Since when did reading newspapers and watching TV become considered essential to a socially healthy life? I almost never buy and read newspapers anymore, prefering instead to choose from the huge variety of online news sources. And why is sitting alone watching "Friends" on TV better than interacting with real people online? Pretty ridiculous assumptions to base a study on.
That said, there is certainly an addictive quality to web surfing. When I first got my cable modem, it was hard to get my wife off the computer! It's common knowledge that computer games, especially online ones like EverQuest, seem to be even more addictive. I know one person whose marriage was ruined by playing EverQuest everyday. But then there are plenty more marriages ruined by gambling habits. I know others who spend so much time playing online that they rarely go out anymore. It's pretty hard to make new friends and meet women unless you physically leave the house. Maybe that's not important to them. Or maybe it is, but it's just easier not to try as long as there's something really fun to do instead--like playing games on the computer.
I personally think that it is possible to spend TOO much time online (i.e. to the detriment of one's social "well-being"). However, I think that it usually only becomes a real problem for those with addictive personality types. For most people, I think the internet promotes social interaction. It has even brought back the lost art of letter writing, except now we send it by e-mail instead of by post. It's far easier (and cheaper) to keep in touch with friends and family now than ever before.
They will NEVER be able to PROVE that those 0's and 1's are some sort of contraband. So they will never be allowed to keep it. So criminals will ALWAYS be able to keep their encrypted records.
Would you be so affronted by the governement refusing to return a briefcase (which they had been unable to open, for whatever reason) to someone who had just robbed a bank just because they can't PROVE that it contains stolen money and the convict refuses to prove to them that it DOESN'T contain stolen money?
This isn't quite the same as being guilty until proven innocent because he's already been proven guilty of something, to which the files in question may be related.
Only recently has encryption become so good as to be undecipherable (for all intents and purposes). So now we are forced with only two choices -- (a) to make life easier for criminals (by not demanding that they give up the keys to encrypted files) and more lucrative for criminals (by giving the files back after they served their time) or (b) to take a little bit of freedom away from everyone else by being allowed by law to demand that those either charged or convicted with a crime give up the key. Don't forget, there are already a LOT of liberties taken away from us as soon as we're charged with a crime. It's unfortunate, but a necessary evil if you are to actually convict anyone. Wouldn't it be rather silly if the authorities were NEVER allowed to search someone's house to gather evidence, no matter how much reason they had to believe that the evidence was there?
I said "may contain" illegally gathered information. And since the goverment has no way of knowing, giving him back his files MAY be the same as giving him the "spoils of his crimes." To require the governement to PROVE that encrypted seized files contain illegal information or evidence of illegal activities in order to keep them would make every criminal's life a whole lot easier. Just encrypt all your records and never worry about being raided because they can't force you to decrypt anything, so they can't get at the evidence, so they can't prosecute you.
I'm sorry, but I don't think Mitnick should get his encrypted files back. Regardless of whether he deserved the prison sentence he got, he IS a criminal and those files may contain illegally gathered information. When you're arrested, the authorities have the right to search your home and go through all your belongings, including your computer files. When you're convicted, they have the right to put you in prison for years. I'm surprised the courts didn't force him to give up the key or face a much stiffer sentence. To knowingly give a criminal the spoils of his crimes after he is released from prison would be ridiculous. If the encrypted files really are innocuous, I don't think that forcing him to prove it before returning them is a violation of his rights.
James Cameron wanted a real novelization for The Abyss so he asked Card to do it. Card wrote a first chapter which detailed the main characters' development since childhood. Cameron gave these to the cast members before filming began to help them get into their characters. As the filming progressed, Cameron gave the footage immediately to Card to assist him in his novel. Card, in turn, gave his writings immediately to Cameron and his cast to assist them in the film. Both enjoyed this process and it seems to have worked as both the movie and the novel were great.
I loved Ender's Game. It's a classic piece of sci-fi literature that I've read and enjoyed many many times. One of the few things I did not like about it, however, and which I was hoping would not be in the movie, was the fantasy game with the giant which Ender outwits. I always thought it was unnecessary and distracting to the story. It also seemed silly that Ender could get past the giant which was supposed to be unpassable. I know, I know, the game was "self-modifying" and was actually being secretly controlled by the AI named Jane, but the programmers' response to Ender's slaying of the giant and entering an entirely new area of the game should have been to realize that something strange was up--that either someone or something must be hacking into the game because they didn't write that code. That the powers that be simply accepted this instead of launching an intense investigation always irked me.
VFX Pro has two indepth interviews from last April with John Gaeta, the visual effects supervisor for The Matrix, regarding this new virtual cinematography technique, dubbed "bullet time" by the Wachowski brothers. One is here and the other is here.
