The "fake" flag, as you put it can be stored on a separate server and since it is storing such a small, tiny fraction of your user data (a map of usernames to an integer indicating the correct hash to look for) it can be much more tightly restricted.
The whole purpose of this system is to detect "actual hack attempts". No one is going to brute force a good password directly on the service, they're going to get a leaked/stolen copy of the password database and try to crack the passwords locally. With this system, the attacker doesn't know which hash is the one that will actually grant access. You could have 100 hashes for each user; enter the correct password and access is granted, enter a random password and access is denied, enter a password that generates any of the other 99 hashes and warnings are instantly sent to the admins of the system telling them that their password DB has been compromised allowing them to respond appropriately.
The advantage of adding multiple fake passwords for each user rather than seeding fake username/password combinations is that it can detect the attack even if it is directed at a single user as opposed to the entire user base.
It's not "duh" though, adults grossly underestimate the amount of sleep kids need, starting at about age 1 all way through age 25. I tell people my 2 year old goes to be at 7:30PM and wakes up at 7:00AM, then has a 2 hours nap. I've gotten everything from incredulous stares to accusations that I'm somehow a bad parent for letting my kid sleep that much. Very, very rarely do people say anything positive about it. Never mind the fact that all the research points to kids 1-3 years old needing 12-14 hours of sleep per day. That number starts to gradually drop at age 3 until it hits about 8-9 hours, then puberty hits and the recommended sleep goes back up (and the circadian rhythm shifts to a sleep late wake up late schedule that our schools ignore).
The take away shouldn't be kids that sleep more do better, it should be that sleep is fucking important and as parents it's up to you to make sure your kid gets it.
I'm can't disagree with the U.S. Government's position on this one. If your voice is sent via the phone network, the world's public voice network, and isn't encrypted, then why should anybody need anything to listen in on it? Unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply when one person is talking to another person on a street corner...or on the world's biggest voice network.
A) Their application process would seem to make this more difficult (you want people who aren't really interested in space so they are less informed and easier to fool) B) They are also talking about a multi-year training program, which would seem cost prohibitive and would also raise the risk of the participants finding out exponentially.
It's not about Gays being evil, it's about Gays being pitiful. The most obvious example is Anton from the Shadow series (I can't remember which novel the events take place in, perhaps spread between the second and third books). The first time you meet Anton, he's a depressed, suicidal, utterly devoid of purpose or direction and just so happens to be gay. His homosexuality isn't really the cause of his depression or other problems, that stems from things in his past both that he did and that were done to him. The next time you see him, he's happy and engaged and helpful. What changed? He got married to a young woman. It's mentioned that physical intimacy is an issue, but they're working through it. Gay Anton is a depressed, suicidal mess. "Straight" Anton is happy, mentally healthy, and genuinely wants to help.
I'm not really sure you read the same book I did. Ender's game isn't about "just following orders"... I can't think of a single character who has that as their motivation at any level. Everyone involved is either being lied to and manipulated or is trying to save the world by any means necessary. If you insist on making it about the military, I would take it as an attack on spending soldiers' lives on wars that the soldiers know and care nothing about. Especially since most of the people doing the fighting 'on screen' were drafted into the situation long before they could make that decision for themselves (even genius children can be manipulated).
But really it should be a story of "the ends justify the means" and questioning if they really do or not. Ender's Game is a story about adults who put kids through hell, leading to nervous breakdowns and at least a few deaths. All because they think it's the only way to save the world and in the end not only were they wrong, but their crimes were far worse than we had been led to believe.
On the one hand, I really did enjoy Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow as a kid (and to a lesser extent the other books in the series). On the other hand, art does not exist in a vacuum and I really do have a hard time separating Card's homophobic views from his works; especially since, in retrospect they do creep into his books at least occasionally.
On the gripping hand, this will almost certainly be a dud. It won't live up to the expectations and hopes of those who wanted the movie made 20 years ago and it won't have much appeal to the others.
