been made several times. I didn't understand the comment then (Bob limited some aspects of the interface, but was mostly problematic because of its intrusiveness) and still don't. I suggest you revisit the specifics of Bob. Here's a good pointer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob
I always forget that their are people on the whacked out fringe of neoconservatism that make George Bush look like a "liberal" by comparison. More draconian border closures than who? When was the last time you needed a passport to return to the U.S. from Canada? I think that was never (at least in the 100 years; before that there was no border control at all there). And what is that big fence they are building on the Mexican border about? Blocking migratory animals I suppose.
And at what point, since its emergence in the common law centuries ago, did eminent domain turn into slavery? Are you telling me you can't own property? Has your property been subject to eminent domain? Did you have no recourse? Was the action not considered in the light of your objections? Did you not receive compensation sufficient to obtaining other property? While I agree that the Supreme Court decision you refer to pushes eminent domain too far, it hardly seems like an assault on the right to own property.
This isn't a real issue. Move on.
Comments above suggest that this article suggests a more than may actually be occurring. Still, it does appear that we are beginning to approach the end of Videotex and the elaborate graphics compression schemes that supported it. That can only be a good thing. All Videotex was created with the tools that enforced the mindsets of what, today, we would usually think of as badly designed web pages. The "features" of these pages:
they weren't resizable
they had very limited resolution graphics
text was most often transmitted as a graphical representation rather than as real text
pages had to be created in a compatible Videotext editor
There was a time, before the web, when it was the only way to create visually high quality content for the net. I remember going to conferences on teletex/videotex back in the late 70's and early 80's when it seemed like a genuine alternative to dial-up terminal systems, but even then it seemed much more complicated than it needed to be. I won't say I'm glad to see it go. I will say that I'm amazed that it continued as long as it did.
I can't speak for Wikipedia's spam blocking process, but I operate a Wiki that is well known enough to get a lot of spam. I block that fairly effectively. Seven pieces of true spam have gotten through over the two and a half years since I implemented the first version of my spam blocking, but I had almost half my site overwritten at one point before that, so I take it pretty seriously. I fully understand why many Wiki owners have decided to make their Wikis read only rather than deal with it and why others have resorted to required logons, confirmations of the existence of a human, and other measures. Some useful factoids:
The volume of Wikispam attacks on my site more than doubled last month. I'm sure that Wikipedia gets a great deal more volume than I do and that they probably saw a similar percentage rise.
Most Wikispam is focused on raising the Google ranking of one or more web sites. In the past a huge portion of the volume has been focused around pornography sites. This months most commonly advertised site is a search engine called Rollyo. Minor editorial: please boycott that search engine and its associated blog.
Wikispam has a fairly predictable content and submission profile. While many Wikis have resorted to logins and address blocking, I've found the content so predictable that I actually removed my IP-based address blocking last month.
One of the more predictable aspects of Wikispam is that it is often generated from many machines via robot attacks. One presumes that the attacker is not paying to use all of these different machines (e.g. that the machines have been hijacked).
The middle east (and more specifically, Quatar, Kuwait, and the UAE in general) has proven to be a major source of robot attacks. I don't know if this means anything, but it suggests that machines in that part of the world are either poorly secured or have been effectively targeted by robot builders. I also get a lot of robot attacks through (presumably South) Korea.
I don't want to make any great claims, at least in part because I don't want to increase the attack frequency on my site or get slashdotted, but my software has been very effective in blocking almost everything that the spammers throw at me. I don't currently block any countries and am reluctant to publicly reveal the rules I use for the blocking, but do block about a dozen IP addresses that have been used enough to suggest that they are directly associated with individual spammers.
The real question, for me, is what the hardware implications of this are. There is a lineage of open hardware platforms, going back to the original IBM PC (and arguably into the CP/M platforms that preceded it) that have specified a hardware platform to which operating systems could be written and to which alternative or clone hardware could be built. Microsoft has increasingly taken a lead role in specifying what has grown to be called the so called Wintel platform, but it appears in this case (far more so than previously) that they have specified a platform that will be much more difficult for other operating systems to write to, if only because they are requiring hardware vendors to close their support for at least one major class of function (DRM support).
