One might argue that if you're picnicking in a war zone, you get what you deserve. Once the robot kills the toddler, I'm sure it will be forced to kill the irate parents that attack it. At that point, the robot might have preemptively done the toddler a favor by a) keeping it from being an orphan and b) not making it watch its parent's deaths.
All kidding aside, I'd like to presume that if we can build airport scanners so that TSA agents can look at naked people, we can make these robots determine whether to kill an intruder based not just on their presence, but on whether they pose a threat.
I think they were referring to the 'whois' command which just goes straight to the whois server at various registrars. For a.com, whois will check com.whois-servers.net which resolves to a forward to whois.verisign-grs.com.
However, if you think you can evade detection by your ISP by using a web browser, you're mistaken unless you are also using SSL. Try sticking https:/// in front of your favorite registrar's url when doing searches if you're concerned about snooping. Many will not run the service through SSL by default, but their sites support SSL and will likely stay in SSL for the request. Network Solutions stays secure the whole way through the lookup.
Another alternative, as suggested by others, is to use the registration process to do your lookups. Just take care to not accidentally back-order a domain by mistake.
To get the equivalent number of crazy shooters there, you should sum up every national crazy shooter in Europe.
You mean if they were allowed to own guns. You've got to be seriously bad ass to kill a lot of people without bullets.
But the issue really is America's media-fed paranoia. Canada has more guns per capita and no where near the homicide rate from guns. Check out 'Bowling for Columbine' for an exploration of the issue.
Well, if the computer tells you your route and tells management how many miles that should put on the odometer and how much time it should take, it would be pretty hard to make side trips or otherwise slack off.
There is no set mechanism for the ISP to communicate with the customer over Internet, so creating one might be justifiable in this case.
There may not be a standard mechanism, but there are many ways for ISPs to contact their clients: Phone, Email, Snail Mail, etc. If they want to communicate through the browser, they could do what many hotel chains do: Intercept the http request and return their message instead. This is usually done on their free wi-fi to make you accept their terms of use before you can use their network. This is different than inserting stuff into someone else's content. What Roger's is doing could set themselves up to lawsuits from the sites who's content their modifying.
Why are people on the internet always so eager to think that highly qualified economists at world class Universities will have failed to consider the one blindingly obvious thing to consider about a situation, simply based on reading a one line summary of the relevant paper, in order to prove some clearly stupid point?
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. When you get to a certain age, you start to realize that statistical studies like this are just so much crap. I don't care if the report comes out of Stanford or some community college. The issue is not that simple no matter how much people who hate non-competes, including myself, want to believe it is.
I think academia is especially prone to producing such spurious claims due to the confluence of the "publish or perish" mentality of the faculty and the volume of students trying to find something novel to study for either their Masters or Doctoral theses.
By the way, Ronald Gibson, the paper's author, is a Law professor, not an economist. Is it hardly surprising that he thinks there's a legal cause for the disparity? This could be a "when your only tool is a hammer..." kind of thing if you ask me.
I suspect the prevalence of statistical analysis in these papers is that the causality they fail to prove is equally hard to disprove.
I don't know that you can link the difference between Boston and Silicon Valley to enforcement of non-compete agreements. Here's some other equally likely candidates:
San Jose has better weather than Boston. Maybe people with a choice of where to work choose a nice place to do it.
San Jose pays programmers slightly better than boston. Maybe people like to be paid more.
Why are people always so eager to boil complex situations down to a variance in a single variable in an attempt to prove a point?
People who for whatever reason cross the border illegally will never get a "terrorist profile."
I hate to ruin a wonderfully smarmy comment with a reality check, but here goes:
The so-called "terrorist profile" is also a screening for people possibly involved in illegal activity. Since crossing the border illegally is prima facie evidence of illegal activity, such people really don't need to be screened.
I hope you aren't referring to the case where Google maps or some other direction-giving site might have lead to the death of a well-known CNET editor.
Actually, I'm referring to exactly that. Too many people, especially otherwise smart ones, are too eager to allow technology to substitute for common sense.
If it's based on the deployment of Cell towers, it's not exactly a *Global* Positioning System. I think GPSs are more useful in remote areas than urban ones and probably less dangerous there too.
I think this product might lead people into a false sense of security:
"Hey, I think were lost out here in the middle of the Oregon woods in a blizzard. Better check the GPS on my iPhone.