Deep down inside, we all know the robots would be stopped by the first flight of stairs they run into (or whatever the technological limit of the day is). A general purpose robot that can compete on the battlefield better than a human infantryman is still a long ways off (thought always getting closer). The same goes for most other sci-fi dystopias, we're just not there yet with the possible exception of nuclear weapons (which gets used in dystopic sci-fy constantly, especially the more mass market ones).
Biology, on the other hand, has already given us lots of examples of dystopia. The black death killed who knows how many people. The last really serious flu outbreak killed millions. And lets not forget the smallpox, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella outbreaks that were essentially the apocalypse for an entire continent's population. We fear biology because biology is one of the few sciences to give us real reason to fear.
Oh, and as for the social fears, lets not forget racism, elitism, wealth inequality, the dismal state of the US healthcare system, and the erosion of civil protections in favor of corporate interests. All of which go a good deal further to explain why we worry about the social effects of biology more than we worry about the social effects of the latest graphics cards to hit the market.
Well, if you insist on being cynical isn't it just as likely that youtube will simultaneously roll out vastly improved software to scan for and remove copyrighted movies. But only if you submit your copyrighted movie for their analysis (and rental) first.
I mean, that's if you insist on being as cynical as possible.
First, while I hated my glasses growing up I have no problem at all with them now. I suppose if laser correction were cheaper than glasses I'd probably go for it but baring that I actually like my glasses just fine thanks. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.
More importantly, why would we ditch glasses just to wear different glasses? Well, why did we (as a species) wear glasses in the first place? Because they gave people something they didn't otherwise have: clear vision. So glasses are annoying but clear vision made it worth the annoyance. Does Google Glass offer something to make the annoyance worthwhile? I don't know... in their present incarnation probably not, at least not for people who wouldn't wear glasses anyway. But I personally think people are seriously, seriously underestimating what can be done with an always on, always visible device with a camera that sees everything you see. In 10 years what a system like Google Glass can do could easily make the annoyance of wearing the device worthwhile and that's assuming the device keeps the current form factor, and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be smaller and less obvious by then.
Here's the thing. No one is gonna buy a 360 degree slippery treadmill to play games. Not any time soon anyway. It's just not going to happen. Very few people are even gonna buy 3D headsets, the dork factor is just too high and the inability to play/watch with friends and family without everyone having hardware breaks it even more (and that's coming from someone who is legitimately excited about the technology). Remember, although the average gamer is a 25-35 year old male, there are still a lots and lots of kids relying on presents from mom and dad, and mom and dad aren't going to buy something that kid 1 and kid 2 are going to fight over every night.
But a wide angle projector? Hang it in the back of the room and done? It's at least conceivable that such a system would sell.
The vast majority of sites take payment through 3rd parties these days. Paypal is the 500lb gorilla but Google and Amazon both have payment services that are widely accepted. With any of them you payment information is and a username/password away and not exposed to the place you are buying from.
Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.
I agree that it usually is but I see no reason that it should be. Fathers who start involved stay involved and one of the most common reasons fathers stop being involved is that the mother is 'better' at doing things. Better at soothing, better at putting the baby down for a nap, faster diaper changes... and why is that? The innate bond between mother and child? Probably has something to do with it. But isn't it possible that a big chunk of that being "better" at taking care of the baby stems directly from the extra time mother's get with their newborns?
For the record, I would have killed for 8 weeks off when my daughter was born. And I still think it's wildly unfair to give mothers more time than fathers.
Think of these chips with integrated graphics like hybrid cars. You're not gonna go down to the drag strip with them, or haul a camper, or pick up the 10 kid carpool group. But for the vast majority of trips you'll get to the same destination is basically the same amount of time, with less noise and higher efficiency.