The easy response, which many of forwarded, is to move to Mac, but others have been quick to point out that Mac is already (and has pretty much always been) a closed platform.
It seems to me that the only way to resolve this problem is to start specifying an alternative standard platform that really is open. It may be that this platform will wind up being unable to run Vista (except, perhaps, in a degraded mode), but I don't think that will actually matter to businesses with mission critical software, high end gamers, or others who, like myself, value the PERSONAL aspect of PC's more than DRM content. My list of folks who can provide an alternative standard platform specification includes:
AMD, Intel, or perhaps one of the other clone processor makers. AMD and Intel have been specifying platforms that support Windows for a while anyway. Is there enough of a market for an open platform that they would be willing to specify an open platform?
Google, which is unlikely to find the Vista platform acceptable for their server operations
The XO computer. Wouldn't it be nice if you could build your own XO laptop right now? Is this platform already open enough that it can be cloned? If it is, it could be at least an excellent starting point.
The major Linux vendors, perhaps in cooperation with folks associated with other open source OS. Its possible that IBM might be interested in taking a lead role in this, much as they have done in other aspects of open source. It may be that even Sun would be interested.
What do you think? Is there a market for an open hardware platform.
More likely he's saying that Google owns bandwidth (or owns the right to use bandwidth) across the Pacific ocean that hasn't been disrupted by the earthquake. That has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with having a good infrastructure design. The architecture of Pacific Rim telecommunications runs in a a crescent from New Zealand to Korea, with bandwidth tending to connect to the U.S. from either end. When you sever a major intermediate point, like Taiwan, it tends to have downstream effects. I worried about this when I was architecting IBM's Business Partner infrastructure. Good performance (minimum latency) to Asia meant putting clone or good proxy servers somewhere in the middle of that crescent and having enough assured bandwidth to keep those servers updated.
Hong Kong and Singapore always seemed like good candidates because they were more or less in the middle. It is interesting that they are among the most strongly effected by this earthquake.
Which is not to say, in any way, that China has embraced anything even mildly resembling net neutrality. Quite the opposite. The technology that makes net preference possible was largely developed (by Cisco and others) to enable China's rather aggressive net censorship.
Eminent domain has been a contentious issue for a very long time. Most eminent domain cases involve localities who have filed for eminent domain on behalf of public works (most highways have involved some measure of eminent domain). Recently we have seen an increasing number of localities seek eminent domain on behalf of businesses whose plans, it is felt, will benefit the community.
All the Supreme Court recently said was that within the law as it is currently written, localities have the right to make such judgments. I disagreed with their decision in the case they decided. Many people from every part of the political spectrum did. But that simply sets up the most reasonable solution, changing the laws that allow it. This of course, is something a number of legislatures have done since. In other words, the law and precedent associated with eminent domain remains in play, and will likely continue to do so into the (I hope) indefinite future.
This is an area where the process, by and large, is working, and I hardly see it as a right or left issue. Nobodies civil rights are any more at issue now than they have been for as long as eminent domain has been an issue, and it has been a part of the common law for much longer than the U.S. has been a country.
I'm sure that the reasons for doing this particular modification were pure. The genetics of making organisms glow is relatively well understood. Applying that bit of genetics to mammals is a particularly visible demonstration. It may even be a good kind of demonstration for the purposes of getting short term funding for extending the research.
But its the wrong kind of demonstration if you want to be able to sell genetically modified anything over the long term. The "humor" in my initial posting plays to the reasons why. The idea of glowing green animals is not attractive to people. It suggests, at least in Western culture, all sorts of hidden negative meanings, including radiation, decay, and "The Incredible Hulk".
The fact that we can do something is by no means a good reason to do something. Some experiments ought not to ever be done. This might have been one of them. Some experiments ought not to be publicized. This was probably one of them.
