Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
... including but not limited to bug exploitation as selective leveraging of written instructions, logical constructs such as computer software, or as excretions such in shellac or silk factories. By reading this comment you, for one, agree to indemnify the creator or owner of said bugs of any damages to virtual or physical property, business or life processes that may that may arise from the encountering of artificially intelligent or exoskeletal bugs, or any combination thereof, and hereby affirm your welcoming the resultant overlording even in the event you were informed of such risk after questioning, "What has science done?!"
Think Infinite Natural Supply To Act As Free Lunches.
This is the Age of Information. Copies are in infinite supply, their price will be zero regardless of cost to create; Otherwise "piracy" could not exist.
The bits are not scarce. Monetize what is scarce: The ability to create new configurations of bits, not the infinitely reproducible output thereof. Monetizing artificial scarce information is as untenable as selling ice to Eskimos.
Remember Crystal Pepsi? Remember The New Coke? LOTS of people were surveyed before they decided to go forward with the products. They were all wrong! Answering counter to your opinion is probably giving them better data.
But the isostatic rebound being fast enough for us to see it in our lifetime is highly doubtful
By replacing our fragile frames with sturdier robotic ones we can both mitigate our concern over climates we can't yet tolerate and witness the isostatic rebound. We could both achieve cyborgodhood and solve the climate issues if only non-Artifical intelligence wasn't illegal on this planet.
If you outlaw the future only outlaws will be future in laws.
You steal my personal data, sell it to someone else who uses that data to commit crimes, you are a dangerous person.
Your data is not personal if it has ever been shared outside of machines you own. If your data can be used by someone else to harm you or others, then the insecure system is what is dangerous, not the alleged criminal. We're going to have to come around and face the facts. It's not the hackers that are misunderstood: People don't understand the nature of information.
We're still operating largely under the false premise that information is scarce. Bits are in near infinite supply, digital data thus should tend towards zero price regardless of cost to create (if we're to believe Economics:101). Only via artificial scarcity of information are any able to monetize the bits themselves. Piracy can only exist because artificial scarcity is being leveraged.
The bits are not scarce. The work to create or discover new information in new combinations of bits is what is scarce. Market your ability to do work. Get paid for that work once. Ask for enough up front to cover your expenses for the work just like in ANY other market: See also, Mechanics. Bid, do the work, get paid; No fee each time you start the car and benefit from the work. You want more money? Do more work.
Copyright and Patents are a horrible futures market for your work. You under pay yourself for the chance to make more money from your work. However, this means secrecy and thus lack of market research in most cases, leading to high churn rates and lack of job stability and thus lower pay. Working for the community directly is the same as working for a pubilsher: You get paid the same for the same work done once. The difference is there's no middle men trying to inflate the price via artificial scarcity while adding zero benefit to the product itself.
This is the first generation of the Age of Information wherein every single person is a publisher. Of course there will be huge changes and growing pains. This very comment is published. Copies are cheap! This data was duplicated many times in many routers before you saw it, and multiple times in your computer's storage, RAM, and video memory. No one should be paying for individual copies; We'll pay for the work to create the first copy, and that's it (it's the only one that was scarce). Publishing as we know it will either become extinct or adapt. Publishers will become publicists or agents instead who advertize your ability to perform work.
I've said this time and again. We now live in a post-information-scarcity world. Times are changing fast. Interestingly enough markets are aligning with the FOSS model of development: Paid to do work, release the output for "free" (since it's already been paid for), do more work to get more money. This is the same model that all other labor markets use, it only seems alien if you conflate infinitely reproducible information with the concept of finite resources like property. Artificial scarcity is untennable. Deal with it.