If you go shopping and the cashier messes up and fails to properly scan one of your products and you notice but stay silent is that theft? You are walking out of the store with products that you know you haven't paid for so IMO yes. And I don't see this as significantly different just because it is a machine that is being taken advantage of rather than a person. Computer fraud and hacking? Don't be ridiculous. But I feel he could and should be charged with plain and simple theft. Incidentally, growing up I was always taught to watch the register as my purchases were being rung up to make sure it was accurate. So far that's cost me a free Skil-Saw, a free video game, and a free digital camera and saved me maybe $10 in random overcharges during the same time frame.
Here's another thought experiment for everyone that claims this behavior isn't illegal. Imagine you go into a 7-11 and notice that the cashier is blind and has accidentally put his $20s where his $1s should be in the register. Is it illegal for me to find buy a $0.50 pack of gum with a $5 bill, knowing he'll give me $80 in change? How about if I come back and do it again and again and again? How does that situation significantly differ from what these guys were doing with the video poker machine?
A laser isn't as unfeasible as you might think. All it has to do is ablate a tiny bit of material from the target, enough to raise it's apogee a bit which then pushes the perigee deeper into the atmosphere causing it to fall out of orbit relatively quickly (a handful of orbits later). The idea isn't to spot an incoming rock and zap it away, it's to keep the general orbit clear of debris. And the best part is, using adaptive optics, it's possible to base such a system on the ground.
If you give 1% of the population 10x more than everyone else, they control 9% of the wealth and the remaining 99% control the remaining 91% equally (i.e. the bottom 10% controls 9% of the wealth). Compare and contrast that to the current situation where 1% of population controls 43% of the wealth and the bottom 80% owns 7% of the wealth.
And again, we're talking about a hypothetical future where workers simply aren't needed, what do you want them to do? Sit around and starve? Live off the scraps? Fight and kill for the few jobs that remain? The thing is, this is looking less and less hypothetical every day. We are rapidly approaching a world where no one needs to go down into the mine, no one needs to sew shirts for 12 hours straight, and no one needs to go to the factory. Oh but people will have to maintain and build those robots right? But for how much longer? Are we really so short sighted that we ignore the inevitable fully automated economy?
Where are the jobs going to go? Service jobs? To serve who? If the only ones making money are the owners and the designers there's not enough people to serve. Engineering jobs? I don't believe for a second that even 1/10th the population has the skill or mindset for that kind of work (and that includes at least half the engineers I know). So yes, lets have a serious discussion about how the hell our economy is supposed to function as we move towards a world where people just plain don't have to work, because if we don't address it now or at least have some ideas on the table we're gonna have food riots and massive social upheaval in 20 years.
We're talking about a hypothetical future where all (or nearly all) manual labor is done by automated systems. Give the people who need to work 10x more than everyone else gets and I doubt they'll complain. Oh, by "those who provide, create and actually work" you meant the people who own the factories... well... screw em. The world is changing, letting a handful of people control 90% of the wealth is a bad idea.
The resolution of this is actually pretty low, it can detect gestures and proximity but the authors say not enough accuracy to type an email. Of course, being able to do some basic gestures for $5 sounds like a pretty neat hack, especially considering they've posted their COTs parts and algorithms.
By all accounts, the bags were unattended for about 10s before detonating. So no, no amount of smart cameras are going to prevent an attack executed like the Boston Marathon bombing.
To restrict a technology like 3D printing, in it's infancy now but potentially earth shatteringly useful in 10 to 20 years, simply to prevent the legal manufacture of weapons would be a very bad thing.
If in 10 years the rest of the world can produce food for even 10% less cost using GMO's than Europe can without using them, you're going to drive the farmers out of business. Unless you impose tariffs on incoming food (which can't be politically popular), subsidize the local farmers (and end up with people finding every loophole imaginable to meet the subsidy requirements without actually growing a damn thing), or convince people that GMO crops are in and of themselves evil and track every imported food item from source to store to make sure it's not GMO (and they apparently have trouble tracking even what species of animal their meat comes from, never-mind what particular plot of land an ear of corn originated in).
So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?
Slashdot Mirror
The "fake" flag, as you put it can be stored on a separate server and since it is storing such a small, tiny fraction of your user data (a map of usernames to an integer indicating the correct hash to look for) it can be much more tightly restricted.