Apologies for the civil liberties reference (a hangover from the "Bill of Wrongs" article. Smoking has come up as an issue in both discussions.
Its quite relevant in this discussion because of the rather direct and extreme effect on the individual who self-ignited. Both self-ignition and self-nomination for a Darwin award are certainly protected civil liberties.;-)
Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious
on
Darwin Awards 2006
·
· Score: 1
Good catch. Spell checking can only reduce the effects of dyslexia so much. I don't, however, spend any time at all in server closets (all my servers are under my desk).
Seriously, though, San Antonio does have its problems, including politicians who don't take the problems of the cities rapid growth seriously. I just stayed in a hotel downtown for a week, and it appears that, at this point, most of the city inside the inner beltway could be productively razed and replaced with a theme park. It makes the Bronx, at its worst, look upscale by comparison.
It still doesn't make anything (except maybe having clean air to breath) you address an issue of civil liberties.
Actually, I would agree that the Kelo case would belong if action hadn't been taken (including legislative action) in response to the Supreme Court decision. But of course action has been taken, which puts the whole eminent domain issue back into the limbo of balancing competing rights that it was in before. I imagine the subsequent actions are why your posting is the first (that I've seen) to bring it up.
I give the Bush administration credit where it is due. In particular, I give them credit for creating the protected zone off of Hawaii and for taking space exploration somewhat seriously.
But the good things they've done are so overbalanced by the bad things they've done as to be almost insignificant. This is by far the worst Presidential administration in this history of our country.
Which is where Hubris comes in. It is a covering term, but it describes a particular set of behaviors that directly attack your civil liberties by asserting that the opinion of the President is so much more important than anyone else's that he has the right to attack your civil liberties without oversight by the courts or the Congress.
The constitution says that's wrong, which brings us back to the question: When are Republicans going to take responsibility for the monster they have created.
Second hand smoke kills people. Banning smoking under conditions that result in second hand smoke doesn't ban smoking. It may make smoking more inconvenient, but it doesn't undermine any "civil liberty" other than hurting other people.
Trans-fats also kill people. Banning trans-fats from restaurant food may drive up the cost of food preparation mildly, but it doesn't stop anyone from using fat in preparing anything or anyone from using trans-fats in preparing their own food. It doesn't undermine any "civil liberty". It simply protects people from inadvertently ingesting something that is, in its effects, a poison.
Re:Humorous reminders need not be malicious
on
Darwin Awards 2006
·
· Score: 1
So good of you to maintain your composure. A true sign of arguing from logic rather than emotion.
Forget self-righteousness. I might die tomorrow when a car hits my bicycle in New York City. Death happens. I'd prefer that it happened less quickly than it probably will for my friend, but she'll die eventually no matter what.
If you want to commit slow motion suicide its your business. Justify it any way you want. Smoke as many packs a day as you want. Deep fry your food in trans-fats. Just don't shorten my life with it. That, in the end, is what the public bans are about... hurting other people.
I see a lot of sidestepping going on in this discussion. It remains that
This list is about civil liberties in the U.S. You can find lots of lists about problems in other places. Bringing up anything outside the U.S. is simply a distraction or failure to take responsibility.
This list is about systematic attacks on your civil liberties. None of the alternatives I've seen raised (bans on trans-fats and smoking; the tragedy of the Duke Lacrosse team) even come close on a scale of attacks on YOUR freedom.
An individual ceases to be an "alleged" terrorist only when he/she has been convicted of being one. We have courts for reasons. One of the most important of those reasons is to protect YOU from false charges.
That said, when is the Republican party going to step up and impeach this administration. They are out of control. They don't take the congressional or judicial direction they are required to take under the constitution, and they are undermining what is supposed to be their own libertarian agenda. The Democrats can't impeach Bush and company without being plastered with accusations of partisanship, but the Republicans can, and its about time that they did. Among other things the party would regain some measure of credibility.
