When Microsoft was originally established, in the era of IBM dominance over PC OS and software, their mission statement was to be everything IBM wasn't at the time... To cut the red tape, to avoid bureaucracy, to put human relations above legal stuff, to be the "people's company" that fights the IBM tyranny. And back then, in the late seventies and early eighties, it was. If you find it hard to imagine, just google the "Would you have invested?" poster.
Fast forward 20 years, and what do you see? Microsoft now is the Big Bad Suing-R-Us company, holding almost total dominance over the PC OS and other markets. It is the new Goliath. And then, comes the new David, Google, with the mission statement of "do no evil", in other words, "do no Microsoft", once again being the "people's company" that fights the MS tyranny.
Fast forward another X years... You get the idea.
The cycle never ends, and indeed it is pretty much natural. Once a company grows from a small enthusiastic community (which Google once was, which Microsoft even earlier once was, etc) to a big faceless corporate conglomerate, there will come a new player, making up with agility what he lacks with force. And the new David vs. Goliath battle ensues, until David grows up to be so big and fat you can't tell him apart from Goliath anymore, and the next David candidate takes on the role.
The first time you hear "got rid of useless feature X", that's a sure sign the game sold out to the mainstream.
To the true gamer, there is no such thing as "useless feature".
Back in the days when the grass was greener...
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When I used to go to middle school (grades 6 and 7), our classes were split into three groups, A B and C, based on how well we were doing (A=best, C=worst). There were separate classes based on the group (group A studied together with other group A students and separate from students from the other groups).
There were more than just raw grades that determined what group you were in. Behavioral problems (you are dealing with young kids, remember) were a very big factor, and overall, how willing you were to learn took precedence over your natural talent. That's why you saw good and bad grades even in the A group (where I was in), because many kids who did try hard and therefore were in A group still didn't manage to do well, especially in courses like math.
It also meant that even some group C students got As, based on things like improvements, behavior, etc.
And back then, nobody had a problem with this system. Yes, the grades were mixed (getting an A in group C was nowhere near as hard as getting an A in group A) but the final grades don't really mean anything in middle school, it's more about what you actually learn. The shift and focus was very different. Group A (the students of which were more disciplined and hardworking) actually focused on the academic curriculum, while group C students were working more on social and behavioral issues (which to them, at that point, was more important to learn than just the academics).
And it's not like these were two different schools. Only some academic-based classes (math, English) were separate, while classes like gym or arts, as well as other activities (breaks, field trips) were together, so it did not create a "segregationalist" impression. Most importantly, it provided each group with the study THAT GROUP needed most, the problematic kids got the attention they needed and the rest had a chance to actually learn the subject without having the problematic kids interfere.
P.S. Just because I see this question coming: Yes, most students in group A TENDED to be white and in C there were more minorities, but we still had quite a few minority kids in A, and the race itself was not a factor. (The minorities in group C were there because not because they are the minority, but because they were poorly performing or problematic students who happened to be the minority). Yes, due to social factors and whatnot there tended to be more minority "problem" students compared to the general population, but you know what? Back then the schools were designed to provide an education and teach students a set of skills (whichever skills the students needed the most), instead of playing politics and trying to fix (or pretend to be fixing) social problems that have nothing to do with the school's purpose.
Nowadays, of course, any school board member who THINKS about trying to introduce such a system would be labeled a Nazi racist elitist snobbish evil person who eats children for breakfast...
May I note that even Denis himself ain't quite out of hot water yet. Prosecutors indicated they are going to appeal the verdict.
See, under US and most other countries with the adversarial court system (as opposed to inquisitorial, used by Russia and France among others) the prosecution may not appeal questions of fact (i.e. "did the guy do it" but only questions of law "does what the guy did constitute a crime", "does the law he is accused of breaking is constitutional", etc) as well as appeal of sentence.
In Russian criminal law, however, prosecution may in fact appeal fact questions. Which is almost like double jeopardy to me, but at least I'm pretty sure no new evidence may be introduced to a prosecution-initiated appeal, which means that if prosecutors had sloppy proof to begin with, it won't get any better.
May I ask for a reference to your statement that the speed of -sound- in interstellar medium is ~100km/s?
For all I know, the speed of sound in a medium increases with a medium's density. Pure vacuum transmits no sound at all. The speed of sound in water is much faster than that in the air.
Note that I'm referring to -sound- specifically, rather than any other form of transmitted waves (subatomic radiation, whether beta or gamma, for example stellar pulses, and the like, are not "sound" in their own right, even though they can be CONVERTED into sound). Sound (and the use of the word "sonic") refers to waves in molecular matter, not subatomic particles. Extremely low density medium will result in longer interaction time between individual molecules, and thus, if any sound is possible it all, it would be much slower (and with much lower frequencies as well).