Well, I'm not well versed with the MenuetOS, but I've written a few toy OSs; Particular of interest to me is 16bit x86 which retains memory segmentation, and via other modes of operation (such as Unreal Mode enabled via addressing line 20) one can escape the 640K and/or 1MB limit whilst retaining other hardware features. Why go low level? Because programming paradigms are platform dependent. C is a product of its Von Neumann environment, and the dialog back and forth between hardware and software designers over the years has shaped our current methodology and hardware feature-set -- sometimes for the worse, IMO. E.g.: When we sacrificed a whole register and its memory segmentation capabilities to the RAM gods we made position independent code far more inefficient, and things like coroutines, stack smashing protections, multi-dimensional V-Tables for stateful OOP (eg: methods that change functionality depending on an object's "state" field), separate stacks for code pointers and parameter data, heap code pointer isolation, etc. more difficult (or near impossible) to accomplish. Instead of ASM I use a low level compilable and interpretable bytecode language for writing my OSs, and have multiple functional C compilers implemented atop the byte-code language in order to utilize existing hardware drivers -- However, I frequently dive into the machine specific ASM in order to implement and explore new features.
I started doing hobby OS work for fun, but after reading Ken Thompson's On Trusting Trust ACM acceptance "presentation" I decided that it would be a worthwhile project to create and maintain a few machines isolated from the rest of the world which are bootstrapped and programmed entirely by me. I now use them to write my memoirs and for teaching children how to code and build custom hardware and robotics -- The parallel port is very simple to utilize without a massive OS like GNU/Linux in the way...
The better question is why would anyone attempt to implement a POSIX OS today? We have working implementations. That feature set is proven. If we want to make advancements in OSs and hardware architectures we'll have to try doing things in different ways. Some of my OSs are cross platform; In one all programs are compiled down to the bytecode form by the VM ASM, or C compilers. The OS itself translates byte-code into machine code ON INSTALLATION, and gives the option to instead interpret a program if its untrusted (or in development, or self modifying) to contain it in an actual sandbox. On 32 bit x86 with more than one bit worth of execution privileges I'm able to enforce at the hardware level something akin to kernel mode at the application level for applications to isolate themselves from possibly untrusted plugins, and allow transparent lazy linking with emulated bytecode modules and optional JIT translation.
For me the aim isn't to replace GNU/Linux or any mainstream OS. The aim is to explore unexplored problem spaces with the hope that any useful techniques may find their way into mainstream usage. Consider Google's NACL and LLVM. I'm not saying experimental OS projects which pre-date them are responsible for their current capability to compile C into cross platform bytecode and compile it into machine code, but us hobby OS folks HAVE been doing just that for longer than their projects have existed. Our experimental niche OS endeavours occasionally blaze the trail towards new features in mainstream hardware and software. Eg: I'm hoping for code pointer isolation and buffer overrun prevention via dual stack architecture, and for the ARM folks to give us more that 1 bit of privilege level so that secure designs other than Monolithic Kernels can be implemented...
To the other commenter above who thinks "decades-of-practice" will allow optimizing compilers to utilize hardware features that are forbidden or don't exist: Ugh, no. I have decades of experience writing ASM and can write or generate much smaller & more efficient position inde
Comparing against zero is fast. Yes, even in high level languages like JavaScript if you write your loop in reverse it goes faster because your compare will be against zero instead of some in-memory or register value. Do some assembly level programming. At that level it's blatantly, smacked in the face, obvious.
Consider that the answer may be completely the opposite than what you assume. Perhaps we just teach kids math with programming. Then, just like long division or integration, etc. they won't have a problem explaining their desires to computers.
Hell, I have a _BEST_SORT() macro which, together with my collections library's _GEN_PROFILED_H directive will select the actual best sort method on next compile after profiling to PROVE which sort is best for the scale of the problem space, instead of guessing. Predicting what I want to do next? Yep, my brain even does that automatically me too. All I have to do is explain to the computer what I want to have happen, and it happens. IMO, the problem is the way mathematics is taught. A sigma is a for loop. The latter is more verbose, but if they'd have been taught for loop instead of sigma they'd be programmers; It's sort of ridiculous when you think about teaching kids the old way: "I'll never use this in real life", meanwhile they can utilize programming in say, javascript, to take better control of every damn device they own right now... Teachers just failed to tell them how.
