I am torn over this idea because clearly it represents a potential major advance in science and a cure to several insidious, incurable (as of today) diseases. We could probably extend the life expectancy of humans by a decade or so.
However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....
That only does half of it. If kids want to see some porn sites so badly that they burn a Ubuntu CD and try to boot it, they'll figure out how to reset the BIOS by removing the appropriate parts for 30 minutes (it's not that hard) and thereby also the password on the BIOS.
In the end, there is really no 100% effective weapon. Even if you manage to completely block porn on one machine, a kid can always go to a friend's house where the parents aren't so restrictive...
I agree: Google probably put the bid in to stop its rival Microsoft from entering the online advertising market in force. Plus, with with Microsoft menacing with its touted eye-tracking ad technology, Google may be anxious to keep MS out of the ring, at least through merger or acquisition.
As for the union of the opposite ends of the online ad spectrum, I think Google will influence DoubleClick more than vice-versa simply because it is the acquiring company and has the prerogative of tossing out all of the old management. I hope.
Perhaps they reduced its support slightly, but no more than a very tiny bit. What good would the source do to anyone? Remember that there is nothing stopping the vendor from copyrighting the source code and adding a provision to the license which says that no one may make derivative works: all the vendor must do is make the code publicly available.
So a competitor can't really gain anything from the code--it can't be overly complicated (this is a voting machine) and even if they do, the moment they release their machine onto the market, their source must be published, and certainly a competing vendor would notice such striking similarities in code.
Of course, who knows, Diebold might sue Congress for a law which they were not expecting.....:-)
But OLPC didn't have such a smashing success...
While I accept that technology in developing countries with very little of it can help, I have not yet figured out how these laptops will feed the thousands of starving people in these countries, especially in Africa.
To someone who's actually paying attention at Diebold:
The United States is, and has been, a capitalist country for the last 220 years now. Let's do a little economics review. In a capitalist system, competition is uninhibited by government, and in the United States as well as some other countries, corporations are not permitted to stifle competition. Therefore, on purely philosophical grounds, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE.
Next, I notice that you sued because you were "confident" you would win and didn't. Last time I looked, Massachusetts caused you no undue loss and in fact kept the selection process very open so as to avoid precisely this: a lawsuit. Had you investigated this further instead of wasting time on poor quality voting machines which are easier to hack than MS Windows, you might have attempted to sell your awful piece of crap to Massachusetts. So, from a legal point of view, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE.
I would go on but since I have already proven from the legal point of view that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE it is obvious that you are just a bunch of sore losers.
If you have a problem with Slashdot then get off and go to whatever other precious site it is you like because most of the rest of us don't want to watch you spout.
When something is popular or well-known enough, it's bound to be hacked at some point. This is even more the case with proprietary products, where the incentive is a lot greater. Take a look at the PS3 for example: Linux was ported to it almost right after it came out.
It's your fault for listening to them instead of the public in the first place
I have to say I agree.... Congress isn't exactly intended to represent the RIAA. And now that they've gone down that path and realized it was a mistake, they want to blame the RIAA?
That makes even less sense because it was clearly in the RIAA's best interest to promote the DMCA and that's why they pushed it so hard. In the end, even the RIAA has a right to lobby Congress (for all their other faults). It is entirely Congress, and more specifically Lehman's, fault that this happened and that everything got screwed up (and that it hurt the American public so much).
You know, this reminds me of the fact that in the 1920s, the politicians passed laws which only helped really large, often shady corporations. What ensued was the Great Depression....
You can still not deny that the FBI's actions are unconstitutional and pose some serious concerns to the citizens of the United States about the integrity of the FBI and the Bush administration.
Because federal agents usually have the authority of the federal government behind them. And in cases right now, federal agents are using templates for letters which are intended to be used in emergencies.
But you are right: when agents make an information request without a subpoena, communications companies should resist unless it is *very obvious* that there is an emergency (i.e. publicly broadcasted threats).
Re:then the FHS is mistaken.
on
Define - /etc?