The server needs my IP to send me the page, but they don't NEED to keep it afterwards in a server log as a record of my visit. Yet they do so without my consent. They also write VBScript to specifically request your IP and store it in a database. You can get a lot of personal information from that IP and the database is theirs to do whatever they want with and sell to whoever they wish. I understand that this is different than what Comet Cursor has been doing, but isn't it still taking my information without my consent? The point I'm trying to make is that we don't seem to think of storing a record of our visits, through our IP, as an invasion of privacy. But it is, just the same.
Websites routinely store the IP addresses of their visitors for many different reasons. You can use it to generate stats for your site--how many unique visitors there are, what country are they from, how often they revisit, etc. You can use it as a unique ID for your users to prevent other users from impersonating them. You can use it to determine if someone is routinely attempting to cause harm to your site and then ban their IP address from visiting again. You can use it to determine the actual identity of someone who has caused serious harm to your site so that you can report them to legal authorities.
I wouldn't be surprised if Slashdot stores our IP address in our user profile.
This is common practice, but I've never heard of people getting upset about this. Why?
Since the mini-monitor only covers one eye, how can it have the effect of seeing a monitor floating in front of you? You should be seeing a completely different image out of each eye, just as you do with a camcorder.
I think consumers wouldn't have too much trouble accepting low-power lasers beamed into their eyes once they realized that it felt fine and doctors gave it a stamp of approval. We bought into the concept of contact lenses quickly enough. Besides, we all sit in front of big electron guns all day (TV's and monitors) and nobody minds that.
It certainly looks cool in a Borg sort of way but who wants to close one eye all time? And if you kept both eyes open, wouldn't this eventually cause headaches? Imagine looking through your camcorder all day long.
A much better approach is VR glasses which scan weak laserbeams directly onto your retina. The University of Washington has been working on this and have achieved 1280x760 resolution. I recall that another company had a working demo of this at least three years which they showed off at a major trade show, but I can't remember who they are (can anyone else?). Not only could this technology provide fully immersive VR, but if parts of the glasses' view area are transparent, then we could see our apps floating in front of us. Imagine walking around all day with your cool shades, seeing a stock ticker scroll by...
With all due respect, it is WAY to early to say that we've been looking "in vain" for signs of ET signals. So far, the SETI@Home project has only been looking for candidates. It is in the next phase that they begin to search just those candidates for repeat events. To quote from their October 22 announcement: SETI@home has now accumulated more than 100,000 years of computer time, more than any other computing project in history! We have recorded over 85 million "candidate signals" (spikes and Gaussians) in our database, and we're preparing to start the second phase of analysis, which will search these candidates looking for "repeat events". As jw3 has posted already, the human genome project is not well suited to distributed computing. SETI, on the other hand, is perfectly suited. Even though we may wind up with nothing to show for it, I think the project is still worthwhile because unlike other distributed computing projects (such as finding prime numbers, which is cool but won't actually benefit society in any way), the potential rewards of finding an ET signal are, quite literally, unimaginable. Imagine if someone suddenly gave us all the knowledge we ever wanted. Unlimited energy. Anti-gravity. Faster-than-light travel. This is the potential rewards of SETI and SETI@Home. Still think it's not worth looking?
Slashdot Mirror
That said, there is certainly an addictive quality to web surfing. When I first got my cable modem, it was hard to get my wife off the computer! It's common knowledge that computer games, especially online ones like EverQuest, seem to be even more addictive. I know one person whose marriage was ruined by playing EverQuest everyday. But then there are plenty more marriages ruined by gambling habits. I know others who spend so much time playing online that they rarely go out anymore. It's pretty hard to make new friends and meet women unless you physically leave the house. Maybe that's not important to them. Or maybe it is, but it's just easier not to try as long as there's something really fun to do instead--like playing games on the computer.
I personally think that it is possible to spend TOO much time online (i.e. to the detriment of one's social "well-being"). However, I think that it usually only becomes a real problem for those with addictive personality types. For most people, I think the internet promotes social interaction. It has even brought back the lost art of letter writing, except now we send it by e-mail instead of by post. It's far easier (and cheaper) to keep in touch with friends and family now than ever before.
Would you be so affronted by the governement refusing to return a briefcase (which they had been unable to open, for whatever reason) to someone who had just robbed a bank just because they can't PROVE that it contains stolen money and the convict refuses to prove to them that it DOESN'T contain stolen money?
This isn't quite the same as being guilty until proven innocent because he's already been proven guilty of something, to which the files in question may be related.
Only recently has encryption become so good as to be undecipherable (for all intents and purposes). So now we are forced with only two choices -- (a) to make life easier for criminals (by not demanding that they give up the keys to encrypted files) and more lucrative for criminals (by giving the files back after they served their time) or (b) to take a little bit of freedom away from everyone else by being allowed by law to demand that those either charged or convicted with a crime give up the key. Don't forget, there are already a LOT of liberties taken away from us as soon as we're charged with a crime. It's unfortunate, but a necessary evil if you are to actually convict anyone. Wouldn't it be rather silly if the authorities were NEVER allowed to search someone's house to gather evidence, no matter how much reason they had to believe that the evidence was there?