Okay, some wing-nutty paranoia now. Is there any form of encryption that you believe people like the NSA cannot crack? I suspect stories like "Skype encryption too tough for German police" are a ruse to encourage criminals to use the Skype which is likely easier to track, and certainly less portable, than prepaid cell phones.
Besides, if Google doesn't do the encryption, 99.99% of the data will not be encrypted. That should make the people with something to hide pretty easy to pick out.
In an age of sealed warrants, if the government even bothers with that, why would anyone put their data out of their sight? When it comes to privacy, I cannot see how the benefits outweigh the risks.
Your response was well reasoned, very insightful, and thought provoking.
Are you sure you belong here? Judging by your user Id, I'm guessing your brains haven't yet been rotted by hot grits. You may want to run while there's still time.
I'd be curious to see how this guy defines "enterprise." Another quote:
According to a survey of nearly 600 U.S. and European companies that have more than 1,000 employees...
If he defines "enterprise" as having more than 1000 employees, he's leaving out 5,092,154 of the 5,104,331 firms (citation) that have fewer than 1,000 employees in the U.S. While I'm sure the vast majority use Windows, far more than 2% of the businesses I deal with use Macs and or Linux.
I really don't get the obsession with big business. Perhaps it's easier to survey a few hundred of the big guys than to do something meaningful. Many small businesses are part of associations (e.g., The National Small Business Alliance.) Perhaps surveying their members would be more representative of business computer use, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Faust's deal with the devil was signed too.
What possessed you to give your SSN to DirectTV?
What possible reason could they have to require that information in the first place, and why would you deal with a business that required it?
Is it ethical to kill the toddler?
One might argue that if you're picnicking in a war zone, you get what you deserve. Once the robot kills the toddler, I'm sure it will be forced to kill the irate parents that attack it. At that point, the robot might have preemptively done the toddler a favor by a) keeping it from being an orphan and b) not making it watch its parent's deaths.
All kidding aside, I'd like to presume that if we can build airport scanners so that TSA agents can look at naked people, we can make these robots determine whether to kill an intruder based not just on their presence, but on whether they pose a threat.
Not quite younger than McCain. What a shame. A supernova would have nicely topped the list.
Stranger Things is quite good.
Rocketboom is also usually worth watching.
I think they were referring to the 'whois' command which just goes straight to the whois server at various registrars. For a .com, whois will check com.whois-servers.net which resolves to a forward to whois.verisign-grs.com.
However, if you think you can evade detection by your ISP by using a web browser, you're mistaken unless you are also using SSL. Try sticking https:/// in front of your favorite registrar's url when doing searches if you're concerned about snooping. Many will not run the service through SSL by default, but their sites support SSL and will likely stay in SSL for the request. Network Solutions stays secure the whole way through the lookup.
Another alternative, as suggested by others, is to use the registration process to do your lookups. Just take care to not accidentally back-order a domain by mistake.
Oh. I'm mistaken about the flashbacks thing, but he'd still be a good choice. He looks like a young Ian Holm.
Martin Freeman played Bilbo in flashbacks during the LOTR. He'd be a better choice to play Bilbo in The Hobbit.
Crime statistics in the USA indicate blacks are responsible for over 7 times the rate of crime as whites.
Gun violence among blacks is only twice that of the average (source).
While blacks make up 1.9% of the Canadian population, they make up nearly 10% of the American population.
Gun violence in the United States almost 3 times that of Canada.
If we were to grant you're premise, wouldn't we have 5 times the gun violence in the US versus Canada?
To get the equivalent number of crazy shooters there, you should sum up every national crazy shooter in Europe.
You mean if they were allowed to own guns. You've got to be seriously bad ass to kill a lot of people without bullets.
But the issue really is America's media-fed paranoia. Canada has more guns per capita and no where near the homicide rate from guns. Check out 'Bowling for Columbine' for an exploration of the issue.
Why does the union decide on the route?
Well, if the computer tells you your route and tells management how many miles that should put on the odometer and how much time it should take, it would be pretty hard to make side trips or otherwise slack off.
woot!
For those not familiar with the site, they sell one product a day, until it's gone, at a deep discount. Today (12/13/2007) it's a NavMan GPS for $149.
I hit the site every day.
Complaining about dupes in Slashdot is meta-redundant.
There is no set mechanism for the ISP to communicate with the customer over Internet, so creating one might be justifiable in this case.