The whole purpose of this system is to detect "actual hack attempts". No one is going to brute force a good password directly on the service, they're going to get a leaked/stolen copy of the password database and try to crack the passwords locally. With this system, the attacker doesn't know which hash is the one that will actually grant access. You could have 100 hashes for each user; enter the correct password and access is granted, enter a random password and access is denied, enter a password that generates any of the other 99 hashes and warnings are instantly sent to the admins of the system telling them that their password DB has been compromised allowing them to respond appropriately.
The advantage of adding multiple fake passwords for each user rather than seeding fake username/password combinations is that it can detect the attack even if it is directed at a single user as opposed to the entire user base.
It's not "duh" though, adults grossly underestimate the amount of sleep kids need, starting at about age 1 all way through age 25. I tell people my 2 year old goes to be at 7:30PM and wakes up at 7:00AM, then has a 2 hours nap. I've gotten everything from incredulous stares to accusations that I'm somehow a bad parent for letting my kid sleep that much. Very, very rarely do people say anything positive about it. Never mind the fact that all the research points to kids 1-3 years old needing 12-14 hours of sleep per day. That number starts to gradually drop at age 3 until it hits about 8-9 hours, then puberty hits and the recommended sleep goes back up (and the circadian rhythm shifts to a sleep late wake up late schedule that our schools ignore).
The take away shouldn't be kids that sleep more do better, it should be that sleep is fucking important and as parents it's up to you to make sure your kid gets it.
I'm can't disagree with the U.S. Government's position on this one. If your voice is sent via the phone network, the world's public voice network, and isn't encrypted, then why should anybody need anything to listen in on it? Unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply when one person is talking to another person on a street corner...or on the world's biggest voice network.
Already been done: Space Cadets.
However
A) Their application process would seem to make this more difficult (you want people who aren't really interested in space so they are less informed and easier to fool)
B) They are also talking about a multi-year training program, which would seem cost prohibitive and would also raise the risk of the participants finding out exponentially.
It's not about Gays being evil, it's about Gays being pitiful. The most obvious example is Anton from the Shadow series (I can't remember which novel the events take place in, perhaps spread between the second and third books). The first time you meet Anton, he's a depressed, suicidal, utterly devoid of purpose or direction and just so happens to be gay. His homosexuality isn't really the cause of his depression or other problems, that stems from things in his past both that he did and that were done to him. The next time you see him, he's happy and engaged and helpful. What changed? He got married to a young woman. It's mentioned that physical intimacy is an issue, but they're working through it. Gay Anton is a depressed, suicidal mess. "Straight" Anton is happy, mentally healthy, and genuinely wants to help.
I'm not really sure you read the same book I did. Ender's game isn't about "just following orders"... I can't think of a single character who has that as their motivation at any level. Everyone involved is either being lied to and manipulated or is trying to save the world by any means necessary. If you insist on making it about the military, I would take it as an attack on spending soldiers' lives on wars that the soldiers know and care nothing about. Especially since most of the people doing the fighting 'on screen' were drafted into the situation long before they could make that decision for themselves (even genius children can be manipulated).
But really it should be a story of "the ends justify the means" and questioning if they really do or not. Ender's Game is a story about adults who put kids through hell, leading to nervous breakdowns and at least a few deaths. All because they think it's the only way to save the world and in the end not only were they wrong, but their crimes were far worse than we had been led to believe.
On the one hand, I really did enjoy Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow as a kid (and to a lesser extent the other books in the series). On the other hand, art does not exist in a vacuum and I really do have a hard time separating Card's homophobic views from his works; especially since, in retrospect they do creep into his books at least occasionally.
On the gripping hand, this will almost certainly be a dud. It won't live up to the expectations and hopes of those who wanted the movie made 20 years ago and it won't have much appeal to the others.