The sad thing is that it's not Slashdot's words, they are quoted from the NASA article itself.
The even sadder thing is that I don't think it's the NASA guys that are this dumb, but rather the target audience that NASA expects. To the general population, bullet-fast, sound-fast, planet orbit-fast and light-fast, all amount to one thing, "really fast". Give them a number and they won't know what to do with it, but throw a completely off-the-wall metaphor, and they'll think "wow this is cool".
Gotta make the buck somehow... If your target audience are ignorant people, you better make your article equally ignorant...
Newsflash: Our own Sun's velocity is 217 km/s (relative to the galactic center) and 20 km/s relative to the average speed of neighboring stars.
For comparison, a "speeding bullet" slugs anywhere from around 1km/s (sniper rifle) to ~100m/s (short-barrel pistol).
In addition, Wikipedia states that Mira's velocity is 63.8km/s -- which is actually slower than our own's sun (which has no "tail"), leading to two conclusions: (1) Mira's tail is caused by some other factor than it's velocity alone, and (2) Mira's speed is also so faster than a "speeding bullet" beyond comparison. In other words, the comparison is not just off-scale but also irrelevant.
If you insist on using laymen's "cool-sounding" metaphors to describe scientific phenomena, at least check your facts and context, or you will just make a moron out of yourself.
So it is realistic to hear loud explosions in space from abroad another vessel, when there is no air to propagate the sound?
So it is OK to use the hottest buzzword around to explain whatever piece of technology you need to explain, with the actual meaning of the buzzword having absolutely nothing to do with the operation of said technology (but it sure sounds "techy" so let's use it!)?
At best, Star Trek popularized scientific theories into science fiction, leading (some) people to be more interested in science. But even then, the people who were interested in these kinds of movies (the so called "nerds", "geeks", "losers", and other anti-social labels) were the people who were interested in science to begin with. Do you really think your average 60's football jock has became interested in physics as a result of watching Star Trek?
At not so best, Star Trek abused genuine scientific terms, due to their "scientific" sound, to suit their needs, with little regard of the actual meaning of the word. I know, they were not the first. In the 50's, "atomic" was the hot buzzword, in the 70's and later, it was "quantum", and there are a few newer ones today as well. The ironic thing is that the media is constantly looking for terms people DON'T understand, in order to capitalize on their names (since many people actually have the basic concept of "atomic" nowadays, the attempt to call the sci-fi teleporter or warp drive "atomic" won't slide anymore, but quantum? Sure. Nobody knows what quantum really is, so it's free game for the media, including Star Trek.
At even worse, Star Trek & co have stooped to using the same dirty tricks the rest of Hollywood uses -- like loud explosions heard through a vacuum, or complete disregard for the law of momentum conservation.
Star Trek didn't turn science haters into science lovers. It just gave established science lovers something they'd be interested in, and made a pretty buck out of it as well.
Didn't Hollywood teach you about the consequences of speaking about secret things over the phone?
Sure, with the electronic surveillance systems phone spying may be easier to accomplish en masse, bringing us one step closer to Old Bro (which requires not only monitoring to be -possible-, but to be efficient enough to be performed, analyzed, and acted upon on a regular basis...
But the truth still remains that phone networks were never, ever, EVER secure to begin with, and it would be naive to think that we were living in a safe and secure communications era until today.
It has been a long standing tenet in communications security, from CIA-level to your local small business, that there is no such thing as a secure (physical) comms. line, and the only way to ensure security is to use encryption (at which case your security is as good as it's weakest link, be it the key strength, random gen. quality, social factor, or w/e). Well newsflash: that doesn't work in the analog phone system, and never has.
If you need things kept secure, send them digitally encrypted. If you need things even more secure, don't transmit them at all. The public phone system has never been secure, nor will it ever be, whether against government interceptors or a teen phreaker. Live with it.
There is arguably a valid reason to prohibit tools which PRIMARY PURPOSE is to commit crimes. You correctly stated that almost any tool CAN be used to commit a crime, but there is a difference between the two.
I'm not going to use guns as a metaphor because of the whole "gun control" debate, and also because guns have the valid use of self-defense... So let's use something more aggressive, say, hand grenades.
There is no valid reason for a non-military person to be able to own a hand grenade. The grenade cannot be used for any peaceful purpose, nor for self defense, because of it's extremely high collateral damage. Even if there is a _potential_ valid use (I dunno, maybe throw it down a mole hole in your backyard to kill the pesky mole, LOL), the destructive potential vastly outweights any valid use, and therefore I accept as valid the restriction of owning a hand grenade by the average person.
