Code which is placed on the internet by its author, without any license or qualification as to what it may be used for, is free for anyone to use, at least in the US. Period.
If you aren't certain the "author" is really the author, or you aren't willing to risk being sued even though you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't use the code -- just as you shouldn't pick a quarter up off the road unless you want to risk being accused, wrongly, of stealing it from someone who'd just set it down.
In either case, the law is on your side when you use the code or the quarter, but, of course, someone may still sue you. The relevant analogies all hold, and nothing about it was asinine.
The case of the manuscript, as you posted it, is an asinine comparison, though. A manuscript which is on the ground is nothing like code *posted by its author on the internet*, in a forum, point of posting in which is to allow other people to use the code.
A manuscript on the street is not free for use, as intellectual property, unless it is released for such use. It is not released for such use by merely being dropped on the street, by an unknown person, for unknown (or no) reasons. By relinquishing possession of a single copy of the manuscript, the author has not necessarily relinquished possession of the content of the manuscript.
On the other hand, a person who drops a quarter and walks away *has* relinquished possession of the quarter *and the right to use the quarter*. In the same way, an author who posts code on an internet programming forum without qualifying the post in anyway has released that code for use without a license. Yet, again, dropping a book on the ground, which may or may not be copyrighted, etc., does not mean relinquishing possession of the book, it only means relinquishing possession of the manuscript, not of rights to use the content of the book.
Therefore, a man who finds a quarter on the ground or code posted by its author on a forum without any qualifications has a right to use them. A person who finds a manuscript on the ground has no guarantee that the author hasn't copyrighted the book, etc. It wasn't "posted" by its author, and it isn't a finder's-keepers matter like a quarter, because it's intellectual property which exists outside of the physical manuscript.
So, rubber and glue, baby. Quarters and author-posted-no-license-code are for use when found, and manuscripts are not necessarily. Therefore, my quarter and code analogy was good, and your manuscript and code analogy reeks.
I said code posted by the author -- not code posted.
If it's of uncertain origin, obviously that's not kosher. (Or, technically, it is of uncertain kosher-ness.)
Therefore, I agree that CYA (whatever that is, but I'll go with you) dictates you re-write it.
But, again, if it's posted by the author, which was stated in the question, and the author notes no license, then there is no license. He is implicitly releasing the code without any license by posting it on the web without noting a license.
If you have a better way to code that section, then do so, and tell your project leader the truth if he asks -- tell him you replaced it because you could improve it, and tell him you saw it on the web if you're so interested in the subject.
200 lines of code from the Internet, posted by their author, are free. Period. Nothing to worry about. Not everything needs a license to be used. Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
No, you just used it. And that's what you do with code with no attached license which is posted on the Internet by it's author. Enjoy.
Man, this society has become ridiculously litigious when people are hung up about this stuff.
...is that this is how human beings spent the vast majority of their evolution checking how much of something is left.
You'd hold it, feel it, shake it, or at least eyeball it in three dimensions.
Any way of making our experience of how much power is left more like the way we did it for most of our history is just naturally appealing to human beings.
It's not that it's more "functional" in some sense that is detached from our simple, arbitrary preferences -- it's functional in the sense that the purpose technology is to make us happy, and being able to feel a quantity of something, for no particularly "good" reason, makes people happy because it's familiar.
Any of the other benefits are just gravy. I could definitely see this catching on if this effect can be implemented in a way which feels natural (literally) and is affordable.
The effect shouldn't require active shaking of the object, even -- you should be able to feel the weight constantly, and the shifting of the weight should be evident anytime the phone is moving or has just stopped moving.
There is no way in which such a feature wouldn't be superior to a solely visual mechanism, and it would just feel good.
But they didn't ask if you wanted a rootkit -- they asked if you wanted a secure connection!
(And getting a secure connection is quite opposite to getting a rootkit.)
The idea isn't "stupid" or "retarded".
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
As someone else implied, he's right that bots will click yes (I suppose). But the problem is *everyone* clicks yes to *that* question, or at least *most real users* do, too!
A better test, as someone else suggested, would be to ask that question until the user clicks cancel, and only a bot would click yes more than 10 times.
An *even better* test (one that makes a little sense) would be to put up a question that no rational user would click yes to. (E.g. "Would you like to be INFECTED with a rootkit." -- you've got to caps the infected, because rootkit might sound appealing, like root beer.)
And the best solution, as previously mentioned, was to practice safe security with all your users. Get some "latex" between you and all users.
I have no idea why this was posted. Or, maybe I do: because it's so stupid it's interesting that some "professional" would say it.
Just goes to show: "professional" just means you conned someone into paying you -- it doesn't mean you know anything more than an "amateur".
"Do you let your kids wander about unsupervised through the real world?"
As a matter of fact, yes I would. They'd spend time that is not supervised by me "wandering" (or, hopefully, "moving with purpose").
Do you never let your children out of your sight? And do you have even a partial log of what they did in the real world? The ability to monitor our children on the home computer without taking unreasonable measures gives you an advantage, yet some want to strap limits of all kinds on commerce and speech -- all of this activity focused on the 2% of abuse that involves the net, rather than the 98% that doesn't, and about which we could actually do something. (You reach the point of diminishing returns in protecting against internet safety as soon as you monitor your child's browser history, but almost no parents do a reasonable job of protecting their kids from real world dangers. This is like the fear of flying among people who have no problem with driving.)
Then why are we taking or talking about taking extraordinary measures to safeguard our children on the 'net -- when as was written by another poster (I'm taking his word for it but I think he posted a source), about 2% of the abuse is on the net, the rest is in the real world.
In the real world, where, as another poster intelligently noted, the real dangers are close enough for you to touch -- they are people you know! You've heard this before, but I suggest you take that more seriously.