I have felt bad for the Duke Lacrosse program and its players from the start, if only because I recognized the case as a probable "Tawana Brawley" incident early on. For those who don't know. Tawana Brawley was a teenager in Wappingers Falls, NY who made wild rape accusations a generation ago. The owners of the gas station that was a focus of her accusations were eventually vindated, but lost their business in the process.
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were charged victims of an attack on civil liberties. They are victims of what a false accusation of a sex crime. Such accusations are serious, not particularly uncommon, and often hinge on "she said, he said" evidence rather than the testimony of third parties. Actually, if you take out the unfortunate press coverage, which transformed what should have been a quiet investigation into the death of a Lacross program, the firing of a coach, and the transformation of an entire team of lacross players into persona non grata in the schools they tried to transfer to, the system actually worked pretty close to the way it should. At this point the only problem is that the prosecution has been taken too far (something that is not all that uncommon).
It must be admitted, however, that there is one huge difference here from other cases. Paying strippers to perform at a party created an impression of wanton sexuality and out of control behavior that made the accusations extremely plausible. Unless you feel that bringing strippers to parties is a "civil liberty", this case comes closer to being a candidate for the Darwin awards than anything else.
At this point, there is just about nobody associated with the case that one can't feel bad for. I think that's particularly true of the prosecutor who, having been stuck between a rock and a hard place the entire time, now faces disbarment. For what its worth, the Tawana Brawley case wound up in about the same place, with the prosecutor in that case ultimately accused of being a racist and rapist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley).
Look at number three on the list for an attack on civil liberties that makes the Duke case look like a little blip on the radar.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the privacy concerns that usually drive these discussions. This surveillance business is much to 1984 for my taste, but the reality is elsewhere, as illustrated in a recent report by the NYLCU (see http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2006/12/80970.html. It reports that:
The NYCLU report not only opposes the expansion of the number of police operated candidates. It proposes an "immediate moratorium on the installation of any and all new surveillance cameras in the city". I think this raises an important question. Don't I have a right to install a video surveillance camera in my window, if only so I can put a live view of the park outside my window on my computer screen? How dare these folks attack my right to bear cameras. :-)
I give you credit. You really threw the kitchen sink into this post. I'll cut to the core issue and then add some clarifications of your other points.
The core issue, of course, remains eminent domain, and it doesn't surprise me, given your very strong views, that you have some property that is at risk of being condemned. Neither does it surprise me, given your whacked out fringe views on other issues, that your eminent domain issue is one that the recent Supreme Court decision has no real bearing on. Eminent domain has been long accepted as necessary for the creation of public works like highways (that's what the Elvis movie I referred to was about), but there are always people among the displaced who take extreme views on the subject. The movie raised all the issues you do, including "can there ever be adequate compensation for the value of a home" and "corrupt politicians".
Hint: the only approach that ever works consistently is to identify a unique ecosystem that will be destroyed forever (with the likely extinction of a unique species) if the public work is built. Residents of Long Island, New York still spend hours driving in traffic through New York City when heading up into New England because a bridge was stopped using that tactic.
As for compensation, it is supposed to represent the fair market value of your property. You should be able to get other property for an equivalent price. Not everybody is happy with that compensation. Those who aren't often sue. They sometimes succeed (usually when they can show that the compensation was not a fair market value). Property tax assessments and appeals are meaningless in this context. Property taxes are generally based on a percentage of the fair market value and property tax appeals (in my experience) often succeed, but only if you can show that your properties appraisal is significantly higher than equivalent properties. I have appealed property tax increases twice. One time I got a 35% reduction. The other time I got a smaller, but still significant reduction. I know other people who have succeeded as well. Simple complaints about tax increases, however, almost never succeed. One way or another, taxes only go up. You have to show that the appraisal of your otherwise unimproved property went up more than your neighbor's did.
Property prices go up sometimes. Property prices go down sometimes. Right now we're in a down cycle. I can name towns in Michigan where property values are lower than they were 40 years ago. There is swampland in Florida that still isn't worth what people bought it for fifty years ago. Where I am right now, property values are down significantly from where they were six months ago. I don't think anywhere is up at the moment. The good news is that if price are down for your property, they are probably down for the property next door as well.