The other option is to own, say, a knife or pickaxe. Yes, some people can (and do) use those as weapons for illegal purposes, but this does not stop the tool from having a valid, legal use (in fact, it's primary design is indeed a legal one). Therefore, outlawing pickaxes because some idiot happened to kill someone else with one, is not a valid move.
The German law is a prime example of the second option. As I explained in my other comment on this thread, the damage done to valid users is much bigger than any possible achieved restriction on criminals.
Let us pause for a moment from discussing the "government versus people" debate, and (just for the sake of the argument) assume that we are living in an utopia where the government passes laws to protect citizens, not oppress them.
OK, so we ignore the potential for abuse. But that still leaves the question: how, exactly, is the law supposed to protect anyone?
- The possession of this software is virtually undetectable unless some kind of crime has been committed using them (such as using it to actually attack someone else's machine). Well guess what, attacking someone else's machine has ALREADY been illegal (and justly so).
- People who were and are willing and able to use these tools to attack other machines have already risked punishment far greater than the punishment meted out for merely possessing the equipment.
- Think about this analogy: If you outlaw the possession of crowbars (because they are used by burglars), who will suffer more, the burglar or the construction worker who also happens to need a crowbar? Of course the construction worker -- the burglar operates in secret and the worker in open; and if caught, the punishment for burglary is significantly bigger to the point that someone willing to perform a burglary will not care for the (relatively small) additional punishment given for the possession of the crowbar. But for the construction worker, this law means losing his job.
- Some people would see an analogy between this law and advocation of gun control (less guns = supposedly less violence). But unlike gun control, where restricting guns (at least theoretically) makes it harder for criminals to obtain them, this law cannot possibly do anything to prevent the obtainment of these "hacking" tools, which can only be detected ex post facto.
So, if this law...
- Does nothing to reduce the availability of these tools - Does nothing to reduce the potential destructive purpose of these tools - Does not provide a serious deterrent to would-be abusers of these tools - DOES, however, significantly limit the LAWFUL use of these tools by security professionals
Then why the heck is it needed? Heck, if I was a blackhat, I'd be very, very happy that security auditors got the shaft, meaning I have a much better chance of finding exploits which the good guys didn't get a legal chance to find and close first.
It seems that the quote "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve nothing and lose both" never held truer, because not only liberty is sacrificed, but from any possible perspective hacking has became EASIER as a result of this law, not harder.
>I would say they're still looking at an n^n problem unless they can produce an infinite number of photons instantly, and that would damage the equipment
If you can produce an infinite number of photons instantly than I don't think you'd be worried about any kind of equipment.
For starters, try producing an infinite number of photons non-instantly (in a finite period of time), OR try to produce a finite number of photons instantly. Equipment will be the least of your problems.
I seriously hope someone sues the fuck out of this guy SO badly that he'll never be able to afford a flashlight or a DVD burner again.
I'd rather get shot with a gun than be blinded with that thing. And unlike guns, any asshole (or kid) can assemble one from parts, with absolutely no regulation, and leave me permanently blind.
Don't realize how bad this is? OK, imagine this: Someone brings this to a disco and points it towards the revolving sphere = dozens blinded, permanently. This is not a joke. This can be used for terrorism, pure and simple.
Can someone explain to me, WHY OH WHY, does is the article split into not two, not three, but ten, TEN!! tiny chunks of text?
And no, there is no AJAX-shmajax or any other of that fancy stuff...
- Which means that every time I go to the new slice, the WHOLE page needs to reload.
- Tons of garbage served on each instance reduce the readable text to 20% of the overall page content.
- The time to click on "next", wait for the page to reload, and then find where I left off the last page, exceeds the time it took me to read the tiny slice of text.
- I can live with wasted bandwidth (even though many dialupers can't), but can the server, with thousands of readers? EXACTLY the same headers, RSS feeds, ads, etc. were loaded each page, so it's not like they even "won" by serving me more different advertisements.
Seriously, WHY do sites like doing this crap? Do they think it makes me more attached to the site? Do they think they can imprint an extra layer of "corporate image" (read bullshit waste of space) on top of the actual article? Heck, yea, they did achieve a lasting impression... Just not the kind they'd hope for.
Sorry, I know this is not on the topic of the subject matter of the article, but since you link it to this site, I'd at least like to know what's the motivation for the site webmasters of being a pain in the ass to both the readers and their own stupid selves.
Either these guys (webmasters, not actual people who made the computer in the article) learn the KISS principle, or they can just KISS MY ASS because I'm not coming back.
Economically it sure makes sense to the companies that are doing it.
Socially, obviously the healthy people would support this decision, while the unhealthy wouldn't.