Basically, people hurt kids more than people on the net do -- and how deeply do you dig to find out about every single adult you allow your child to be around? If you could have a log of their activity in the real world, couldn't you stop there? Well you can't but you already have one for the net. Yet you want to push it even further!
It's so extreme, wanting Facebook to take measures to ensure the real identity of users -- even though you can already monitor the activity of your kids, that it's like wanting your local Boy Scout to put a P.I on every prospective troop leader for a year before they're approved -- despite the fact that you have a transcript of every interaction between the scout leader and your child. Yeah, yeah, they can go to other houses. But still, most use of the 'net is at home for most kids with a home internet connection.
I'm not suggesting people be lax about internet safety -- I'm suggesting that people should be consistent regarding the measures we take against internet safety and real world safety.
Which would mean devoting 2%, or so, as much time on 'net safety as on real world safety. Can you say you're doing that?
And I'll echo the critics of our belief in the magic age of 18 and the critics of the idea that keeping the computer in a common room in the house is a magic solution with a bit of synthesis -- when your kid is 18, and she's got a computer in his room (or *her* home), do you want her to arrange meetings for sex over the 'net? To be "preyed" upon by someone seeking sex on the 'net?
Well, shouldn't you place the focus on teaching your kids how to act -- along with reasonable observation in order to confirm the lessons are sinking in -- both on the 'net and in the real world -- the real world, remember, being where the abuse actually takes place, regardless of how it was arranged.
Basically, spend at least as much time on the phone with your child's friend's parents as checking out their internet activity, and do not confuse treating your child like a moron with protecting them. Keeping a computer out of their room for the purpose of protecting them from the unlikely event of internet related abuse is silly if you're not going to somehow ensure that they aren't becoming involved with some pervert in the real world, as happens with 98% of the cases.
98%. So, start thinking about all the people your children spend time with in the real world... and get used to the idea that the world will never be safe.
You can ask Facebook to mail schools about the identity of kids when you ask Schwinn to start putting alarms on their bikes that'll go off every time some After School Special-type predator pulls a 3rd grader off her bike.
"These side branches also failed to make conventional connections, or synapses" and "Linden thinks they may present a second mechanism for conveying information beyond traditional synapses or assist in nerve regeneration, quickly forming synapses should nearby nerves get damaged."
That pretty much says it: they just sit there and do nothing but replace good ones.
Or they really think it provides a "second mechanism for conveying information beyond traditional synapses" -- but how can it convey information if it's not making "synapses", i.e. connections??? (And aren't synapses the way information is transmitted?) You have to "convey" information somewhere.
Or did they really have a machine that can see "traditional synapses" but can't see "non-traditional synapses"? It's a physical connection, right? How can you see one kind and not the other if you see the potential components of the connection?
No creator of a product is going to want to limit so-called "addiction" (the word "habit" used to work fine, by the way, and it didn't impose a disease metaphor on habitual behaviors that didn't interfere with function) to his product, you've got that right.
Talking about "losing the next generation of addicts" to games is, first of all, disgustingly defeatist and secondly misleading.
People can play video games and take opiates habitually, for example, without interfering with leading a functional life. They cannot however, take crack habitually and do the same. So, why use the word "addict" to refer to all those groups of people?
Why throw around the word addiction when it confuses the matter? Are you one of those who defines addiction as a disease? If so, then it requires interference with living a normal life, which is something video games do in only a very small minority of people who "play a bit too much", including kids. Those kids whose parents wish for them to play less are not "addicted" if you're using the strong (i.e. disease) definition of addiction, or rather are very unlikely to be "addicted" (i.e. suffering a "disease"[other than human-ness] which is compelling them to play to an extent that it negatively impacts their life). And, if you're not using that definition, then why use the word addiction when you could simply use habit and be clear?
Ever see the South Park episode where Stan's Dad becomes an alcoholic, an "addict" with a "disease"? "Let me through, I've got a terrible disease -- I'm an addict."
"Let me through, I've got a terrible disease, it's called addiction. The only thing that can save me is a timer."
So, I guess you think that video game addicts can have a little taste now and then, as long as they don't go over the limits they can't go over even if they wanted?
Addicts, pushaw... 'Tis a dirty word, owned by the prohibitionists and the moronic and biased field of "addiction medicine", a word which does little to communicate any objective reality and instead serves to impose its own ideological framework for understanding human choice.
I don't believe we have real free will, but that goes for everyone, not just "addicts".
So, ditch that word. Dr. Drew took a sh*t on it years ago, along with a whole mess of other idiots, and now it's too tainted to be useful to anyone. Don't sully yourself by using it.
Addiction: the only disease that can exist in the absence of any functional deficit, and which is diagnosed merely owing to a bias against certain substances. (And, apparently, now video games.)
Dig: (1) I take vitamin C daily and live a healthy life. (2) I take Prozac daily and live a healthy life. (3) I take morphine daily and live a healthy life.
Why is it that doing #1 and #2 do not constitute a disease, but #3 does according to some?
How is it that all other diseases require a deficit in functionality, actual dys-function or dis-ease, yet addiction is applied by some to those who are completely functional (i.e. healthy)? It's absurd. The reason #3 is called a disease by some, and not #1 and #2 is because #3 is a drug which makes people feel happy sometimes and we've inherited a variety of puritanical traditions.
(Now, taking alcohol everyday in decent amounts would reduce function, therefore it would qualify as a disease. But not all who take opiates or Prozac have problems because of taking them. Especially not all who take opiates (Prozac is pretty nasty).)
Luckily, many professionals do recognize that if "addiction" is to be considered a disease, reduced function, rather than merely taking drugs which society has arbitrarily made illegal and demonized, is required to consider someone addicted. More don't, however.
And most regular people, with a daily habit or two of their own which doesn't impair their functioning or actually enhances it, do not realize this.