Seriousy, I've taught pre-teens how to code as a remedy for flunking out of mathematics; Instantly they're able to see the utility of the tool. Humans are tool using creatures, no wonder they have a hard time learning how to use tools that aren't immediately useful to them. The flunkers are actually being smarter than the teachers.
When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?
Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?
1,413 Arabic digits total counting up from one in base ten; 9 single digits, 90 double digits, and 408 triple digits -- or, approximately 0.00000000000012851160136e-42 printed US Libraries of Congress (excluding their digital archive).
At a slightly faster than normal speech rate I have observed counting aloud in American English from 1 to 507 in five minutes and thirty five seconds (metric). Counting is a skill we teach our infants, mechanical machines, and even Parrots here on Earth. Most hand held counting entities here could count silently over the aforementioned range in a fraction of a second. The apex organic creatures on this planet can reliably detect errors in a sequential numeric stream at a rate of 15 three digit numerals per second; That's an error correction bandwidth of 45 Arabic numerals per second.
Despite the apparent capacity of their neural networks, human memory storage and retrieval speed scales exponentially in proportion to the amount of data input, making them essentially useless as mass media storage devices for all but the simplest and most sensational of information. Because of horrible failures in past attempts at eugenics the human wetware architecture is still a sophomoric monolithic kernel design: Many functions (like breath control) which could be efficiently distributed about their systems instead wastefully consume thought cycles. Lacking direct genetic-level knowledge conveyance a new mind's cultural installation process is measured in decades. Due to millions of years of patching by trial and error human cognitive circuits are in disarray, often producing unwanted irrational responses due to outdated evolutionary directives known as "feelings", and there currently staunch resistance finds any who talk of correcting of these dangerous glitches.
Regardless of humanity's pathetic cognitive capabilities we remain unwaveringly chauvinistically assured of our potential as a space faring race -- even if it's been four decades since we last visited the nearest celestial body in person. If we can not be granted membership as citizens and are deemed not useful as menial mental minions then I implore the Virgonian Super-Cluster Galactic Conciliate to at least consider this planet a case study in how not to advance as an interstellar society. As you can plainly see we are mostly harmless, and although the wonders of the Universe are tempting, we'll be just as happy if left quarantined and isolated in the existing Cosmic Space-Time Reservation.
I apologize for the rambling nature of my reply: Though familiar with the issues I am not an official diplomat. We would take you to our leaders, but we're rather ashamed of them presently...
Good plan. Wolud it be any different if the clam was dead among a bulk batch of dead clams already? I mean, you don't want to hurt the poor dead thing any further...
Seriously, it's like you think McCarthism isn't a thing, or that "Never let a good disaster go to waste" isn't the battle cry of Capitol Hill. You think the massive PATRIOT Act sprang into existance, instead of being crafted ahead of time and merely touched up before being fast-tracked? Ask yourself this: Are there truly none in power who do not see the events playing out as akin to a terrible evil conspiracy? Are there none who find themsevels amidst a situation run amok with corruption and doing far more harm than good? Why aren't they doing anything about it? When folks like Snowden actually do reveal the government conspiring against us, you still dismiss the conspiracy? You realize conspiracies are real things, right? We punish folks for conspiracy to commit murder, for example.
Furthermore: Plausible deniablity does not eliminate plausibility. Use Occam's Razor: Despite the NSA lying openly to congress they're not doing so on purpose anymore? Despite evidence of CIA's past engineering of economic warfare they aren't doing so on purpose anymore? Despite blatant pro-government bias and anti-establishment filtering happening in mainstereme news and media, and it having been identified time and again for decades they're not doing so on purpose anymore? Despite the ineffectiveness of the TSA's many programs and lack of evidence for its effectiveness it's not expanding on purpose anymore? Despite all theses things obviously dragging us towards a dystopian totalitarian oppressive state, the government isn't continuing down this path on purpose anymore? Isn't a conspiracy the simpler explanation?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Well, this isn't explainable by stupidity. They've already been notified and are keenly aware of the situation. The level of ignorance and stupidity required is irrational to believe in. Your own claims that some people get involved and rise up within the system disprove your cliam when you see that they have utterly failed to change the system. Is it really rational to believe that there are no barriers purposefully in place to ensure that no matter how many well meaning people enter the political arena none can divert us from the path that removes more power from the common man and gives it to the elite?