Morally I'd draw the line between voluntary and unvoluntary conditions. If you smoke, heck yea, you should be charged more than those who don't... Same thing if you are a couch potato that fails to do even most basic of exercise.
Some diseases, however, are not due to lifestyle choices, and no matter how economically sound in a laissez-fare environment would be charging an unhealthy person more, I just can't get rid of the feeling that it defeats the moral purpose of protection that insurance is supposed to deliver.
Y'know, there's such a proverb: "To piss off the bus driver, I'll buy a ticket and then walk all the way instead of taking the bus". That's what you are doing.
As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.
Neither Microsoft itself nor it's dominance is impacted if the whole company uses it's software on the main basis. You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth. Neither MS's grip on the company (be it the technological slavery, the lack of following standards, or the money going down the MS drain) are reduced by your activism.
Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn. What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways? As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.
If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit. Work to reduce or stop corporate-level contracts with MS. Make open standards the CORPORATE basis, instead of using OSS as a slave to closed source. THEN, and ONLY then, will you actually make a difference, and only then your actions will actually have some result instead of being a waste of time.
Yes, you made your point that you can have a rose grow in the middle o a pile of turd... But guess what, as nice as the rose smells, it won't make the turd stink less unless the said turd is removed.
There's a difference between risking your OWN ass and risking other people's.
I actually think this is a better thing to enforce than, say, enforcing seat belts. Because if you don't wear a seatbelt, it's your own stupid skull that will be cracked, and if you want to take that risk, go right ahead, win the Darwin award. Of course, insurance companies should have full right to refuse compensation payments to those who didn't wear a seatbelt and then got killed/injured due to their own fault.
But you have absolutely NO right to endanger members of the public through your actions. It is not a right, not a privilege, not a freedom, never will and never would. And any means necessary (technological, political, legal, social, economic, whatever) to prevent you from putting innocent people in danger through your actions are justified.
- Press can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and sneak in. If it is legal for an average person to do whatever in the conference, it shouldn't be illegal just because the person happens to be a journalist. - Hackers can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and expose the press.
Let it be a private game of catch and mouse... Best one wins, simple as that. There is absolutely no point imposing legal restrictions on this matter.
The dawn of the ISPs, where many companies offered free dialup internet access through serving ads to customers desktops.
The whole thing died for a number of reasons. In order to gather enough revenue to pay for people's internet connection SO many ads had to be served that people just didn't accept it.
I can only imagine this will be even worse when on the cell. Having to *click* on an ad every few minutes is bad enough, but having to *listen*, which takes time, every time before you make conversation is even worse.
Privacy issues are rampant here too. Google is known for context-based ads by reading your email content in exchange for free email. How bad would it be if Google had some voice recognition built-in, which LISTENED to your conversations, gathered keywords, and served you ads based on what you talk about?
And God only knows where that information would be stored and for what purposes in some Google database, which is already an issue, but could be much worse with real voice being recorded.
To play the devil's advocate, people don't seem to have much of a problem listening to radio stations which work on the same principle. But there are big differences - no two-way interaction, you just listen , so no privacy issues; you can switch radio stations at any time if you hear something you don't like instead of HAVING to wait for it, and most importantly, you listen to radio (for vast majority of people) for leisure, not business, so ads don't have such an impact.
In short, I just don't think this one will be adopted. Anyone who's lifestyle requires a constant or even occasional use of a cellphone, would probably rather pay for a service (cheapest services can go for as little as $10/mo) than be part of this scheme.
A good century ago or so, at the dawn of radioastronomy, there was a whole big point of "celestial music". People thought that the radio signals emitted by stars have a certain harmony, and when used right, can produce "heavenly" melody.
Needless to say that didn't go very far.
Same story here. Just because you find something which, when transformed, can generate certain audio patterns, doesn't mean it will be any good as *music*. In fact, looking for some "objective", "universal" melody source is pretty much dumb as music preference varies greatly even within our own species (*waits for rock vs rap flaming to start*), and many other species have different combinations of sound they perceive as music (and which we perceive only as noise).
Music is *produced* with a specific purpose in mind, and the production rules vary depending on that purpose. You won't find it bestowed upon you, whether from the stars or magically encoded in some DNA sequence.
Slashdot Mirror
When Microsoft was originally established, in the era of IBM dominance over PC OS and software, their mission statement was to be everything IBM wasn't at the time... To cut the red tape, to avoid bureaucracy, to put human relations above legal stuff, to be the "people's company" that fights the IBM tyranny. And back then, in the late seventies and early eighties, it was. If you find it hard to imagine, just google the "Would you have invested?" poster.