Therefore, you'd do best to leave the word "addiction" out of any discussion you have
It's worth it. That's all there is to it -- it's just one of those basic value: love is good, hate is bad, finding aliens is good, not looking is bad. End of story.
How about this idea? Parents could actually make sure their kids didn't play too much by -- get this -- being somewhere near their kids when their kids are out of school or at least knowing what they're doing!
And, once the kids are older and away from parents outside of school, parents could pay enough attention to their kids to make sure they are healthy. If the kids are healthy, they aren't playing too many video games -- and they are unlikely to begin playing too many games. And, if the kid isn't healthy, the parents could intervene by making sure he engages in enough healthy behaviors (social, intellectual, and physical) so that his video game playing couldn't possibly reach unhealthy proportions. That will make a lasting difference.
Do you really think that if your kid has a problem with playing games too much, that a simple timer will stop him? Do you think he won't play games on his other two systems (which he already has if he has an XBox), on the computer, at a friends house, or that he won't just watch TV or something else that has the same effect on a child's health? (I.e. socially isolating, intellectually retarding, and emotionally unstimulating[?])
Or, at best, if he really only has an XBox and doesn't like TV and you have Cyber Nannies of all sorts on your computer, but he has a problem with playing games too much -- do you think that if the root of the problem isn't addressed (lack of appreciation of the activities which are most essentially human outside of pure "recreation" [that often involves little or no creation])???? He'll just fulfill his full potential for playing video games for inordinate amounts of time when he's cut loose! Or, even if he outgrows the video game obsession by the time he's out from under the control of your XBox timer, what's to say that the root problem that lead to too much game play won't lead to other problems?
Imagine that! Parents being truly involved is the best solution!
But, I bet the XBox will do a better job of keeping kids healthy than parents who actually read a book or two, find some common sense, learn to truly love their kids, and spend some time with them. Sure it will...
Bottom line, parents need to be aware of their child's health as a person, not just a physical being, and need to intervene when necessary. It doesn't mean your child is "diseased" just 'cause he plays too many games, he's just not ideally healthy. And I'm not the thought police here, and I recognize the right of people (including children) to live as they wish, but children need guidance. Not so many timers, just more guidance. It doesn't need to be painful in the least, especially if you start playing an important role in molding your child into a well-rounded human being at an early age!
But, if you haven't taken any action in your kid's life yet and he plays too many games and he's already 13 or so, you might just want to turn on the timer and call it a day while they figure out their way around it instead of doing their homework or taking a walk... For your own health, that is.;) (J/k! Deal with your kids people!)
Yes, I absolutely agree with you, at least to a certain extent. Cognitive dissonance is sometimes resolved by something that could be called synthesis, but synthesis can resemble rejection of one thought or the other. How? Because one valid synthesis is thus: "I hold both proposition A and proposition B to be true. Belief in each proposition implies a ideal course of action (behavior) which excludes the behavior which is implied to be ideal by the other proposition. Therefore, an individual who demonstrates that they "experience" cognitive dissonance (i.e. they hold beliefs which "recommend" different courses of action) may appear to have rejected one previously believed proposition, because they take a course of action.
See? Because they are taking any action at all, you assume they have rejected one of the propositions! This is because you are trying to determine which thoughts are held by behavior. As my post here implies, there is an assumption built into using behavior to gauge the existence of cognitive dissonance: "Acting in a way which would be recommended by proposition A, when it was demonstrated that previously proposition A and B are believed, and when proposition A and proposition B imply different courses of action, means that proposition B has been rejected." Why is it not possible that there is a "synthesis" in which proposition B is not rejected, but is simply ignored when action must be taken?
Is it not possible that they have synthesized the propositions, as in the general template below? The synthesis says "Yeah, I believe both are true, but since they imply actions which exclude one another, I will simply pick one of the actions. The synthesis is "I believe both, but I'm going to only act on my belief in one." Calling this a rejection is misleading, although this may be exactly what the article had in mind when it refers to rejection.
For example, the synthesis some people seem to have come up with to remedy the cognitive dissonance caused by holding the following beliefs: 1) "Bombing Iran is stupid" 2) "But we haven't started any wars in a few years and I'd like to blow something up" -- the synthesis they come up with is thus: "Bombing Iran is stupid, but let's do it anyways."
This amounts to a rejection of the thought #1 for all practical purposes -- that is, the behavior that would be recommended by someone who holds belief #1 and believes it should be acted on is not taken.The thought, however, is included in the synthesis, but the action "advised" by the thought is not taken. The cognitive dissonance is resolved -- action is taken, yet the person still holds both statements as true; they simply do not do what you would expect a person who holds one of the thoughts to be true would do, although they still recognize the truth of that statement.
Ya har me?
And, here's a totally different psychological principle that could be used to explain what happened in the experiment (which I'll first list):
1) Monkey likes A, B, and C equally.
2) Monkey is forced to choose between A and B. Monkey chooses A.
3) Monkey is forced to choose between B and C. Monkey chooses C.
Well, what principle for guiding action developed -- and was shown to not result in grievous harm (i.e. the monkey acted on the principle and was not harmed as a result) -- in step 2 which could be used to guide behavior in step 3?
This: that avoiding B doesn't result in any problems. Therefore, the monkey chose to avoid B in step 3. It couldn't have acted on the fact that choosing A in step 2 didn't result in harm -- because A was not a choice in step 3. And it couldn't have acted on the knowledge that choosing A, B, and C equally often in step 1 resulted in no harm -- because the monkey was forced to choose between B and C, a single time.
Therefore, one could explain the monkeys behavior thusly: "The monkey used the only behavior-guiding principle which was shown to be safe and w
Why not say that they see the dogs as a peer -- and see the robots like they see the dogs, as peers? They're nearly at the same intelligence level, and are definitely nearly as functional as other children as playmates. The same -- and this doesn't make either dogs or kids look too good -- can be said of little robots. Not all kids (obviously), but very young children.