·
· Score: 1
And who is the authority on this? You? Please forgive me if I believe FHS over you....
People bashing others over the meaning of "etc" is pointless because I doubt that anybody is truly right. To different people it means different things.
First of all, "Editable Text Configuration" is feasible, and especially since most of the configuration files are in/etc, this makes a compelling argument. However, it is also true that previous config files were also dumped into home directories (or elsewhere). Plus, I've also got binaries in/etc which came with my system....
"etc" meaning "et cetera" makes sense too, but like "Editable Text Configuration," it has weaknesses, too. Many extraneous files are dumped into/etc, giving the obvious name "et cetera" (shortened to "etc"). However, all you people who say it's "et cetera" seem to just bash people who think its something else and then dictate that it stands for et cetera--without providing a sliver of evidence.
Please stop spreading the myth that "digital image stabilization" is a valid technology... REAL image stabilization uses a servoed prism inside the lens
First of all, you are contradicting yourself.
I might point out that when I refer to "digital image stabilization," I refer to digital image stabilization using sensors in the camera, not decreasing exposure time or correcting for subject movement. These are entirely different, and plus I have not named any specific companies (unlike you) and judged their products which are advertised to offer "digital image stabilization." Even you are admitting the technology is valid by saying that Canon uses it.
The Wii motion sensor (if its lag is improved), well-adapted, would produce an excellent motion sensor much more responsive and better than current technology.
Application of this could be interesting especially in places when a little bit of lag does not hurt anything. I have a hobby of photography and a good digital image stabilizer is would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Perhaps this seems pesimistic, but remember that not many companies are willing to pick up three or four-year old drivers and fix them. They prefer to focus on the new stuff. And considering that most of the world does not use top-of-the-line video cards or monitors....
Please, tell me how Vista is good?!? I mean, (aside from the networking stack), all you get is XP+DRM+bugfixes and a new UI (although that is still clumsy).
Oh, and did I mention that driver revocation was put into effect? So when Microsoft finds out your brand-new $400 24-inch LCD is "leaking" precious content, goodbye $400 monitor!! Plus, you're only allowed one major hardware switch...
OK, so put in perspective for a university, assume you upgrade your hardware every five years and have a standard monitor, graphics card, etc. Suddenly, some hacker somewhere breaks into that graphics card somewhere in the world and Microsoft finds out about it. Poof! All of your graphics cards are rendered entirely useless, because Microsoft can't have them leaking the precious "premium content," even if millions of people will no longer have functional cards.
The driver revocation was why I switched to Linux (and have never regretted it).
And finally, even if you get a VERY good academic price (let's say something entirely absurd, like $20/copy), you are still spending $20x120=$2400 on the OS alone for upgrades (not to mention the new hardware).
While this is part of the problem, there is also the fact that people simply accept the high rates. Most of America is not on the phone to their ISP saying "why is the price for the crappy service so high?" As a result even the monopolies have no motivation to offer decent service at a reasonable price.
Then, in rural areas, especially farming communities, I know people--whole towns even--who have deliberately resisted broadband access because they don't feel it necessary. Someone I know refused high-speed Internet for ten years until his ISP promised free service for the rest of his life.
The real problem is that people are not motivated enough to take the fight to the ISPs (and some people want nothing to do with an ISP).
What's (scarily) ridiculous is the patent Microsoft wants for this. Since facial recognition is already out there and advertising has been out for much, much longer than Microsoft, this really isn't anything particularly new or exciting.....
A few questions for Microsoft: How do you plan on displaying large enough ads while the computer is still usable (e.g. there is enough screen space)? How are schoolchildren supposed to do work when their computers will only function properly if the stare at ads? How can you account for the fact that kids will realize that they can point their faces at the ads and focus their eyes on what they care about? And finally, WHY?
Oops, sorry about the last question. I forgot Microsoft only cares about what the kids buy or make their parents buy...