Fast forward 20 years, and what do you see? Microsoft now is the Big Bad Suing-R-Us company, holding almost total dominance over the PC OS and other markets. It is the new Goliath. And then, comes the new David, Google, with the mission statement of "do no evil", in other words, "do no Microsoft", once again being the "people's company" that fights the MS tyranny.
Fast forward another X years... You get the idea.
The cycle never ends, and indeed it is pretty much natural. Once a company grows from a small enthusiastic community (which Google once was, which Microsoft even earlier once was, etc) to a big faceless corporate conglomerate, there will come a new player, making up with agility what he lacks with force. And the new David vs. Goliath battle ensues, until David grows up to be so big and fat you can't tell him apart from Goliath anymore, and the next David candidate takes on the role.
The first time you hear "got rid of useless feature X", that's a sure sign the game sold out to the mainstream.
To the true gamer, there is no such thing as "useless feature".
When I used to go to middle school (grades 6 and 7), our classes were split into three groups, A B and C, based on how well we were doing (A=best, C=worst). There were separate classes based on the group (group A studied together with other group A students and separate from students from the other groups).
There were more than just raw grades that determined what group you were in. Behavioral problems (you are dealing with young kids, remember) were a very big factor, and overall, how willing you were to learn took precedence over your natural talent. That's why you saw good and bad grades even in the A group (where I was in), because many kids who did try hard and therefore were in A group still didn't manage to do well, especially in courses like math.
It also meant that even some group C students got As, based on things like improvements, behavior, etc.
And back then, nobody had a problem with this system. Yes, the grades were mixed (getting an A in group C was nowhere near as hard as getting an A in group A) but the final grades don't really mean anything in middle school, it's more about what you actually learn. The shift and focus was very different. Group A (the students of which were more disciplined and hardworking) actually focused on the academic curriculum, while group C students were working more on social and behavioral issues (which to them, at that point, was more important to learn than just the academics).
And it's not like these were two different schools. Only some academic-based classes (math, English) were separate, while classes like gym or arts, as well as other activities (breaks, field trips) were together, so it did not create a "segregationalist" impression. Most importantly, it provided each group with the study THAT GROUP needed most, the problematic kids got the attention they needed and the rest had a chance to actually learn the subject without having the problematic kids interfere.
P.S. Just because I see this question coming: Yes, most students in group A TENDED to be white and in C there were more minorities, but we still had quite a few minority kids in A, and the race itself was not a factor. (The minorities in group C were there because not because they are the minority, but because they were poorly performing or problematic students who happened to be the minority). Yes, due to social factors and whatnot there tended to be more minority "problem" students compared to the general population, but you know what? Back then the schools were designed to provide an education and teach students a set of skills (whichever skills the students needed the most), instead of playing politics and trying to fix (or pretend to be fixing) social problems that have nothing to do with the school's purpose.
Nowadays, of course, any school board member who THINKS about trying to introduce such a system would be labeled a Nazi racist elitist snobbish evil person who eats children for breakfast...
May I note that even Denis himself ain't quite out of hot water yet. Prosecutors indicated they are going to appeal the verdict.
See, under US and most other countries with the adversarial court system (as opposed to inquisitorial, used by Russia and France among others) the prosecution may not appeal questions of fact (i.e. "did the guy do it" but only questions of law "does what the guy did constitute a crime", "does the law he is accused of breaking is constitutional", etc) as well as appeal of sentence.
In Russian criminal law, however, prosecution may in fact appeal fact questions. Which is almost like double jeopardy to me, but at least I'm pretty sure no new evidence may be introduced to a prosecution-initiated appeal, which means that if prosecutors had sloppy proof to begin with, it won't get any better.
May I ask for a reference to your statement that the speed of -sound- in interstellar medium is ~100km/s?
For all I know, the speed of sound in a medium increases with a medium's density. Pure vacuum transmits no sound at all. The speed of sound in water is much faster than that in the air.
Note that I'm referring to -sound- specifically, rather than any other form of transmitted waves (subatomic radiation, whether beta or gamma, for example stellar pulses, and the like, are not "sound" in their own right, even though they can be CONVERTED into sound). Sound (and the use of the word "sonic") refers to waves in molecular matter, not subatomic particles. Extremely low density medium will result in longer interaction time between individual molecules, and thus, if any sound is possible it all, it would be much slower (and with much lower frequencies as well).
The sad thing is that it's not Slashdot's words, they are quoted from the NASA article itself.
The even sadder thing is that I don't think it's the NASA guys that are this dumb, but rather the target audience that NASA expects. To the general population, bullet-fast, sound-fast, planet orbit-fast and light-fast, all amount to one thing, "really fast". Give them a number and they won't know what to do with it, but throw a completely off-the-wall metaphor, and they'll think "wow this is cool".