How much evidence of a conspiracy does it take for you to believe one exist? It's just that word isn't it? If we had called it something else you'd have agreed the conspiracy exists. You'll deny a conspiracy exists to the death, but if we called it an acknowledged and embraced systemic corruption you'd have agreed it exists. Stop being so damned foolish.
I believe that every part of a commercial flight can now be done by autopilot, and it's just safety regulations that actually require a human pilot on the aircraft.
The most realistic graphical reproductions I've seen are quite expensive displays by thesbians performed live in my living room*. There are many issues with this new technology; Primarily the anti-time shifting DRM which prohibits replay without additional fees.
*If your parents own a theater, their basement is under the stage.
The article mentions "Dark Friday" but links to a wiki page called "Black Friday". What is that about?
Many people refused to support the shopping event "Black Friday" on the grounds that it is racist towards people of other skin tones. The pollitically correct term is "Dark Friday", which is on the eve of "Darkie Weekend" during which most people don't have to work and can just laze about on their porches like monkies.
It does not have control of the system and could not be trusted even if every single line of code executing on it were mathematically proven.
You talk a good talk, but that line is bullshit. If the DMA device can only affect a predetermined fixed region of memory then your statement is utterly wrong.
Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
I am a scientist. There is no evidence to back this claim. Provide evidence of copyright and patent's usefulness, there is currently none. Consider the Automotive and Fashion industries which sell heavily on design, and yet are allowed no copyrights or design patents. I have just informed you of two very successful and innovative markets providing evidence that is in direct opposition to your claim. You are operating your mind based on untested and unproven assumptions -- I will deem this merely ignorant; However, I will call it malicious, dangerous and foolishly retarding to progress to allow significant parts of the world economy to operate on such weak and unproven and untested hypotheses. if you have no supporting evidence and only evidence that seems to refute your claim, then it is foolish to continue to put stock in such a belief until you've tested it. If I assume you are not a fool, then you must now agree you are wrong.
Additionally, new information is gained through work. You can market your ability to do work. You have an infinite monopoly over your ability to perform an action. Leverage your ability to do work, like any worker does, not the infinitely reproducible output of the labor. Infinite supply = zero price; Regardless of cost. Ergo, Economics would tend to agree with the premise that the artificial scarcity of copyright and patents is untenable.
Indeed the construct whereby infinitely reproducible information is conflated with finite resources is far more likely to be harmful. The existence of information and working to obtain more and better information are concepts which are beneficial. False premises and incorrect information is not useful -- I put it to you that Intellectual Property is thus not a useful social construct.
Abolish patents and copyrights. It is the only sane thing to do, and the only way to test if your weak hypothesis can hold true in the Information Age. What if Intellectual Property is a DAMAGING social construct? What if it's severely holding us back? It's an egregious folly to take such a risk needlessly.
Not using HTTP-AUTH proof of knowledge to key your symmetric streams? HTTP implementers are provably insane or malicious. Time to ditch the web, they do not have our best interests at heart.
Well, that's wrong. You see, the Government reserves the right to option any patent for their use.
They wouldn't get to prevent anyone from using the patent even if they wanted to. Instead, when the NSA compels other companies to infringe related patent, Facebook gets to charge the zuckers license fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
Well, then shove a tube and some extra stuff up there, then bend over and aim it?
Fire in the Hole!
Newborns are the most fragile thing on earth
If you believe in evolution, you must not do so very strongly. If you believe in creationism, you must think God a fool.
TINSTAAFL
Think Infinite Natural Supply To Act As Free Lunches.