Slashdot Mirror
I am torn over this idea because clearly it represents a potential major advance in science and a cure to several insidious, incurable (as of today) diseases. We could probably extend the life expectancy of humans by a decade or so.
However, it also presents some less optimistic possibilities: for example, someone might be able to "program" humans as we program computers today. Imagine some terror organization such as Al Qaeda creating a fearless, seven-foot, feel-no-pain specimen....
That only does half of it. If kids want to see some porn sites so badly that they burn a Ubuntu CD and try to boot it, they'll figure out how to reset the BIOS by removing the appropriate parts for 30 minutes (it's not that hard) and thereby also the password on the BIOS.
In the end, there is really no 100% effective weapon. Even if you manage to completely block porn on one machine, a kid can always go to a friend's house where the parents aren't so restrictive...
I agree: Google probably put the bid in to stop its rival Microsoft from entering the online advertising market in force. Plus, with with Microsoft menacing with its touted eye-tracking ad technology, Google may be anxious to keep MS out of the ring, at least through merger or acquisition.
As for the union of the opposite ends of the online ad spectrum, I think Google will influence DoubleClick more than vice-versa simply because it is the acquiring company and has the prerogative of tossing out all of the old management. I hope.
Perhaps they reduced its support slightly, but no more than a very tiny bit. What good would the source do to anyone? Remember that there is nothing stopping the vendor from copyrighting the source code and adding a provision to the license which says that no one may make derivative works: all the vendor must do is make the code publicly available.
So a competitor can't really gain anything from the code--it can't be overly complicated (this is a voting machine) and even if they do, the moment they release their machine onto the market, their source must be published, and certainly a competing vendor would notice such striking similarities in code.
Of course, who knows, Diebold might sue Congress for a law which they were not expecting..... :-)
But OLPC didn't have such a smashing success...
While I accept that technology in developing countries with very little of it can help, I have not yet figured out how these laptops will feed the thousands of starving people in these countries, especially in Africa.
The United States is, and has been, a capitalist country for the last 220 years now. Let's do a little economics review. In a capitalist system, competition is uninhibited by government, and in the United States as well as some other countries, corporations are not permitted to stifle competition. Therefore, on purely philosophical grounds, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE.
Next, I notice that you sued because you were "confident" you would win and didn't. Last time I looked, Massachusetts caused you no undue loss and in fact kept the selection process very open so as to avoid precisely this: a lawsuit. Had you investigated this further instead of wasting time on poor quality voting machines which are easier to hack than MS Windows, you might have attempted to sell your awful piece of crap to Massachusetts. So, from a legal point of view, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE.
I would go on but since I have already proven from the legal point of view that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE it is obvious that you are just a bunch of sore losers.
Regards,
Byron
If you have a problem with Slashdot then get off and go to whatever other precious site it is you like because most of the rest of us don't want to watch you spout.
When something is popular or well-known enough, it's bound to be hacked at some point. This is even more the case with proprietary products, where the incentive is a lot greater. Take a look at the PS3 for example: Linux was ported to it almost right after it came out.
I have to say I agree.... Congress isn't exactly intended to represent the RIAA. And now that they've gone down that path and realized it was a mistake, they want to blame the RIAA?
That makes even less sense because it was clearly in the RIAA's best interest to promote the DMCA and that's why they pushed it so hard. In the end, even the RIAA has a right to lobby Congress (for all their other faults). It is entirely Congress, and more specifically Lehman's, fault that this happened and that everything got screwed up (and that it hurt the American public so much).
You know, this reminds me of the fact that in the 1920s, the politicians passed laws which only helped really large, often shady corporations. What ensued was the Great Depression....
You can still not deny that the FBI's actions are unconstitutional and pose some serious concerns to the citizens of the United States about the integrity of the FBI and the Bush administration.
Because federal agents usually have the authority of the federal government behind them. And in cases right now, federal agents are using templates for letters which are intended to be used in emergencies.
But you are right: when agents make an information request without a subpoena, communications companies should resist unless it is *very obvious* that there is an emergency (i.e. publicly broadcasted threats).