So apparently robots, dogs, and kids interact on roughly the same level... or, in other words, dogs and little robots are developed enough as social animals to entertain each other.
At the very least, some youngsters can be described as having a peer relationship with little robots and dogs.
...already illegal. And, oh yeah, make it legal for adult human beings to make their own firecrackers a safe distance from other humans. If you blow someone up, that's illegal, though. That'll punish people who hurt others, while leaving us free to do chemistry (or make firecrackers and do drugs). Making meth in your apartment? Illegal. Making it in your home on 20 acres? Legal. Now we can buy Sudafed again.
Did you know that the ingredient in Adderall is amphetamine? So... they make the 8 year olds take amphetamine, but the 30 year olds have to show their ID to take Claritin, for the fear that some other 30 year old (or 8 year old) might actually get his hands on some methamphetamine. (Of course, the 8 year old is already on amphetamine, so...)
We could even do drugs while making firecrackers with our chemistry set -- a safe distance from others. Why? 'Cause we're adults in what would be (and should be) a free country! We could even take some pills to die if we were sick (rather than have the Congress investigate just how mushy and/or non-existent my brain-dead brain is because of some Christian dictum that is unapologetically introduced into the dialogue by successful politicians into the political process in our supposedly secular country to limit our freedom. It's absurd. They won't stop -- whether it's guarding the state (unsuccessfully) at the expense of essential liberty, or imposing Christian morality through legislation, they just don't quit.)...And if someone got blown up? Well, it'd happen. It'd be a lot rarer than the deaths from stress and boredom whatnot that are brought on by the stress of living in an unfree and increasingly police-state-like world, I'd wager. But it'd happen. You know what? It would be sad. And if someone else did it to him, we'd put him in jail. Sure, we could've stopped every single other person from making firecrackers, but then we wouldn't have our freedom. And, to top it off, the people who really wanted to blow people up -- which is most of the people who'd blow people up even if it were legal to make firecrackers -- are going to do it even if it's illegal to possess the necessary equipment. Guess what? They don't care -- cause they were going to do something illegal (and truly criminal) anyways.
So... what are we left with? A world without freedom AND with the same problems. A couple more fingers on hands, but no fewer terrorists and a lot more exploding meth labs. (More than the roughly ZERO you'd encounter if we legalized drugs for adults. We could stop giving serious drugs to kid, too. Or at least stop letting government controlled public schools force relatively healthy ADD kids to take drugs. Basically, if the medicine the government thinks that what a kid needs is speed, the problem isn't serious enough that they should have the power to force him to take amphetamines!! Feed the kids speed, and don't let the adults get at decongestants that could be used to make speed. Brilliant.)
Has anyone else thought of this, or was it just me?
It seems like they think that because the world is dangerous, we must reduce freedoms to try to mitigate that.
How odd! It's not practical (because we barely put a mark on the danger factor) and it's hateful towards everything I thought decent adult human beings were about. Namely FREEDOM! Freedom, to live this -- you do remember, it's the only one we get? -- life. One try. And someone else is going to tell me how I must spend it if I want to live outside of a cage. Thanks. Do not pass go. Do not collect two hundred dollars.
This is America, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM!
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
We've really f'ed it up, people were so inattentive and complacent, that they let the government take our freedom. Unbelievable. And now they have the technology to do it.
Why couldn't I have been born 150 years ago???? I could've used drugs for 70 years, and mad
Like the guy in the article said, people'll put it on a USB. And they said they'd never be able to detect the images "in the wild" anyhow as the "signatures" aren't known! So, who cares, if there's nothing to be done "in the wild" anyhow?
Tell you wot, though: cigarettes don't actually cause the productivity losses and medical expenses some people think.
1) Medical expenses: people who smoke get sick with diseases a few years earlier than people who don't. They just die earlier. They don't get more expensive diseases. 2) When someone dies, they reduce nationwide (or worldwide) *production*, not *productivity*.
However, the medical expenses are being incurred because of a person who is going to put fewer years of productive work in, so...
Anyhow, I agree with your point (or at least agree that it needs to be made) that causing inconvenience is not a crime, a crime is causing somebody's property damage *directly* (or taking it from them), or causing damage to another person directly (in a gross manner). It's just that you get to a sticky situation with "directly" and with "gross". Neither of those come anywhere near to applying to drugs or prostitution, though. Hmmm... Maybe our legal system is totally screwed up? Either way, outlawing spam is definitely borderline with regards to how well it conforms to these simple notions about crime which guide the rest of our legal code, which is why I initially said that the five year penalty sounds like too, too much.
Still, there's a much more widespread problem, with *millions* of victims, rather than... uh... *two*. I'll worry more about the spammers who're getting screwed once I see the roughly 50% of people in prisons, people jailed on drug related offenses (i.e. they made the mistake of sitting at home and getting high instead of drunk, or selling a drug to someone who wanted to sit at home and get high instead of drunk) released and never again replaced by this human gristmill we call the *War* on Citizens of Our Own Country Who Use (Some Irrationally Selected) Drugs.
If you sit up straight and don't type literally non-stop all day long with your hands in a weird position, you'll be fine.
The people who have problems are doing some extreme activity, like non-stop typing -- or they're simply pre-disposed to carpal tunnel syndrome in the first place!
If I'm not mistaken, carpal tunnel is about connective tissue like tendons or whatever.
So, when the article asks the reader whether or not computers are the cause of problems with joints, I hope nobody thought, "yeah, it does": the idea that the minute pressure you put on the bones in your fingers and arms are causing problems with your joints cause a problem is ridiculous. Your spine from bad posture could be hurt. However, that's not a consequence of computer use, it's a consequence of bad posture.