As for your so called land grab, what you describe is not a case of corrupt politicians being paid off by developers. Its a highway (the very definition of a public work). Overpasses every 20 miles seems extreme, so you must really be in the middle of nowhere. If there is a plan to add rail as well, it is because trains can carry freight long distance for a lot less than individual trucks can (and usually faster and for less than ocean shipping). I probably wouldn't worry too much about terrorists attacking "choke points". Terrorists like targets that have television cameras pointing at them. If cameras can't be there in five minutes, they generally aren't interested. Sounds like that lets out your locale altogether.
I would reiterate. You have not identified a new attack on your rights.
That said, some clarifications:
You said it perfectly. The only way a person could compare any version of Windows to OS/2 and come out thinking that Windows was even close to as good is because they never used it. In truth, even with Mac, Linux, and Windows screens staring back at me, I miss OS/2. It was an order of magnitude easier to use and program to than any of them. Heck, I had an OS/2 server that NEVER went down, never needed a reinstall, and never needed a reboot for five years. At the beginning it was a desktop. At the end it was a web server. All I ever had to do to make the transitions was delete and add software (generally a directory at a time). Among the the major platforms today, only Linux has anything close to that kind of durability. Davis
This isn't about religion and its relationship to science. Its about a test that doesn't do what its supposed to do but still identifies large numbers of people as having lied.
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/042501_iacono .html, where an expert tells the Senate judiciary committee that "No spy has ever been uncovered because of a failed polygraph test", that "can learn to defeat these tests", and that, when tested, "innocent people fare little better than chance on these tests, with 40% or more failing on average".
See http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/sullivan.html, where another expert indicates (after criticizing the first for hyperbole) that one particular spy had been given at least three polygraph tests, passed them all, and "did more than 90 percent of the damage he did in the interval between his first and second tests." The witness goes on the real that he knows "of no security procedure that would have stopped" the spy's "first venture into espionage."
Good security is based in good research rather than faulty methodologies.
There clearly has been and is testing going on. Downloadable images of Sugar and the proposed software environment have been out for a while. Testing of etoys has been underway for a while as well. The other apps all appear to be adaptations of widely used Linux software and are in teh downloadable image.
Documentation of stress testing for the XO computer (apparently already underway) can be found at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Testing_checklist.
Many of the comments so far have suggested that the XO machines interface was limited, and it does appear that some things look more restrictive than they probably ought to be.
Still, the thing that most struck me in the demo was how easy it was for kids to build applications using EToys, a "Logo, Smalltalk, Hypercard, and StarLogo" influenced (see http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar_EToys "authoring system"/direct manipulation programming language. The demo didn't take that very far, unless you consider the game widget that was demoed. Clearly, this "langauge" provides a lot of room for kids to step beyond other limitations of the system. Etoys applications can apparently be uploaded, shared, and played through the browser. I can't tell if the browser can be used from within etoys, but it would be interesting if it could be.
Beyond that, it appears that it is possible to install other software on the XO laptop (see http://http//wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar#Hacking. Does anyone know if how easily children will be able to do this? I assume this means that a child can grow the function of laptop over time (to do things like extending the word processor with the functionality that is now missing).
The OLPC laptop wiki addresses the question indirectly, by stating that (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_software_task_list )"the $100 laptop will not be tied to a specific set of software or content. It will have the flexibility to change with the requirements of the student. Individuals will inevitably find individualized uses; certainly local, regional, and national requirements will drive much of the base configuration." But that is a statement of requirements rather than function. Where do things actually stand relative to that goal?
Yes, the fundamentals of education, according the the educational minimalists who like to strip public education of other subject matters, are Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, otherwise known as the 3R's.
Isn't it wonderful that computers help us to teach all three ... and that the Internet provides access to a much wider range of knowledge?
Here and in other discussions you seem to be speaking from direct knowledge when you talk about this. Can it be reasonably presumed that you have used the browser as it is delivered with the XO Computers UI and it does in fact work as advertised. That would put an end to back on forth on the issue.