And who is the authority on this? You? Please forgive me if I believe FHS over you....
People bashing others over the meaning of "etc" is pointless because I doubt that anybody is truly right. To different people it means different things.
First of all, "Editable Text Configuration" is feasible, and especially since most of the configuration files are in /etc, this makes a compelling argument. However, it is also true that previous config files were also dumped into home directories (or elsewhere). Plus, I've also got binaries in /etc which came with my system....
"etc" meaning "et cetera" makes sense too, but like "Editable Text Configuration," it has weaknesses, too. Many extraneous files are dumped into /etc, giving the obvious name "et cetera" (shortened to "etc"). However, all you people who say it's "et cetera" seem to just bash people who think its something else and then dictate that it stands for et cetera--without providing a sliver of evidence.
First of all, you are contradicting yourself.
I might point out that when I refer to "digital image stabilization," I refer to digital image stabilization using sensors in the camera, not decreasing exposure time or correcting for subject movement. These are entirely different, and plus I have not named any specific companies (unlike you) and judged their products which are advertised to offer "digital image stabilization." Even you are admitting the technology is valid by saying that Canon uses it.
The Wii motion sensor (if its lag is improved), well-adapted, would produce an excellent motion sensor much more responsive and better than current technology.
Application of this could be interesting especially in places when a little bit of lag does not hurt anything. I have a hobby of photography and a good digital image stabilizer is would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Seriously. Since when have businesses gone out for a "glitzy" UI? Of course, some people would use any excuse to "upgrade" ....
Well, "the most secure Windows ever" comes close.
But what gets to me is the fact that people are attacking security applications.... successfully.
Perhaps this seems pesimistic, but remember that not many companies are willing to pick up three or four-year old drivers and fix them. They prefer to focus on the new stuff. And considering that most of the world does not use top-of-the-line video cards or monitors....
Please, tell me how Vista is good?!? I mean, (aside from the networking stack), all you get is XP+DRM+bugfixes and a new UI (although that is still clumsy).
Oh, and did I mention that driver revocation was put into effect? So when Microsoft finds out your brand-new $400 24-inch LCD is "leaking" precious content, goodbye $400 monitor!! Plus, you're only allowed one major hardware switch...
OK, so put in perspective for a university, assume you upgrade your hardware every five years and have a standard monitor, graphics card, etc. Suddenly, some hacker somewhere breaks into that graphics card somewhere in the world and Microsoft finds out about it. Poof! All of your graphics cards are rendered entirely useless, because Microsoft can't have them leaking the precious "premium content," even if millions of people will no longer have functional cards.
The driver revocation was why I switched to Linux (and have never regretted it).
And finally, even if you get a VERY good academic price (let's say something entirely absurd, like $20/copy), you are still spending $20x120=$2400 on the OS alone for upgrades (not to mention the new hardware).
While this is part of the problem, there is also the fact that people simply accept the high rates. Most of America is not on the phone to their ISP saying "why is the price for the crappy service so high?" As a result even the monopolies have no motivation to offer decent service at a reasonable price.
Then, in rural areas, especially farming communities, I know people--whole towns even--who have deliberately resisted broadband access because they don't feel it necessary. Someone I know refused high-speed Internet for ten years until his ISP promised free service for the rest of his life.
The real problem is that people are not motivated enough to take the fight to the ISPs (and some people want nothing to do with an ISP).
What's (scarily) ridiculous is the patent Microsoft wants for this. Since facial recognition is already out there and advertising has been out for much, much longer than Microsoft, this really isn't anything particularly new or exciting.....
A few questions for Microsoft: How do you plan on displaying large enough ads while the computer is still usable (e.g. there is enough screen space)? How are schoolchildren supposed to do work when their computers will only function properly if the stare at ads? How can you account for the fact that kids will realize that they can point their faces at the ads and focus their eyes on what they care about? And finally, WHY?
Oops, sorry about the last question. I forgot Microsoft only cares about what the kids buy or make their parents buy...