Gotta make the buck somehow... If your target audience are ignorant people, you better make your article equally ignorant...
Newsflash: Our own Sun's velocity is 217 km/s (relative to the galactic center) and 20 km/s relative to the average speed of neighboring stars.
For comparison, a "speeding bullet" slugs anywhere from around 1km/s (sniper rifle) to ~100m/s (short-barrel pistol).
In addition, Wikipedia states that Mira's velocity is 63.8km/s -- which is actually slower than our own's sun (which has no "tail"), leading to two conclusions: (1) Mira's tail is caused by some other factor than it's velocity alone, and (2) Mira's speed is also so faster than a "speeding bullet" beyond comparison. In other words, the comparison is not just off-scale but also irrelevant.
If you insist on using laymen's "cool-sounding" metaphors to describe scientific phenomena, at least check your facts and context, or you will just make a moron out of yourself.
>Star Trek should be given more due than that.
O rly?
So it is realistic to hear loud explosions in space from abroad another vessel, when there is no air to propagate the sound?
So it is OK to use the hottest buzzword around to explain whatever piece of technology you need to explain, with the actual meaning of the buzzword having absolutely nothing to do with the operation of said technology (but it sure sounds "techy" so let's use it!)?
At best, Star Trek popularized scientific theories into science fiction, leading (some) people to be more interested in science. But even then, the people who were interested in these kinds of movies (the so called "nerds", "geeks", "losers", and other anti-social labels) were the people who were interested in science to begin with. Do you really think your average 60's football jock has became interested in physics as a result of watching Star Trek?
At not so best, Star Trek abused genuine scientific terms, due to their "scientific" sound, to suit their needs, with little regard of the actual meaning of the word. I know, they were not the first. In the 50's, "atomic" was the hot buzzword, in the 70's and later, it was "quantum", and there are a few newer ones today as well. The ironic thing is that the media is constantly looking for terms people DON'T understand, in order to capitalize on their names (since many people actually have the basic concept of "atomic" nowadays, the attempt to call the sci-fi teleporter or warp drive "atomic" won't slide anymore, but quantum? Sure. Nobody knows what quantum really is, so it's free game for the media, including Star Trek.
At even worse, Star Trek & co have stooped to using the same dirty tricks the rest of Hollywood uses -- like loud explosions heard through a vacuum, or complete disregard for the law of momentum conservation.
Star Trek didn't turn science haters into science lovers. It just gave established science lovers something they'd be interested in, and made a pretty buck out of it as well.
"I wonder how much ozone one of these things produces."
Produces? Hey, let's make a ton of these and solve the ozone hole problem forever!
Didn't Hollywood teach you about the consequences of speaking about secret things over the phone?
Sure, with the electronic surveillance systems phone spying may be easier to accomplish en masse, bringing us one step closer to Old Bro (which requires not only monitoring to be -possible-, but to be efficient enough to be performed, analyzed, and acted upon on a regular basis...
But the truth still remains that phone networks were never, ever, EVER secure to begin with, and it would be naive to think that we were living in a safe and secure communications era until today.
It has been a long standing tenet in communications security, from CIA-level to your local small business, that there is no such thing as a secure (physical) comms. line, and the only way to ensure security is to use encryption (at which case your security is as good as it's weakest link, be it the key strength, random gen. quality, social factor, or w/e). Well newsflash: that doesn't work in the analog phone system, and never has.
If you need things kept secure, send them digitally encrypted. If you need things even more secure, don't transmit them at all. The public phone system has never been secure, nor will it ever be, whether against government interceptors or a teen phreaker. Live with it.
The U.S. government should not be concerned if they have nothing to hide... Right?
There is arguably a valid reason to prohibit tools which PRIMARY PURPOSE is to commit crimes. You correctly stated that almost any tool CAN be used to commit a crime, but there is a difference between the two.
I'm not going to use guns as a metaphor because of the whole "gun control" debate, and also because guns have the valid use of self-defense... So let's use something more aggressive, say, hand grenades.
There is no valid reason for a non-military person to be able to own a hand grenade. The grenade cannot be used for any peaceful purpose, nor for self defense, because of it's extremely high collateral damage. Even if there is a _potential_ valid use (I dunno, maybe throw it down a mole hole in your backyard to kill the pesky mole, LOL), the destructive potential vastly outweights any valid use, and therefore I accept as valid the restriction of owning a hand grenade by the average person.
The other option is to own, say, a knife or pickaxe. Yes, some people can (and do) use those as weapons for illegal purposes, but this does not stop the tool from having a valid, legal use (in fact, it's primary design is indeed a legal one). Therefore, outlawing pickaxes because some idiot happened to kill someone else with one, is not a valid move.