This is the Age of Information. Copies are in infinite supply, their price will be zero regardless of cost to create; Otherwise "piracy" could not exist.
The bits are not scarce. Monetize what is scarce: The ability to create new configurations of bits, not the infinitely reproducible output thereof. Monetizing artificial scarce information is as untenable as selling ice to Eskimos.
Econ 101, indeed.
YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!
You should tell them what you honestly think.
Remember Crystal Pepsi? Remember The New Coke? LOTS of people were surveyed before they decided to go forward with the products. They were all wrong! Answering counter to your opinion is probably giving them better data.
But the isostatic rebound being fast enough for us to see it in our lifetime is highly doubtful
By replacing our fragile frames with sturdier robotic ones we can both mitigate our concern over climates we can't yet tolerate and witness the isostatic rebound. We could both achieve cyborgodhood and solve the climate issues if only non-Artifical intelligence wasn't illegal on this planet.
If you outlaw the future only outlaws will be future in laws.
Rattle of Death
We fucking hate pork.
You steal my personal data, sell it to someone else who uses that data to commit crimes, you are a dangerous person.
Your data is not personal if it has ever been shared outside of machines you own. If your data can be used by someone else to harm you or others, then the insecure system is what is dangerous, not the alleged criminal. We're going to have to come around and face the facts. It's not the hackers that are misunderstood: People don't understand the nature of information.
We're still operating largely under the false premise that information is scarce. Bits are in near infinite supply, digital data thus should tend towards zero price regardless of cost to create (if we're to believe Economics:101). Only via artificial scarcity of information are any able to monetize the bits themselves. Piracy can only exist because artificial scarcity is being leveraged.
The bits are not scarce. The work to create or discover new information in new combinations of bits is what is scarce. Market your ability to do work. Get paid for that work once. Ask for enough up front to cover your expenses for the work just like in ANY other market: See also, Mechanics. Bid, do the work, get paid; No fee each time you start the car and benefit from the work. You want more money? Do more work.
Copyright and Patents are a horrible futures market for your work. You under pay yourself for the chance to make more money from your work. However, this means secrecy and thus lack of market research in most cases, leading to high churn rates and lack of job stability and thus lower pay. Working for the community directly is the same as working for a pubilsher: You get paid the same for the same work done once. The difference is there's no middle men trying to inflate the price via artificial scarcity while adding zero benefit to the product itself.
This is the first generation of the Age of Information wherein every single person is a publisher. Of course there will be huge changes and growing pains. This very comment is published. Copies are cheap! This data was duplicated many times in many routers before you saw it, and multiple times in your computer's storage, RAM, and video memory. No one should be paying for individual copies; We'll pay for the work to create the first copy, and that's it (it's the only one that was scarce). Publishing as we know it will either become extinct or adapt. Publishers will become publicists or agents instead who advertize your ability to perform work.
I've said this time and again. We now live in a post-information-scarcity world. Times are changing fast. Interestingly enough markets are aligning with the FOSS model of development: Paid to do work, release the output for "free" (since it's already been paid for), do more work to get more money. This is the same model that all other labor markets use, it only seems alien if you conflate infinitely reproducible information with the concept of finite resources like property. Artificial scarcity is untennable. Deal with it.
Why?
Well, I'm not well versed with the MenuetOS, but I've written a few toy OSs; Particular of interest to me is 16bit x86 which retains memory segmentation, and via other modes of operation (such as Unreal Mode enabled via addressing line 20) one can escape the 640K and/or 1MB limit whilst retaining other hardware features. Why go low level? Because programming paradigms are platform dependent. C is a product of its Von Neumann environment, and the dialog back and forth between hardware and software designers over the years has shaped our current methodology and hardware feature-set -- sometimes for the worse, IMO. E.g.: When we sacrificed a whole register and its memory segmentation capabilities to the RAM gods we made position independent code far more inefficient, and things like coroutines, stack smashing protections, multi-dimensional V-Tables for stateful OOP (eg: methods that change functionality depending on an object's "state" field), separate stacks for code pointers and parameter data, heap code pointer isolation, etc. more difficult (or near impossible) to accomplish. Instead of ASM I use a low level compilable and interpretable bytecode language for writing my OSs, and have multiple functional C compilers implemented atop the byte-code language in order to utilize existing hardware drivers -- However, I frequently dive into the machine specific ASM in order to implement and explore new features.