And I honestly think this penalty is a bit overboard, and I've never before been in favor of going easier on white collar crime than the courts do.
These guys couldn't have cost anyone that much money with a bunch of spam emails. 5 years is just too much when you're talking about a crime that was basically very much in a grey area until recently and against the existence of which there is a strong argument.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not asinine.
Code which is placed on the internet by its author, without any license or qualification as to what it may be used for, is free for anyone to use, at least in the US. Period.
If you aren't certain the "author" is really the author, or you aren't willing to risk being sued even though you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't use the code -- just as you shouldn't pick a quarter up off the road unless you want to risk being accused, wrongly, of stealing it from someone who'd just set it down.
In either case, the law is on your side when you use the code or the quarter, but, of course, someone may still sue you. The relevant analogies all hold, and nothing about it was asinine.
The case of the manuscript, as you posted it, is an asinine comparison, though. A manuscript which is on the ground is nothing like code *posted by its author on the internet*, in a forum, point of posting in which is to allow other people to use the code.
A manuscript on the street is not free for use, as intellectual property, unless it is released for such use. It is not released for such use by merely being dropped on the street, by an unknown person, for unknown (or no) reasons. By relinquishing possession of a single copy of the manuscript, the author has not necessarily relinquished possession of the content of the manuscript.
On the other hand, a person who drops a quarter and walks away *has* relinquished possession of the quarter *and the right to use the quarter*. In the same way, an author who posts code on an internet programming forum without qualifying the post in anyway has released that code for use without a license. Yet, again, dropping a book on the ground, which may or may not be copyrighted, etc., does not mean relinquishing possession of the book, it only means relinquishing possession of the manuscript, not of rights to use the content of the book.
Therefore, a man who finds a quarter on the ground or code posted by its author on a forum without any qualifications has a right to use them. A person who finds a manuscript on the ground has no guarantee that the author hasn't copyrighted the book, etc. It wasn't "posted" by its author, and it isn't a finder's-keepers matter like a quarter, because it's intellectual property which exists outside of the physical manuscript.
So, rubber and glue, baby. Quarters and author-posted-no-license-code are for use when found, and manuscripts are not necessarily. Therefore, my quarter and code analogy was good, and your manuscript and code analogy reeks.
I said code posted by the author -- not code posted.
If it's of uncertain origin, obviously that's not kosher. (Or, technically, it is of uncertain kosher-ness.)
Therefore, I agree that CYA (whatever that is, but I'll go with you) dictates you re-write it.
But, again, if it's posted by the author, which was stated in the question, and the author notes no license, then there is no license. He is implicitly releasing the code without any license by posting it on the web without noting a license.
...in every sense of the word.
If you have a better way to code that section, then do so, and tell your project leader the truth if he asks -- tell him you replaced it because you could improve it, and tell him you saw it on the web if you're so interested in the subject.
200 lines of code from the Internet, posted by their author, are free. Period. Nothing to worry about. Not everything needs a license to be used. Ever find a quarter on the ground? Somebody ever give you one? Did you require a deed to prove you had the right to the quarter?
No, you just used it. And that's what you do with code with no attached license which is posted on the Internet by it's author. Enjoy.
Man, this society has become ridiculously litigious when people are hung up about this stuff.
...is that this is how human beings spent the vast majority of their evolution checking how much of something is left.
You'd hold it, feel it, shake it, or at least eyeball it in three dimensions.
Any way of making our experience of how much power is left more like the way we did it for most of our history is just naturally appealing to human beings.
It's not that it's more "functional" in some sense that is detached from our simple, arbitrary preferences -- it's functional in the sense that the purpose technology is to make us happy, and being able to feel a quantity of something, for no particularly "good" reason, makes people happy because it's familiar.
Any of the other benefits are just gravy. I could definitely see this catching on if this effect can be implemented in a way which feels natural (literally) and is affordable.
The effect shouldn't require active shaking of the object, even -- you should be able to feel the weight constantly, and the shifting of the weight should be evident anytime the phone is moving or has just stopped moving.
There is no way in which such a feature wouldn't be superior to a solely visual mechanism, and it would just feel good.
Good English is a necessity if you wish to communicate good.
But they didn't ask if you wanted a rootkit -- they asked if you wanted a secure connection!
(And getting a secure connection is quite opposite to getting a rootkit.)
The idea isn't "stupid" or "retarded".
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
As someone else implied, he's right that bots will click yes (I suppose). But the problem is *everyone* clicks yes to *that* question, or at least *most real users* do, too!
A better test, as someone else suggested, would be to ask that question until the user clicks cancel, and only a bot would click yes more than 10 times.
An *even better* test (one that makes a little sense) would be to put up a question that no rational user would click yes to. (E.g. "Would you like to be INFECTED with a rootkit." -- you've got to caps the infected, because rootkit might sound appealing, like root beer.)
And the best solution, as previously mentioned, was to practice safe security with all your users. Get some "latex" between you and all users.
I have no idea why this was posted. Or, maybe I do: because it's so stupid it's interesting that some "professional" would say it.
Just goes to show: "professional" just means you conned someone into paying you -- it doesn't mean you know anything more than an "amateur".
yes. it was a lame joke.
Vanishes Again, and continues hacking while invisible -- that's right, just like before, they'll continue hacking. And they're using new IP's!
How unusual.
"Do you let your kids wander about unsupervised through the real world?"
As a matter of fact, yes I would. They'd spend time that is not supervised by me "wandering" (or, hopefully, "moving with purpose").
Do you never let your children out of your sight? And do you have even a partial log of what they did in the real world? The ability to monitor our children on the home computer without taking unreasonable measures gives you an advantage, yet some want to strap limits of all kinds on commerce and speech -- all of this activity focused on the 2% of abuse that involves the net, rather than the 98% that doesn't, and about which we could actually do something. (You reach the point of diminishing returns in protecting against internet safety as soon as you monitor your child's browser history, but almost no parents do a reasonable job of protecting their kids from real world dangers. This is like the fear of flying among people who have no problem with driving.)