The German law is a prime example of the second option. As I explained in my other comment on this thread, the damage done to valid users is much bigger than any possible achieved restriction on criminals.
Let us pause for a moment from discussing the "government versus people" debate, and (just for the sake of the argument) assume that we are living in an utopia where the government passes laws to protect citizens, not oppress them.
OK, so we ignore the potential for abuse. But that still leaves the question: how, exactly, is the law supposed to protect anyone?
- The possession of this software is virtually undetectable unless some kind of crime has been committed using them (such as using it to actually attack someone else's machine). Well guess what, attacking someone else's machine has ALREADY been illegal (and justly so).
- People who were and are willing and able to use these tools to attack other machines have already risked punishment far greater than the punishment meted out for merely possessing the equipment.
- Think about this analogy: If you outlaw the possession of crowbars (because they are used by burglars), who will suffer more, the burglar or the construction worker who also happens to need a crowbar? Of course the construction worker -- the burglar operates in secret and the worker in open; and if caught, the punishment for burglary is significantly bigger to the point that someone willing to perform a burglary will not care for the (relatively small) additional punishment given for the possession of the crowbar. But for the construction worker, this law means losing his job.
- Some people would see an analogy between this law and advocation of gun control (less guns = supposedly less violence). But unlike gun control, where restricting guns (at least theoretically) makes it harder for criminals to obtain them, this law cannot possibly do anything to prevent the obtainment of these "hacking" tools, which can only be detected ex post facto.
So, if this law...
- Does nothing to reduce the availability of these tools
- Does nothing to reduce the potential destructive purpose of these tools
- Does not provide a serious deterrent to would-be abusers of these tools
- DOES, however, significantly limit the LAWFUL use of these tools by security professionals
Then why the heck is it needed? Heck, if I was a blackhat, I'd be very, very happy that security auditors got the shaft, meaning I have a much better chance of finding exploits which the good guys didn't get a legal chance to find and close first.
It seems that the quote "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve nothing and lose both" never held truer, because not only liberty is sacrificed, but from any possible perspective hacking has became EASIER as a result of this law, not harder.
Germany is making sure that when they start a new world war, there will be no legal tools to crack their enigmas!
Guys...
Controversial != Your Rights Online
Controversial && Unpopular still != Your Rights Online
Even Controversial && Unpopular && Stupid != Your Rights Online
I hate DRM as much as the next person, but seriously, it's not like you own the constitutional right to DRM-free music.
Can we keep YRO really reserved for issues of RIGHTS, rather than saturate it with anything that happens to be a controversial subject.
>I would say they're still looking at an n^n problem unless they can produce an infinite number of photons instantly, and that would damage the equipment
If you can produce an infinite number of photons instantly than I don't think you'd be worried about any kind of equipment.
For starters, try producing an infinite number of photons non-instantly (in a finite period of time), OR try to produce a finite number of photons instantly. Equipment will be the least of your problems.
Hate to break it to you, but the temperature required to ignite a match is around 1600C. Way more than enough to cause 3rd degree burns or worse.
I seriously hope someone sues the fuck out of this guy SO badly that he'll never be able to afford a flashlight or a DVD burner again.
I'd rather get shot with a gun than be blinded with that thing. And unlike guns, any asshole (or kid) can assemble one from parts, with absolutely no regulation, and leave me permanently blind.
Don't realize how bad this is? OK, imagine this: Someone brings this to a disco and points it towards the revolving sphere = dozens blinded, permanently. This is not a joke. This can be used for terrorism, pure and simple.
Can someone explain to me, WHY OH WHY, does is the article split into not two, not three, but ten, TEN!! tiny chunks of text?
And no, there is no AJAX-shmajax or any other of that fancy stuff...
- Which means that every time I go to the new slice, the WHOLE page needs to reload.
- Tons of garbage served on each instance reduce the readable text to 20% of the overall page content.
- The time to click on "next", wait for the page to reload, and then find where I left off the last page, exceeds the time it took me to read the tiny slice of text.
- I can live with wasted bandwidth (even though many dialupers can't), but can the server, with thousands of readers? EXACTLY the same headers, RSS feeds, ads, etc. were loaded each page, so it's not like they even "won" by serving me more different advertisements.
Seriously, WHY do sites like doing this crap? Do they think it makes me more attached to the site? Do they think they can imprint an extra layer of "corporate image" (read bullshit waste of space) on top of the actual article? Heck, yea, they did achieve a lasting impression... Just not the kind they'd hope for.
Sorry, I know this is not on the topic of the subject matter of the article, but since you link it to this site, I'd at least like to know what's the motivation for the site webmasters of being a pain in the ass to both the readers and their own stupid selves.