I started doing hobby OS work for fun, but after reading Ken Thompson's On Trusting Trust ACM acceptance "presentation" I decided that it would be a worthwhile project to create and maintain a few machines isolated from the rest of the world which are bootstrapped and programmed entirely by me. I now use them to write my memoirs and for teaching children how to code and build custom hardware and robotics -- The parallel port is very simple to utilize without a massive OS like GNU/Linux in the way...
The better question is why would anyone attempt to implement a POSIX OS today? We have working implementations. That feature set is proven. If we want to make advancements in OSs and hardware architectures we'll have to try doing things in different ways. Some of my OSs are cross platform; In one all programs are compiled down to the bytecode form by the VM ASM, or C compilers. The OS itself translates byte-code into machine code ON INSTALLATION, and gives the option to instead interpret a program if its untrusted (or in development, or self modifying) to contain it in an actual sandbox. On 32 bit x86 with more than one bit worth of execution privileges I'm able to enforce at the hardware level something akin to kernel mode at the application level for applications to isolate themselves from possibly untrusted plugins, and allow transparent lazy linking with emulated bytecode modules and optional JIT translation.
For me the aim isn't to replace GNU/Linux or any mainstream OS. The aim is to explore unexplored problem spaces with the hope that any useful techniques may find their way into mainstream usage. Consider Google's NACL and LLVM. I'm not saying experimental OS projects which pre-date them are responsible for their current capability to compile C into cross platform bytecode and compile it into machine code, but us hobby OS folks HAVE been doing just that for longer than their projects have existed. Our experimental niche OS endeavours occasionally blaze the trail towards new features in mainstream hardware and software. Eg: I'm hoping for code pointer isolation and buffer overrun prevention via dual stack architecture, and for the ARM folks to give us more that 1 bit of privilege level so that secure designs other than Monolithic Kernels can be implemented...
To the other commenter above who thinks "decades-of-practice" will allow optimizing compilers to utilize hardware features that are forbidden or don't exist: Ugh, no. I have decades of experience writing ASM and can write or generate much smaller & more efficient position inde
Comparing against zero is fast. Yes, even in high level languages like JavaScript if you write your loop in reverse it goes faster because your compare will be against zero instead of some in-memory or register value. Do some assembly level programming. At that level it's blatantly, smacked in the face, obvious.
Consider that the answer may be completely the opposite than what you assume. Perhaps we just teach kids math with programming. Then, just like long division or integration, etc. they won't have a problem explaining their desires to computers.
Hell, I have a _BEST_SORT() macro which, together with my collections library's _GEN_PROFILED_H directive will select the actual best sort method on next compile after profiling to PROVE which sort is best for the scale of the problem space, instead of guessing. Predicting what I want to do next? Yep, my brain even does that automatically me too. All I have to do is explain to the computer what I want to have happen, and it happens. IMO, the problem is the way mathematics is taught. A sigma is a for loop. The latter is more verbose, but if they'd have been taught for loop instead of sigma they'd be programmers; It's sort of ridiculous when you think about teaching kids the old way: "I'll never use this in real life", meanwhile they can utilize programming in say, javascript, to take better control of every damn device they own right now... Teachers just failed to tell them how.
Seriousy, I've taught pre-teens how to code as a remedy for flunking out of mathematics; Instantly they're able to see the utility of the tool. Humans are tool using creatures, no wonder they have a hard time learning how to use tools that aren't immediately useful to them. The flunkers are actually being smarter than the teachers.
When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?
Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?