Deep down inside, we all know the robots would be stopped by the first flight of stairs they run into (or whatever the technological limit of the day is). A general purpose robot that can compete on the battlefield better than a human infantryman is still a long ways off (thought always getting closer). The same goes for most other sci-fi dystopias, we're just not there yet with the possible exception of nuclear weapons (which gets used in dystopic sci-fy constantly, especially the more mass market ones).
Biology, on the other hand, has already given us lots of examples of dystopia. The black death killed who knows how many people. The last really serious flu outbreak killed millions. And lets not forget the smallpox, influenza, measles, mumps, rubella outbreaks that were essentially the apocalypse for an entire continent's population. We fear biology because biology is one of the few sciences to give us real reason to fear.
Oh, and as for the social fears, lets not forget racism, elitism, wealth inequality, the dismal state of the US healthcare system, and the erosion of civil protections in favor of corporate interests. All of which go a good deal further to explain why we worry about the social effects of biology more than we worry about the social effects of the latest graphics cards to hit the market.
Well, if you insist on being cynical isn't it just as likely that youtube will simultaneously roll out vastly improved software to scan for and remove copyrighted movies. But only if you submit your copyrighted movie for their analysis (and rental) first.
I mean, that's if you insist on being as cynical as possible.
First, while I hated my glasses growing up I have no problem at all with them now. I suppose if laser correction were cheaper than glasses I'd probably go for it but baring that I actually like my glasses just fine thanks. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.
More importantly, why would we ditch glasses just to wear different glasses? Well, why did we (as a species) wear glasses in the first place? Because they gave people something they didn't otherwise have: clear vision. So glasses are annoying but clear vision made it worth the annoyance. Does Google Glass offer something to make the annoyance worthwhile? I don't know... in their present incarnation probably not, at least not for people who wouldn't wear glasses anyway. But I personally think people are seriously, seriously underestimating what can be done with an always on, always visible device with a camera that sees everything you see. In 10 years what a system like Google Glass can do could easily make the annoyance of wearing the device worthwhile and that's assuming the device keeps the current form factor, and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't be smaller and less obvious by then.
Here's the thing. No one is gonna buy a 360 degree slippery treadmill to play games. Not any time soon anyway. It's just not going to happen. Very few people are even gonna buy 3D headsets, the dork factor is just too high and the inability to play/watch with friends and family without everyone having hardware breaks it even more (and that's coming from someone who is legitimately excited about the technology). Remember, although the average gamer is a 25-35 year old male, there are still a lots and lots of kids relying on presents from mom and dad, and mom and dad aren't going to buy something that kid 1 and kid 2 are going to fight over every night.
But a wide angle projector? Hang it in the back of the room and done? It's at least conceivable that such a system would sell.
The vast majority of sites take payment through 3rd parties these days. Paypal is the 500lb gorilla but Google and Amazon both have payment services that are widely accepted. With any of them you payment information is and a username/password away and not exposed to the place you are buying from.
Also, bonding between mother and newborn is, and should be, a lot more intense then for the father.
I agree that it usually is but I see no reason that it should be. Fathers who start involved stay involved and one of the most common reasons fathers stop being involved is that the mother is 'better' at doing things. Better at soothing, better at putting the baby down for a nap, faster diaper changes... and why is that? The innate bond between mother and child? Probably has something to do with it. But isn't it possible that a big chunk of that being "better" at taking care of the baby stems directly from the extra time mother's get with their newborns?
For the record, I would have killed for 8 weeks off when my daughter was born. And I still think it's wildly unfair to give mothers more time than fathers.
Think of these chips with integrated graphics like hybrid cars. You're not gonna go down to the drag strip with them, or haul a camper, or pick up the 10 kid carpool group. But for the vast majority of trips you'll get to the same destination is basically the same amount of time, with less noise and higher efficiency.
Punishment yes.
Suspension yes.
Expulsion? maybe... if there's an existing history to think about.
Felony charges? No. Just... no.