Beyond that, it seems clear, looking at the OLPC laptop wiki (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Web_Browser) that it is possible to install other browsers, including other modifications of GECKO (e.g. Firefox). I assume the general process for doing this follows the outline described at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar#Hacking.
Thanks in advance for addressing these questions.
Actually, many countries claim to have 90 plus percent literacy, even those that supply as little as one year of education. When literacy figures are yes/no, the claims tend to be that they are quite high.
The extent of literacy is more important.
There, access to reading materials is important. For many countries, a town full of $200 laptops would be cheaper than building and maintaining a library with any significant amount of reading material.
That's were the 3R people are missing the point. A low cost computer is cheaper than paper, pencil, and books over even a short period of time.
But isn't this "fundamentalist" stuff off topic? I'm pleased to see that most subsequent threads focus on the UI.
Interesting observation. Hard to change at this point, as it is the name of the machine (the XO computer), but it does raise interesting issues of language and interpretation.
The reference to Microsoft Bob has been made several times. I didn't understand the comment then (Bob limited some aspects of the interface, but was mostly problematic because of its intrusiveness) and still don't. I suggest you revisit the specifics of Bob. Here's a good pointer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob
I always forget that their are people on the whacked out fringe of neoconservatism that make George Bush look like a "liberal" by comparison. More draconian border closures than who? When was the last time you needed a passport to return to the U.S. from Canada? I think that was never (at least in the 100 years; before that there was no border control at all there). And what is that big fence they are building on the Mexican border about? Blocking migratory animals I suppose. And at what point, since its emergence in the common law centuries ago, did eminent domain turn into slavery? Are you telling me you can't own property? Has your property been subject to eminent domain? Did you have no recourse? Was the action not considered in the light of your objections? Did you not receive compensation sufficient to obtaining other property? While I agree that the Supreme Court decision you refer to pushes eminent domain too far, it hardly seems like an assault on the right to own property. This isn't a real issue. Move on.
Comments above suggest that this article suggests a more than may actually be occurring. Still, it does appear that we are beginning to approach the end of Videotex and the elaborate graphics compression schemes that supported it. That can only be a good thing. All Videotex was created with the tools that enforced the mindsets of what, today, we would usually think of as badly designed web pages. The "features" of these pages:
There was a time, before the web, when it was the only way to create visually high quality content for the net. I remember going to conferences on teletex/videotex back in the late 70's and early 80's when it seemed like a genuine alternative to dial-up terminal systems, but even then it seemed much more complicated than it needed to be. I won't say I'm glad to see it go. I will say that I'm amazed that it continued as long as it did.
I can't speak for Wikipedia's spam blocking process, but I operate a Wiki that is well known enough to get a lot of spam. I block that fairly effectively. Seven pieces of true spam have gotten through over the two and a half years since I implemented the first version of my spam blocking, but I had almost half my site overwritten at one point before that, so I take it pretty seriously. I fully understand why many Wiki owners have decided to make their Wikis read only rather than deal with it and why others have resorted to required logons, confirmations of the existence of a human, and other measures. Some useful factoids:
I don't want to make any great claims, at least in part because I don't want to increase the attack frequency on my site or get slashdotted, but my software has been very effective in blocking almost everything that the spammers throw at me. I don't currently block any countries and am reluctant to publicly reveal the rules I use for the blocking, but do block about a dozen IP addresses that have been used enough to suggest that they are directly associated with individual spammers.
The real question, for me, is what the hardware implications of this are. There is a lineage of open hardware platforms, going back to the original IBM PC (and arguably into the CP/M platforms that preceded it) that have specified a hardware platform to which operating systems could be written and to which alternative or clone hardware could be built. Microsoft has increasingly taken a lead role in specifying what has grown to be called the so called Wintel platform, but it appears in this case (far more so than previously) that they have specified a platform that will be much more difficult for other operating systems to write to, if only because they are requiring hardware vendors to close their support for at least one major class of function (DRM support).