Then why are we taking or talking about taking extraordinary measures to safeguard our children on the 'net -- when as was written by another poster (I'm taking his word for it but I think he posted a source), about 2% of the abuse is on the net, the rest is in the real world.
In the real world, where, as another poster intelligently noted, the real dangers are close enough for you to touch -- they are people you know! You've heard this before, but I suggest you take that more seriously.
Basically, people hurt kids more than people on the net do -- and how deeply do you dig to find out about every single adult you allow your child to be around? If you could have a log of their activity in the real world, couldn't you stop there? Well you can't but you already have one for the net. Yet you want to push it even further!
It's so extreme, wanting Facebook to take measures to ensure the real identity of users -- even though you can already monitor the activity of your kids, that it's like wanting your local Boy Scout to put a P.I on every prospective troop leader for a year before they're approved -- despite the fact that you have a transcript of every interaction between the scout leader and your child. Yeah, yeah, they can go to other houses. But still, most use of the 'net is at home for most kids with a home internet connection.
I'm not suggesting people be lax about internet safety -- I'm suggesting that people should be consistent regarding the measures we take against internet safety and real world safety.
Which would mean devoting 2%, or so, as much time on 'net safety as on real world safety. Can you say you're doing that?
And I'll echo the critics of our belief in the magic age of 18 and the critics of the idea that keeping the computer in a common room in the house is a magic solution with a bit of synthesis -- when your kid is 18, and she's got a computer in his room (or *her* home), do you want her to arrange meetings for sex over the 'net? To be "preyed" upon by someone seeking sex on the 'net?
Well, shouldn't you place the focus on teaching your kids how to act -- along with reasonable observation in order to confirm the lessons are sinking in -- both on the 'net and in the real world -- the real world, remember, being where the abuse actually takes place, regardless of how it was arranged.
Basically, spend at least as much time on the phone with your child's friend's parents as checking out their internet activity, and do not confuse treating your child like a moron with protecting them. Keeping a computer out of their room for the purpose of protecting them from the unlikely event of internet related abuse is silly if you're not going to somehow ensure that they aren't becoming involved with some pervert in the real world, as happens with 98% of the cases.
98%. So, start thinking about all the people your children spend time with in the real world... and get used to the idea that the world will never be safe.
You can ask Facebook to mail schools about the identity of kids when you ask Schwinn to start putting alarms on their bikes that'll go off every time some After School Special-type predator pulls a 3rd grader off her bike.
...they HAVE NOT completed the virtual reality porn machine.
What is up with the sex panther???? Are they paying you?
"These side branches also failed to make conventional connections, or synapses" and "Linden thinks they may present a second mechanism for conveying information beyond traditional synapses or assist in nerve regeneration, quickly forming synapses should nearby nerves get damaged."
That pretty much says it: they just sit there and do nothing but replace good ones.
Or they really think it provides a "second mechanism for conveying information beyond traditional synapses" -- but how can it convey information if it's not making "synapses", i.e. connections??? (And aren't synapses the way information is transmitted?) You have to "convey" information somewhere.
Or did they really have a machine that can see "traditional synapses" but can't see "non-traditional synapses"? It's a physical connection, right? How can you see one kind and not the other if you see the potential components of the connection?
No creator of a product is going to want to limit so-called "addiction" (the word "habit" used to work fine, by the way, and it didn't impose a disease metaphor on habitual behaviors that didn't interfere with function) to his product, you've got that right.
Talking about "losing the next generation of addicts" to games is, first of all, disgustingly defeatist and secondly misleading.
People can play video games and take opiates habitually, for example, without interfering with leading a functional life. They cannot however, take crack habitually and do the same. So, why use the word "addict" to refer to all those groups of people?
Why throw around the word addiction when it confuses the matter? Are you one of those who defines addiction as a disease? If so, then it requires interference with living a normal life, which is something video games do in only a very small minority of people who "play a bit too much", including kids. Those kids whose parents wish for them to play less are not "addicted" if you're using the strong (i.e. disease) definition of addiction, or rather are very unlikely to be "addicted" (i.e. suffering a "disease"[other than human-ness] which is compelling them to play to an extent that it negatively impacts their life). And, if you're not using that definition, then why use the word addiction when you could simply use habit and be clear?
Ever see the South Park episode where Stan's Dad becomes an alcoholic, an "addict" with a "disease"? "Let me through, I've got a terrible disease -- I'm an addict."
"Let me through, I've got a terrible disease, it's called addiction. The only thing that can save me is a timer."
So, I guess you think that video game addicts can have a little taste now and then, as long as they don't go over the limits they can't go over even if they wanted?
Addicts, pushaw... 'Tis a dirty word, owned by the prohibitionists and the moronic and biased field of "addiction medicine", a word which does little to communicate any objective reality and instead serves to impose its own ideological framework for understanding human choice.
I don't believe we have real free will, but that goes for everyone, not just "addicts".
So, ditch that word. Dr. Drew took a sh*t on it years ago, along with a whole mess of other idiots, and now it's too tainted to be useful to anyone. Don't sully yourself by using it.
Addiction: the only disease that can exist in the absence of any functional deficit, and which is diagnosed merely owing to a bias against certain substances. (And, apparently, now video games.)
Dig:
(1) I take vitamin C daily and live a healthy life.
(2) I take Prozac daily and live a healthy life.
(3) I take morphine daily and live a healthy life.
Why is it that doing #1 and #2 do not constitute a disease, but #3 does according to some?