Either these guys (webmasters, not actual people who made the computer in the article) learn the KISS principle, or they can just KISS MY ASS because I'm not coming back.
Economically it sure makes sense to the companies that are doing it.
Socially, obviously the healthy people would support this decision, while the unhealthy wouldn't.
Morally I'd draw the line between voluntary and unvoluntary conditions. If you smoke, heck yea, you should be charged more than those who don't... Same thing if you are a couch potato that fails to do even most basic of exercise.
Some diseases, however, are not due to lifestyle choices, and no matter how economically sound in a laissez-fare environment would be charging an unhealthy person more, I just can't get rid of the feeling that it defeats the moral purpose of protection that insurance is supposed to deliver.
Y'know, there's such a proverb: "To piss off the bus driver, I'll buy a ticket and then walk all the way instead of taking the bus". That's what you are doing.
As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.
Neither Microsoft itself nor it's dominance is impacted if the whole company uses it's software on the main basis. You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth. Neither MS's grip on the company (be it the technological slavery, the lack of following standards, or the money going down the MS drain) are reduced by your activism.
Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn. What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways? As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.
If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit. Work to reduce or stop corporate-level contracts with MS. Make open standards the CORPORATE basis, instead of using OSS as a slave to closed source. THEN, and ONLY then, will you actually make a difference, and only then your actions will actually have some result instead of being a waste of time.
Yes, you made your point that you can have a rose grow in the middle o a pile of turd... But guess what, as nice as the rose smells, it won't make the turd stink less unless the said turd is removed.
Agreed.
There's a difference between risking your OWN ass and risking other people's.
I actually think this is a better thing to enforce than, say, enforcing seat belts. Because if you don't wear a seatbelt, it's your own stupid skull that will be cracked, and if you want to take that risk, go right ahead, win the Darwin award. Of course, insurance companies should have full right to refuse compensation payments to those who didn't wear a seatbelt and then got killed/injured due to their own fault.
But you have absolutely NO right to endanger members of the public through your actions. It is not a right, not a privilege, not a freedom, never will and never would. And any means necessary (technological, political, legal, social, economic, whatever) to prevent you from putting innocent people in danger through your actions are justified.
Why can't we just approach the issue as follows:
- Press can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and sneak in. If it is legal for an average person to do whatever in the conference, it shouldn't be illegal just because the person happens to be a journalist.
- Hackers can do whatever they want (as long as it is not a crime) to try and expose the press.
Let it be a private game of catch and mouse... Best one wins, simple as that. There is absolutely no point imposing legal restrictions on this matter.
The dawn of the ISPs, where many companies offered free dialup internet access through serving ads to customers desktops.
The whole thing died for a number of reasons. In order to gather enough revenue to pay for people's internet connection SO many ads had to be served that people just didn't accept it.
I can only imagine this will be even worse when on the cell. Having to *click* on an ad every few minutes is bad enough, but having to *listen*, which takes time, every time before you make conversation is even worse.
Privacy issues are rampant here too. Google is known for context-based ads by reading your email content in exchange for free email. How bad would it be if Google had some voice recognition built-in, which LISTENED to your conversations, gathered keywords, and served you ads based on what you talk about?
And God only knows where that information would be stored and for what purposes in some Google database, which is already an issue, but could be much worse with real voice being recorded.
To play the devil's advocate, people don't seem to have much of a problem listening to radio stations which work on the same principle. But there are big differences - no two-way interaction, you just listen , so no privacy issues; you can switch radio stations at any time if you hear something you don't like instead of HAVING to wait for it, and most importantly, you listen to radio (for vast majority of people) for leisure, not business, so ads don't have such an impact.
In short, I just don't think this one will be adopted. Anyone who's lifestyle requires a constant or even occasional use of a cellphone, would probably rather pay for a service (cheapest services can go for as little as $10/mo) than be part of this scheme.
A good century ago or so, at the dawn of radioastronomy, there was a whole big point of "celestial music". People thought that the radio signals emitted by stars have a certain harmony, and when used right, can produce "heavenly" melody.
Needless to say that didn't go very far.
Same story here. Just because you find something which, when transformed, can generate certain audio patterns, doesn't mean it will be any good as *music*. In fact, looking for some "objective", "universal" melody source is pretty much dumb as music preference varies greatly even within our own species (*waits for rock vs rap flaming to start*), and many other species have different combinations of sound they perceive as music (and which we perceive only as noise).
Music is *produced* with a specific purpose in mind, and the production rules vary depending on that purpose. You won't find it bestowed upon you, whether from the stars or magically encoded in some DNA sequence.