The easy response, which many of forwarded, is to move to Mac, but others have been quick to point out that Mac is already (and has pretty much always been) a closed platform.
It seems to me that the only way to resolve this problem is to start specifying an alternative standard platform that really is open. It may be that this platform will wind up being unable to run Vista (except, perhaps, in a degraded mode), but I don't think that will actually matter to businesses with mission critical software, high end gamers, or others who, like myself, value the PERSONAL aspect of PC's more than DRM content. My list of folks who can provide an alternative standard platform specification includes:
What do you think? Is there a market for an open hardware platform.
More likely he's saying that Google owns bandwidth (or owns the right to use bandwidth) across the Pacific ocean that hasn't been disrupted by the earthquake. That has nothing to do with net neutrality and everything to do with having a good infrastructure design. The architecture of Pacific Rim telecommunications runs in a a crescent from New Zealand to Korea, with bandwidth tending to connect to the U.S. from either end. When you sever a major intermediate point, like Taiwan, it tends to have downstream effects. I worried about this when I was architecting IBM's Business Partner infrastructure. Good performance (minimum latency) to Asia meant putting clone or good proxy servers somewhere in the middle of that crescent and having enough assured bandwidth to keep those servers updated.
Hong Kong and Singapore always seemed like good candidates because they were more or less in the middle. It is interesting that they are among the most strongly effected by this earthquake.
Which is not to say, in any way, that China has embraced anything even mildly resembling net neutrality. Quite the opposite. The technology that makes net preference possible was largely developed (by Cisco and others) to enable China's rather aggressive net censorship.
Eminent domain has been a contentious issue for a very long time. Most eminent domain cases involve localities who have filed for eminent domain on behalf of public works (most highways have involved some measure of eminent domain). Recently we have seen an increasing number of localities seek eminent domain on behalf of businesses whose plans, it is felt, will benefit the community.
All the Supreme Court recently said was that within the law as it is currently written, localities have the right to make such judgments. I disagreed with their decision in the case they decided. Many people from every part of the political spectrum did. But that simply sets up the most reasonable solution, changing the laws that allow it. This of course, is something a number of legislatures have done since. In other words, the law and precedent associated with eminent domain remains in play, and will likely continue to do so into the (I hope) indefinite future.
This is an area where the process, by and large, is working, and I hardly see it as a right or left issue. Nobodies civil rights are any more at issue now than they have been for as long as eminent domain has been an issue, and it has been a part of the common law for much longer than the U.S. has been a country.
I'm sure that the reasons for doing this particular modification were pure. The genetics of making organisms glow is relatively well understood. Applying that bit of genetics to mammals is a particularly visible demonstration. It may even be a good kind of demonstration for the purposes of getting short term funding for extending the research.
But its the wrong kind of demonstration if you want to be able to sell genetically modified anything over the long term. The "humor" in my initial posting plays to the reasons why. The idea of glowing green animals is not attractive to people. It suggests, at least in Western culture, all sorts of hidden negative meanings, including radiation, decay, and "The Incredible Hulk".
The fact that we can do something is by no means a good reason to do something. Some experiments ought not to ever be done. This might have been one of them. Some experiments ought not to be publicized. This was probably one of them.
Apologies for the civil liberties reference (a hangover from the "Bill of Wrongs" article. Smoking has come up as an issue in both discussions.
;-)
Its quite relevant in this discussion because of the rather direct and extreme effect on the individual who self-ignited. Both self-ignition and self-nomination for a Darwin award are certainly protected civil liberties.
Good catch. Spell checking can only reduce the effects of dyslexia so much. I don't, however, spend any time at all in server closets (all my servers are under my desk).
Seriously, though, San Antonio does have its problems, including politicians who don't take the problems of the cities rapid growth seriously. I just stayed in a hotel downtown for a week, and it appears that, at this point, most of the city inside the inner beltway could be productively razed and replaced with a theme park. It makes the Bronx, at its worst, look upscale by comparison.