How is it that all other diseases require a deficit in functionality, actual dys-function or dis-ease, yet addiction is applied by some to those who are completely functional (i.e. healthy)? It's absurd. The reason #3 is called a disease by some, and not #1 and #2 is because #3 is a drug which makes people feel happy sometimes and we've inherited a variety of puritanical traditions.
(Now, taking alcohol everyday in decent amounts would reduce function, therefore it would qualify as a disease. But not all who take opiates or Prozac have problems because of taking them. Especially not all who take opiates (Prozac is pretty nasty).)
Luckily, many professionals do recognize that if "addiction" is to be considered a disease, reduced function, rather than merely taking drugs which society has arbitrarily made illegal and demonized, is required to consider someone addicted. More don't, however.
And most regular people, with a daily habit or two of their own which doesn't impair their functioning or actually enhances it, do not realize this.
Therefore, you'd do best to leave the word "addiction" out of any discussion you have
Ooh, a redundant tag, that really hurts my pride.
But the truth is what I said wasn't said, at least not exactly, not without important differences.
So, basically, I fart in your general direction, redundant tag placer-man.
It's worth it. That's all there is to it -- it's just one of those basic value: love is good, hate is bad, finding aliens is good, not looking is bad. End of story.
Aliens rule!!
How about this idea? Parents could actually make sure their kids didn't play too much by -- get this -- being somewhere near their kids when their kids are out of school or at least knowing what they're doing!
;) (J/k! Deal with your kids people!)
And, once the kids are older and away from parents outside of school, parents could pay enough attention to their kids to make sure they are healthy. If the kids are healthy, they aren't playing too many video games -- and they are unlikely to begin playing too many games. And, if the kid isn't healthy, the parents could intervene by making sure he engages in enough healthy behaviors (social, intellectual, and physical) so that his video game playing couldn't possibly reach unhealthy proportions. That will make a lasting difference.
Do you really think that if your kid has a problem with playing games too much, that a simple timer will stop him? Do you think he won't play games on his other two systems (which he already has if he has an XBox), on the computer, at a friends house, or that he won't just watch TV or something else that has the same effect on a child's health? (I.e. socially isolating, intellectually retarding, and emotionally unstimulating[?])
Or, at best, if he really only has an XBox and doesn't like TV and you have Cyber Nannies of all sorts on your computer, but he has a problem with playing games too much -- do you think that if the root of the problem isn't addressed (lack of appreciation of the activities which are most essentially human outside of pure "recreation" [that often involves little or no creation])???? He'll just fulfill his full potential for playing video games for inordinate amounts of time when he's cut loose! Or, even if he outgrows the video game obsession by the time he's out from under the control of your XBox timer, what's to say that the root problem that lead to too much game play won't lead to other problems?
Imagine that! Parents being truly involved is the best solution!
But, I bet the XBox will do a better job of keeping kids healthy than parents who actually read a book or two, find some common sense, learn to truly love their kids, and spend some time with them. Sure it will...
Bottom line, parents need to be aware of their child's health as a person, not just a physical being, and need to intervene when necessary. It doesn't mean your child is "diseased" just 'cause he plays too many games, he's just not ideally healthy. And I'm not the thought police here, and I recognize the right of people (including children) to live as they wish, but children need guidance. Not so many timers, just more guidance. It doesn't need to be painful in the least, especially if you start playing an important role in molding your child into a well-rounded human being at an early age!
But, if you haven't taken any action in your kid's life yet and he plays too many games and he's already 13 or so, you might just want to turn on the timer and call it a day while they figure out their way around it instead of doing their homework or taking a walk... For your own health, that is.
For example, the synthesis some people seem to have come up with to remedy the cognitive dissonance caused by holding the following beliefs: 1) "Bombing Iran is stupid" 2) "But we haven't started any wars in a few years and I'd like to blow something up" -- the synthesis they come up with is thus: "Bombing Iran is stupid, but let's do it anyways."
This amounts to a rejection of the thought #1 for all practical purposes -- that is, the behavior that would be recommended by someone who holds belief #1 and believes it should be acted on is not taken. The thought, however, is included in the synthesis, but the action "advised" by the thought is not taken. The cognitive dissonance is resolved -- action is taken, yet the person still holds both statements as true; they simply do not do what you would expect a person who holds one of the thoughts to be true would do, although they still recognize the truth of that statement.
Ya har me?
And, here's a totally different psychological principle that could be used to explain what happened in the experiment (which I'll first list):
1) Monkey likes A, B, and C equally.
2) Monkey is forced to choose between A and B. Monkey chooses A.
3) Monkey is forced to choose between B and C. Monkey chooses C.
Well, what principle for guiding action developed -- and was shown to not result in grievous harm (i.e. the monkey acted on the principle and was not harmed as a result) -- in step 2 which could be used to guide behavior in step 3?
This: that avoiding B doesn't result in any problems. Therefore, the monkey chose to avoid B in step 3. It couldn't have acted on the fact that choosing A in step 2 didn't result in harm -- because A was not a choice in step 3. And it couldn't have acted on the knowledge that choosing A, B, and C equally often in step 1 resulted in no harm -- because the monkey was forced to choose between B and C, a single time.
Therefore, one could explain the monkeys behavior thusly: "The monkey used the only behavior-guiding principle which was shown to be safe and w
Why do you say that?
Why not say that they see the dogs as a peer -- and see the robots like they see the dogs, as peers? They're nearly at the same intelligence level, and are definitely nearly as functional as other children as playmates. The same -- and this doesn't make either dogs or kids look too good -- can be said of little robots. Not all kids (obviously), but very young children.
So apparently robots, dogs, and kids interact on roughly the same level... or, in other words, dogs and little robots are developed enough as social animals to entertain each other.
At the very least, some youngsters can be described as having a peer relationship with little robots and dogs.
Yeah, but they get fat and croak. Maybe that's the end-game: a bunch of fat dead people in a world without sharp corners.