I said "may contain" illegally gathered information. And since the goverment has no way of knowing, giving him back his files MAY be the same as giving him the "spoils of his crimes." To require the governement to PROVE that encrypted seized files contain illegal information or evidence of illegal activities in order to keep them would make every criminal's life a whole lot easier. Just encrypt all your records and never worry about being raided because they can't force you to decrypt anything, so they can't get at the evidence, so they can't prosecute you.
I'm sorry, but I don't think Mitnick should get his encrypted files back. Regardless of whether he deserved the prison sentence he got, he IS a criminal and those files may contain illegally gathered information. When you're arrested, the authorities have the right to search your home and go through all your belongings, including your computer files. When you're convicted, they have the right to put you in prison for years. I'm surprised the courts didn't force him to give up the key or face a much stiffer sentence. To knowingly give a criminal the spoils of his crimes after he is released from prison would be ridiculous. If the encrypted files really are innocuous, I don't think that forcing him to prove it before returning them is a violation of his rights.
James Cameron wanted a real novelization for The Abyss so he asked Card to do it. Card wrote a first chapter which detailed the main characters' development since childhood. Cameron gave these to the cast members before filming began to help them get into their characters. As the filming progressed, Cameron gave the footage immediately to Card to assist him in his novel. Card, in turn, gave his writings immediately to Cameron and his cast to assist them in the film. Both enjoyed this process and it seems to have worked as both the movie and the novel were great.
I loved Ender's Game. It's a classic piece of sci-fi literature that I've read and enjoyed many many times. One of the few things I did not like about it, however, and which I was hoping would not be in the movie, was the fantasy game with the giant which Ender outwits. I always thought it was unnecessary and distracting to the story. It also seemed silly that Ender could get past the giant which was supposed to be unpassable. I know, I know, the game was "self-modifying" and was actually being secretly controlled by the AI named Jane, but the programmers' response to Ender's slaying of the giant and entering an entirely new area of the game should have been to realize that something strange was up--that either someone or something must be hacking into the game because they didn't write that code. That the powers that be simply accepted this instead of launching an intense investigation always irked me.
VFX Pro has two indepth interviews from last April with John Gaeta, the visual effects supervisor for The Matrix, regarding this new virtual cinematography technique, dubbed "bullet time" by the Wachowski brothers. One is here and the other is here.
My cable modem is definitely static. I can use DHCP, but it always gives me the IP that I was assigned at the beginning.
The server needs my IP to send me the page, but they don't NEED to keep it afterwards in a server log as a record of my visit. Yet they do so without my consent. They also write VBScript to specifically request your IP and store it in a database. You can get a lot of personal information from that IP and the database is theirs to do whatever they want with and sell to whoever they wish. I understand that this is different than what Comet Cursor has been doing, but isn't it still taking my information without my consent? The point I'm trying to make is that we don't seem to think of storing a record of our visits, through our IP, as an invasion of privacy. But it is, just the same.
I wouldn't be surprised if Slashdot stores our IP address in our user profile.
This is common practice, but I've never heard of people getting upset about this. Why?
I think consumers wouldn't have too much trouble accepting low-power lasers beamed into their eyes once they realized that it felt fine and doctors gave it a stamp of approval. We bought into the concept of contact lenses quickly enough. Besides, we all sit in front of big electron guns all day (TV's and monitors) and nobody minds that.
A much better approach is VR glasses which scan weak laserbeams directly onto your retina. The University of Washington has been working on this and have achieved 1280x760 resolution. I recall that another company had a working demo of this at least three years which they showed off at a major trade show, but I can't remember who they are (can anyone else?). Not only could this technology provide fully immersive VR, but if parts of the glasses' view area are transparent, then we could see our apps floating in front of us. Imagine walking around all day with your cool shades, seeing a stock ticker scroll by...
With all due respect, it is WAY to early to say that we've been looking "in vain" for signs of ET signals. So far, the SETI@Home project has only been looking for candidates. It is in the next phase that they begin to search just those candidates for repeat events. To quote from their October 22 announcement: SETI@home has now accumulated more than 100,000 years of computer time, more than any other computing project in history! We have recorded over 85 million "candidate signals" (spikes and Gaussians) in our database, and we're preparing to start the second phase of analysis, which will search these candidates looking for "repeat events". As jw3 has posted already, the human genome project is not well suited to distributed computing. SETI, on the other hand, is perfectly suited. Even though we may wind up with nothing to show for it, I think the project is still worthwhile because unlike other distributed computing projects (such as finding prime numbers, which is cool but won't actually benefit society in any way), the potential rewards of finding an ET signal are, quite literally, unimaginable. Imagine if someone suddenly gave us all the knowledge we ever wanted. Unlimited energy. Anti-gravity. Faster-than-light travel. This is the potential rewards of SETI and SETI@Home. Still think it's not worth looking?