It still doesn't make anything (except maybe having clean air to breath) you address an issue of civil liberties.
Actually, I would agree that the Kelo case would belong if action hadn't been taken (including legislative action) in response to the Supreme Court decision. But of course action has been taken, which puts the whole eminent domain issue back into the limbo of balancing competing rights that it was in before. I imagine the subsequent actions are why your posting is the first (that I've seen) to bring it up.
I give the Bush administration credit where it is due. In particular, I give them credit for creating the protected zone off of Hawaii and for taking space exploration somewhat seriously.
But the good things they've done are so overbalanced by the bad things they've done as to be almost insignificant. This is by far the worst Presidential administration in this history of our country.
Which is where Hubris comes in. It is a covering term, but it describes a particular set of behaviors that directly attack your civil liberties by asserting that the opinion of the President is so much more important than anyone else's that he has the right to attack your civil liberties without oversight by the courts or the Congress.
The constitution says that's wrong, which brings us back to the question: When are Republicans going to take responsibility for the monster they have created.
Second hand smoke kills people. Banning smoking under conditions that result in second hand smoke doesn't ban smoking. It may make smoking more inconvenient, but it doesn't undermine any "civil liberty" other than hurting other people.
Trans-fats also kill people. Banning trans-fats from restaurant food may drive up the cost of food preparation mildly, but it doesn't stop anyone from using fat in preparing anything or anyone from using trans-fats in preparing their own food. It doesn't undermine any "civil liberty". It simply protects people from inadvertently ingesting something that is, in its effects, a poison.
So good of you to maintain your composure. A true sign of arguing from logic rather than emotion. Forget self-righteousness. I might die tomorrow when a car hits my bicycle in New York City. Death happens. I'd prefer that it happened less quickly than it probably will for my friend, but she'll die eventually no matter what. If you want to commit slow motion suicide its your business. Justify it any way you want. Smoke as many packs a day as you want. Deep fry your food in trans-fats. Just don't shorten my life with it. That, in the end, is what the public bans are about ... hurting other people.
I see a lot of sidestepping going on in this discussion. It remains that
That said, when is the Republican party going to step up and impeach this administration. They are out of control. They don't take the congressional or judicial direction they are required to take under the constitution, and they are undermining what is supposed to be their own libertarian agenda. The Democrats can't impeach Bush and company without being plastered with accusations of partisanship, but the Republicans can, and its about time that they did. Among other things the party would regain some measure of credibility.
I have felt bad for the Duke Lacrosse program and its players from the start, if only because I recognized the case as a probable "Tawana Brawley" incident early on. For those who don't know. Tawana Brawley was a teenager in Wappingers Falls, NY who made wild rape accusations a generation ago. The owners of the gas station that was a focus of her accusations were eventually vindated, but lost their business in the process.
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were charged victims of an attack on civil liberties. They are victims of what a false accusation of a sex crime. Such accusations are serious, not particularly uncommon, and often hinge on "she said, he said" evidence rather than the testimony of third parties. Actually, if you take out the unfortunate press coverage, which transformed what should have been a quiet investigation into the death of a Lacross program, the firing of a coach, and the transformation of an entire team of lacross players into persona non grata in the schools they tried to transfer to, the system actually worked pretty close to the way it should. At this point the only problem is that the prosecution has been taken too far (something that is not all that uncommon).
It must be admitted, however, that there is one huge difference here from other cases. Paying strippers to perform at a party created an impression of wanton sexuality and out of control behavior that made the accusations extremely plausible. Unless you feel that bringing strippers to parties is a "civil liberty", this case comes closer to being a candidate for the Darwin awards than anything else.
At this point, there is just about nobody associated with the case that one can't feel bad for. I think that's particularly true of the prosecutor who, having been stuck between a rock and a hard place the entire time, now faces disbarment. For what its worth, the Tawana Brawley case wound up in about the same place, with the prosecutor in that case ultimately accused of being a racist and rapist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley).
Look at number three on the list for an attack on civil liberties that makes the Duke case look like a little blip on the radar.