If you go shopping and the cashier messes up and fails to properly scan one of your products and you notice but stay silent is that theft? You are walking out of the store with products that you know you haven't paid for so IMO yes. And I don't see this as significantly different just because it is a machine that is being taken advantage of rather than a person. Computer fraud and hacking? Don't be ridiculous. But I feel he could and should be charged with plain and simple theft. Incidentally, growing up I was always taught to watch the register as my purchases were being rung up to make sure it was accurate. So far that's cost me a free Skil-Saw, a free video game, and a free digital camera and saved me maybe $10 in random overcharges during the same time frame.
Here's another thought experiment for everyone that claims this behavior isn't illegal. Imagine you go into a 7-11 and notice that the cashier is blind and has accidentally put his $20s where his $1s should be in the register. Is it illegal for me to find buy a $0.50 pack of gum with a $5 bill, knowing he'll give me $80 in change? How about if I come back and do it again and again and again? How does that situation significantly differ from what these guys were doing with the video poker machine?
A laser isn't as unfeasible as you might think. All it has to do is ablate a tiny bit of material from the target, enough to raise it's apogee a bit which then pushes the perigee deeper into the atmosphere causing it to fall out of orbit relatively quickly (a handful of orbits later). The idea isn't to spot an incoming rock and zap it away, it's to keep the general orbit clear of debris. And the best part is, using adaptive optics, it's possible to base such a system on the ground.
If you give 1% of the population 10x more than everyone else, they control 9% of the wealth and the remaining 99% control the remaining 91% equally (i.e. the bottom 10% controls 9% of the wealth). Compare and contrast that to the current situation where 1% of population controls 43% of the wealth and the bottom 80% owns 7% of the wealth.
And again, we're talking about a hypothetical future where workers simply aren't needed, what do you want them to do? Sit around and starve? Live off the scraps? Fight and kill for the few jobs that remain? The thing is, this is looking less and less hypothetical every day. We are rapidly approaching a world where no one needs to go down into the mine, no one needs to sew shirts for 12 hours straight, and no one needs to go to the factory. Oh but people will have to maintain and build those robots right? But for how much longer? Are we really so short sighted that we ignore the inevitable fully automated economy?
Where are the jobs going to go? Service jobs? To serve who? If the only ones making money are the owners and the designers there's not enough people to serve. Engineering jobs? I don't believe for a second that even 1/10th the population has the skill or mindset for that kind of work (and that includes at least half the engineers I know). So yes, lets have a serious discussion about how the hell our economy is supposed to function as we move towards a world where people just plain don't have to work, because if we don't address it now or at least have some ideas on the table we're gonna have food riots and massive social upheaval in 20 years.
We're talking about a hypothetical future where all (or nearly all) manual labor is done by automated systems. Give the people who need to work 10x more than everyone else gets and I doubt they'll complain. Oh, by "those who provide, create and actually work" you meant the people who own the factories... well... screw em. The world is changing, letting a handful of people control 90% of the wealth is a bad idea.
The resolution of this is actually pretty low, it can detect gestures and proximity but the authors say not enough accuracy to type an email. Of course, being able to do some basic gestures for $5 sounds like a pretty neat hack, especially considering they've posted their COTs parts and algorithms.
By all accounts, the bags were unattended for about 10s before detonating. So no, no amount of smart cameras are going to prevent an attack executed like the Boston Marathon bombing.
To restrict a technology like 3D printing, in it's infancy now but potentially earth shatteringly useful in 10 to 20 years, simply to prevent the legal manufacture of weapons would be a very bad thing.
If in 10 years the rest of the world can produce food for even 10% less cost using GMO's than Europe can without using them, you're going to drive the farmers out of business. Unless you impose tariffs on incoming food (which can't be politically popular), subsidize the local farmers (and end up with people finding every loophole imaginable to meet the subsidy requirements without actually growing a damn thing), or convince people that GMO crops are in and of themselves evil and track every imported food item from source to store to make sure it's not GMO (and they apparently have trouble tracking even what species of animal their meat comes from, never-mind what particular plot of land an ear of corn originated in).
So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?