...already illegal. And, oh yeah, make it legal for adult human beings to make their own firecrackers a safe distance from other humans. If you blow someone up, that's illegal, though. That'll punish people who hurt others, while leaving us free to do chemistry (or make firecrackers and do drugs). Making meth in your apartment? Illegal. Making it in your home on 20 acres? Legal. Now we can buy Sudafed again.
...And if someone got blown up? Well, it'd happen. It'd be a lot rarer than the deaths from stress and boredom whatnot that are brought on by the stress of living in an unfree and increasingly police-state-like world, I'd wager. But it'd happen. You know what? It would be sad. And if someone else did it to him, we'd put him in jail. Sure, we could've stopped every single other person from making firecrackers, but then we wouldn't have our freedom. And, to top it off, the people who really wanted to blow people up -- which is most of the people who'd blow people up even if it were legal to make firecrackers -- are going to do it even if it's illegal to possess the necessary equipment. Guess what? They don't care -- cause they were going to do something illegal (and truly criminal) anyways.
Did you know that the ingredient in Adderall is amphetamine? So... they make the 8 year olds take amphetamine, but the 30 year olds have to show their ID to take Claritin, for the fear that some other 30 year old (or 8 year old) might actually get his hands on some methamphetamine. (Of course, the 8 year old is already on amphetamine, so...)
We could even do drugs while making firecrackers with our chemistry set -- a safe distance from others. Why? 'Cause we're adults in what would be (and should be) a free country! We could even take some pills to die if we were sick (rather than have the Congress investigate just how mushy and/or non-existent my brain-dead brain is because of some Christian dictum that is unapologetically introduced into the dialogue by successful politicians into the political process in our supposedly secular country to limit our freedom. It's absurd. They won't stop -- whether it's guarding the state (unsuccessfully) at the expense of essential liberty, or imposing Christian morality through legislation, they just don't quit.)
So... what are we left with? A world without freedom AND with the same problems. A couple more fingers on hands, but no fewer terrorists and a lot more exploding meth labs. (More than the roughly ZERO you'd encounter if we legalized drugs for adults. We could stop giving serious drugs to kid, too. Or at least stop letting government controlled public schools force relatively healthy ADD kids to take drugs. Basically, if the medicine the government thinks that what a kid needs is speed, the problem isn't serious enough that they should have the power to force him to take amphetamines!! Feed the kids speed, and don't let the adults get at decongestants that could be used to make speed. Brilliant.)
Has anyone else thought of this, or was it just me?
It seems like they think that because the world is dangerous, we must reduce freedoms to try to mitigate that.
How odd! It's not practical (because we barely put a mark on the danger factor) and it's hateful towards everything I thought decent adult human beings were about. Namely FREEDOM! Freedom, to live this -- you do remember, it's the only one we get? -- life. One try. And someone else is going to tell me how I must spend it if I want to live outside of a cage. Thanks. Do not pass go. Do not collect two hundred dollars.
This is America, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM!
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
We've really f'ed it up, people were so inattentive and complacent, that they let the government take our freedom. Unbelievable. And now they have the technology to do it.
Why couldn't I have been born 150 years ago???? I could've used drugs for 70 years, and mad
What I don't understand is why the people let there site go if the legality is so clear?
Like the guy in the article said, people'll put it on a USB. And they said they'd never be able to detect the images "in the wild" anyhow as the "signatures" aren't known! So, who cares, if there's nothing to be done "in the wild" anyhow?
Tell you wot, though: cigarettes don't actually cause the productivity losses and medical expenses some people think.
...
... uh ... *two*. I'll worry more about the spammers who're getting screwed once I see the roughly 50% of people in prisons, people jailed on drug related offenses (i.e. they made the mistake of sitting at home and getting high instead of drunk, or selling a drug to someone who wanted to sit at home and get high instead of drunk) released and never again replaced by this human gristmill we call the *War* on Citizens of Our Own Country Who Use (Some Irrationally Selected) Drugs.
1) Medical expenses: people who smoke get sick with diseases a few years earlier than people who don't. They just die earlier. They don't get more expensive diseases.
2) When someone dies, they reduce nationwide (or worldwide) *production*, not *productivity*.
However, the medical expenses are being incurred because of a person who is going to put fewer years of productive work in, so
Anyhow, I agree with your point (or at least agree that it needs to be made) that causing inconvenience is not a crime, a crime is causing somebody's property damage *directly* (or taking it from them), or causing damage to another person directly (in a gross manner). It's just that you get to a sticky situation with "directly" and with "gross". Neither of those come anywhere near to applying to drugs or prostitution, though. Hmmm... Maybe our legal system is totally screwed up? Either way, outlawing spam is definitely borderline with regards to how well it conforms to these simple notions about crime which guide the rest of our legal code, which is why I initially said that the five year penalty sounds like too, too much.
Still, there's a much more widespread problem, with *millions* of victims, rather than
If you sit up straight and don't type literally non-stop all day long with your hands in a weird position, you'll be fine.
The people who have problems are doing some extreme activity, like non-stop typing -- or they're simply pre-disposed to carpal tunnel syndrome in the first place!
If I'm not mistaken, carpal tunnel is about connective tissue like tendons or whatever.
So, when the article asks the reader whether or not computers are the cause of problems with joints, I hope nobody thought, "yeah, it does": the idea that the minute pressure you put on the bones in your fingers and arms are causing problems with your joints cause a problem is ridiculous. Your spine from bad posture could be hurt. However, that's not a consequence of computer use, it's a consequence of bad posture.
That's terrible.
And I honestly think this penalty is a bit overboard, and I've never before been in favor of going easier on white collar crime than the courts do.
These guys couldn't have cost anyone that much money with a bunch of spam emails. 5 years is just too much when you're talking about a crime that was basically very much in a grey area until recently and against the existence of which there is a strong argument.