There may not be a standard mechanism, but there are many ways for ISPs to contact their clients: Phone, Email, Snail Mail, etc. If they want to communicate through the browser, they could do what many hotel chains do: Intercept the http request and return their message instead. This is usually done on their free wi-fi to make you accept their terms of use before you can use their network. This is different than inserting stuff into someone else's content. What Roger's is doing could set themselves up to lawsuits from the sites who's content their modifying.
Why are people on the internet always so eager to think that highly qualified economists at world class Universities will have failed to consider the one blindingly obvious thing to consider about a situation, simply based on reading a one line summary of the relevant paper, in order to prove some clearly stupid point?
..." kind of thing if you ask me.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. When you get to a certain age, you start to realize that statistical studies like this are just so much crap. I don't care if the report comes out of Stanford or some community college. The issue is not that simple no matter how much people who hate non-competes, including myself, want to believe it is.
I think academia is especially prone to producing such spurious claims due to the confluence of the "publish or perish" mentality of the faculty and the volume of students trying to find something novel to study for either their Masters or Doctoral theses.
By the way, Ronald Gibson, the paper's author, is a Law professor, not an economist. Is it hardly surprising that he thinks there's a legal cause for the disparity? This could be a "when your only tool is a hammer
I suspect the prevalence of statistical analysis in these papers is that the causality they fail to prove is equally hard to disprove.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. No amount of statistical correlation can prove causality.
I don't know that you can link the difference between Boston and Silicon Valley to enforcement of non-compete agreements. Here's some other equally likely candidates:
San Jose has better weather than Boston. Maybe people with a choice of where to work choose a nice place to do it.
San Jose pays programmers slightly better than boston. Maybe people like to be paid more.
Why are people always so eager to boil complex situations down to a variance in a single variable in an attempt to prove a point?
People who for whatever reason cross the border illegally will never get a "terrorist profile."
I hate to ruin a wonderfully smarmy comment with a reality check, but here goes:
The so-called "terrorist profile" is also a screening for people possibly involved in illegal activity. Since crossing the border illegally is prima facie evidence of illegal activity, such people really don't need to be screened.
I Hurt People For Fun
;)
Does your sig represent work or recreation?
Why don't they just skip all this craziness and just ad-enable monitors.
Damn you to hell sir!
I'm sure there's someone out there just waiting for this kind of ironic statement so they can claim it is a requested feature.
Hmmmm.... Perhaps I should just shut up and patent the idea.
I hope you aren't referring to the case where Google maps or some other direction-giving site might have lead to the death of a well-known CNET editor.
Actually, I'm referring to exactly that. Too many people, especially otherwise smart ones, are too eager to allow technology to substitute for common sense.
If it's based on the deployment of Cell towers, it's not exactly a *Global* Positioning System. I think GPSs are more useful in remote areas than urban ones and probably less dangerous there too.
I think this product might lead people into a false sense of security:
"Hey, I think were lost out here in the middle of the Oregon woods in a blizzard. Better check the GPS on my iPhone.
"WTF?
"We're doomed!"
Well see, there is thing called "encryption".
Okay, some wing-nutty paranoia now. Is there any form of encryption that you believe people like the NSA cannot crack? I suspect stories like "Skype encryption too tough for German police" are a ruse to encourage criminals to use the Skype which is likely easier to track, and certainly less portable, than prepaid cell phones.
Besides, if Google doesn't do the encryption, 99.99% of the data will not be encrypted. That should make the people with something to hide pretty easy to pick out.
In an age of sealed warrants, if the government even bothers with that, why would anyone put their data out of their sight? When it comes to privacy, I cannot see how the benefits outweigh the risks.
Your response was well reasoned, very insightful, and thought provoking.
Are you sure you belong here? Judging by your user Id, I'm guessing your brains haven't yet been rotted by hot grits. You may want to run while there's still time.
If he defines "enterprise" as having more than 1000 employees, he's leaving out 5,092,154 of the 5,104,331 firms (citation) that have fewer than 1,000 employees in the U.S. While I'm sure the vast majority use Windows, far more than 2% of the businesses I deal with use Macs and or Linux.
I really don't get the obsession with big business. Perhaps it's easier to survey a few hundred of the big guys than to do something meaningful. Many small businesses are part of associations (e.g., The National Small Business Alliance.) Perhaps surveying their members would be more representative of business computer use, no?