1,413 Arabic digits total counting up from one in base ten; 9 single digits, 90 double digits, and 408 triple digits
-- or, approximately 0.00000000000012851160136e-42 printed US Libraries of Congress (excluding their digital archive).
At a slightly faster than normal speech rate I have observed counting aloud in American English from 1 to 507 in five minutes and thirty five seconds (metric). Counting is a skill we teach our infants, mechanical machines, and even Parrots here on Earth. Most hand held counting entities here could count silently over the aforementioned range in a fraction of a second. The apex organic creatures on this planet can reliably detect errors in a sequential numeric stream at a rate of 15 three digit numerals per second; That's an error correction bandwidth of 45 Arabic numerals per second.
Despite the apparent capacity of their neural networks, human memory storage and retrieval speed scales exponentially in proportion to the amount of data input, making them essentially useless as mass media storage devices for all but the simplest and most sensational of information. Because of horrible failures in past attempts at eugenics the human wetware architecture is still a sophomoric monolithic kernel design: Many functions (like breath control) which could be efficiently distributed about their systems instead wastefully consume thought cycles. Lacking direct genetic-level knowledge conveyance a new mind's cultural installation process is measured in decades. Due to millions of years of patching by trial and error human cognitive circuits are in disarray, often producing unwanted irrational responses due to outdated evolutionary directives known as "feelings", and there currently staunch resistance finds any who talk of correcting of these dangerous glitches.
Regardless of humanity's pathetic cognitive capabilities we remain unwaveringly chauvinistically assured of our potential as a space faring race -- even if it's been four decades since we last visited the nearest celestial body in person. If we can not be granted membership as citizens and are deemed not useful as menial mental minions then I implore the Virgonian Super-Cluster Galactic Conciliate to at least consider this planet a case study in how not to advance as an interstellar society. As you can plainly see we are mostly harmless, and although the wonders of the Universe are tempting, we'll be just as happy if left quarantined and isolated in the existing Cosmic Space-Time Reservation.
I apologize for the rambling nature of my reply: Though familiar with the issues I am not an official diplomat. We would take you to our leaders, but we're rather ashamed of them presently...
Good plan. Wolud it be any different if the clam was dead among a bulk batch of dead clams already? I mean, you don't want to hurt the poor dead thing any further...
There's no big evil conspiracy, except within your own imagination.
That's only what they want you to believe.
There is much evidence to the contrary (with cited sources).
Seriously, it's like you think McCarthism isn't a thing, or that "Never let a good disaster go to waste" isn't the battle cry of Capitol Hill. You think the massive PATRIOT Act sprang into existance, instead of being crafted ahead of time and merely touched up before being fast-tracked? Ask yourself this: Are there truly none in power who do not see the events playing out as akin to a terrible evil conspiracy? Are there none who find themsevels amidst a situation run amok with corruption and doing far more harm than good? Why aren't they doing anything about it? When folks like Snowden actually do reveal the government conspiring against us, you still dismiss the conspiracy? You realize conspiracies are real things, right? We punish folks for conspiracy to commit murder, for example.
Furthermore: Plausible deniablity does not eliminate plausibility. Use Occam's Razor: Despite the NSA lying openly to congress they're not doing so on purpose anymore? Despite evidence of CIA's past engineering of economic warfare they aren't doing so on purpose anymore? Despite blatant pro-government bias and anti-establishment filtering happening in mainstereme news and media, and it having been identified time and again for decades they're not doing so on purpose anymore? Despite the ineffectiveness of the TSA's many programs and lack of evidence for its effectiveness it's not expanding on purpose anymore? Despite all theses things obviously dragging us towards a dystopian totalitarian oppressive state, the government isn't continuing down this path on purpose anymore? Isn't a conspiracy the simpler explanation?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Well, this isn't explainable by stupidity. They've already been notified and are keenly aware of the situation. The level of ignorance and stupidity required is irrational to believe in. Your own claims that some people get involved and rise up within the system disprove your cliam when you see that they have utterly failed to change the system. Is it really rational to believe that there are no barriers purposefully in place to ensure that no matter how many well meaning people enter the political arena none can divert us from the path that removes more power from the common man and gives it to the elite?
How much evidence of a conspiracy does it take for you to believe one exist? It's just that word isn't it? If we had called it something else you'd have agreed the conspiracy exists. You'll deny a conspiracy exists to the death, but if we called it an acknowledged and embraced systemic corruption you'd have agreed it exists. Stop being so damned foolish.
I believe that every part of a commercial flight can now be done by autopilot, and it's just safety regulations that actually require a human pilot on the aircraft.
B-b-but! Muh Drones!
The most realistic graphical reproductions I've seen are quite expensive displays by thesbians performed live in my living room*. There are many issues with this new technology; Primarily the anti-time shifting DRM which prohibits replay without additional fees.
*If your parents own a theater, their basement is under the stage.
The article mentions "Dark Friday" but links to a wiki page called "Black Friday". What is that about?
Many people refused to support the shopping event "Black Friday" on the grounds that it is racist towards people of other skin tones. The pollitically correct term is "Dark Friday", which is on the eve of "Darkie Weekend" during which most people don't have to work and can just laze about on their porches like monkies.
perhaps you should explain what POV-Ray actually is?
Yeah, because google doesn't exist... Or would you like me to explain what a search engine and the internet are?
Here's a famous poster rendered with POV-Ray from space (the ISS).
Oh, I forgot you might not be a nerd for which this news is for. Perhaps you want me to explain what the ISS is?
Well, you see a when an aerospace engineer loves another celestial body very much they-- Fuck off, Lamer!
It does not have control of the system and could not be trusted even if every single line of code executing on it were mathematically proven.
You talk a good talk, but that line is bullshit. If the DMA device can only affect a predetermined fixed region of memory then your statement is utterly wrong.
Intellectual property is a useful social construct.
I am a scientist. There is no evidence to back this claim. Provide evidence of copyright and patent's usefulness, there is currently none. Consider the Automotive and Fashion industries which sell heavily on design, and yet are allowed no copyrights or design patents. I have just informed you of two very successful and innovative markets providing evidence that is in direct opposition to your claim. You are operating your mind based on untested and unproven assumptions -- I will deem this merely ignorant; However, I will call it malicious, dangerous and foolishly retarding to progress to allow significant parts of the world economy to operate on such weak and unproven and untested hypotheses. if you have no supporting evidence and only evidence that seems to refute your claim, then it is foolish to continue to put stock in such a belief until you've tested it. If I assume you are not a fool, then you must now agree you are wrong.
Additionally, new information is gained through work. You can market your ability to do work. You have an infinite monopoly over your ability to perform an action. Leverage your ability to do work, like any worker does, not the infinitely reproducible output of the labor. Infinite supply = zero price; Regardless of cost. Ergo, Economics would tend to agree with the premise that the artificial scarcity of copyright and patents is untenable.
Indeed the construct whereby infinitely reproducible information is conflated with finite resources is far more likely to be harmful. The existence of information and working to obtain more and better information are concepts which are beneficial. False premises and incorrect information is not useful -- I put it to you that Intellectual Property is thus not a useful social construct.
Abolish patents and copyrights. It is the only sane thing to do, and the only way to test if your weak hypothesis can hold true in the Information Age. What if Intellectual Property is a DAMAGING social construct? What if it's severely holding us back? It's an egregious folly to take such a risk needlessly.
Not using HTTP-AUTH proof of knowledge to key your symmetric streams? HTTP implementers are provably insane or malicious. Time to ditch the web, they do not have our best interests at heart.
Perhaps 'vulnerable' is more your taste? Ask a native American about their insecure imigration policy.
Well, that's wrong. You see, the Government reserves the right to option any patent for their use.
They wouldn't get to prevent anyone from using the patent even if they wanted to. Instead, when the NSA compels other companies to infringe related patent, Facebook gets to charge the zuckers license fees.