Yes, and sometimes even using intel reveals too much about your collection methods. This is a classic conundrum of information warfare, and one which military leaders have famously struggled to resolve in all the major conflicts in recent history.
A lot of intelligence-gathering techniques rely on the fact that your enemy is unaware that he is leaking intel in some way.
As long as he remains unaware, and continues to leak intel, you can stay a step ahead of his game (whatever it may be).
The moment you describe your techniques, the enemy has an opportunity to become aware of his leaks, and plug them.
Leveraging your enemy's ignorance is a key component in getting good intel on your enemy. It is very different from encryption, in the sense that good encryption does not become stronger from being secret, but good intel is often unattainable unless it is kept secret.
When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.
When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.
Thus, it is always in your best interest--and in the best interest of those you have set out to defend--to never reveal to the enemy the various was in which he is helping you to defeat him.
I just think people tend to go overboard when others don't "believe".
Some people, sure.
But do you really think it's "going overboard" when the believers come up with a reasonable explanation for why the Bible doesn't include descriptions of aliens?
Also, why bring the issue up at all? It's not like anybody besides you was talking about the religious angle in the first place. So why the gratuitous jabs?
While I am a huge fan of positive thinking as a way to overcome setbacks, and a vocal proponent of finding the silver lining in every gray cloud, I think it's a serious mistake to think of recovering from failure is a suitable substitute for achieving success.
Also, I'm not sure quoting homilies from a Hollywood adaptation of a comic book is really the best way to make a serious point...
The International Space Station "catches" containers full of people all the time.
So far, none of them have died from the acceleration.
In fact, in the entire history of "stations on the ground launching elevators that are caught by stations in space", dating all the way back to the first proof-of-concept Gemini missions, nobody has ever died from the acceleration.
Actually, you bring up an interesting point: Why should the Bible describe everything in the universe? What if it only describes things that are relevant to the main subject--the relationship between humanity and God?
Right, because an all-powerful being that created life once couldn't possibly have created it more than once in the same universe.
And wouldn't it be hilarious if we did find alien life forms, and they treated us as idiots on account of our theories of evolution being totally at odds with their metaphysical religious convictions about the origins of life?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
1) What if the bacteria escape from the implant and spread through my body?
Your immune system deals with them. If they're not optimized to reproduce in that environment, there wouldn't even be much risk of "spread". Not all bacterias thrive in the human body, after all.
2) Could an antibiotic cure for an unrelated infection kill my artificial heart?
Presumably your artificial heart's bacterial power source would not be exposed to your body, any more than today's artifical hearts press their battery leads right up against exposed tissue.
Biggest waste of money I ever perpetrated on myself was paying Masters Institute for a six-month Novell certification course.
But one of the very first classes was a basic overview of computer hardware: the major components of a PC, their roles, their relationships[1].
That, plus the basics of filesystems, paths, configuration files and wizards, and an introduction to basic networking concepts, is basic computer literacy.
It's not so much that everybody needs to be able to work with computers the way developers and sysadmins work with computers. It's more that everybody needs to have an agreement about the conceptual framework in which computers are understood and discussed.
...some people also see that the current issues of DRM etc are just the very small tip of a very large iceberg.
You have no idea.
The iceberg isn't "copyright issues in the digital age", but rather how the inexorable advance of telecommunications technology will change everything in society, in ways we can't predict today, much less adapt to.
Our grandchildren will live in a world of vastly different rules and customs and attitudes regarding privacy, security, etiquette, terrorism, manufacturing, travel, etc. The rules of our world will not apply in the slightest.
Slashdot dreams of our rules, and making the **AA play by our rules in the digital age. I'm becoming more and more convinced that our rules are just as much of a dinosaur as the **AA itself. That the problems are new, but even Slashdot can't help but insist on trying to solve them in the same old way.
Because artists want to quit their day jobs and become OMGROCKSTARS right now.[*] And the only people willing to fund something like that are companies like Sony.
----------
[*]In reality, "right now" usually means "several years of back-breaking work". But think about how much longer it would take, and how much less fame and fortune rock stars would achieve in a lifetime, if they had to pursue their rockin' careers while keeping their day jobs. Nobody wants to settle for that. They'd rather sell their soul to Sony for more immediate gratification in much greater amounts.
It's my contention that the entire music industry is a perversion of human ambition, as much in the case of the artists as in the case of the record labels.
Please tell me you're not seriously arguing that Microsoft is actually unprofitable, that none of its products so much as break even, that Bill Gates has been keeping the company afloat this whole time with lawsuits and his inheritance, and--most bizarrely of all--industry analysts never noticed.
I mean, you write as though Microsoft hasn't built itself into a major multinational corporation from nothing, or brought vast wealth to its principals.
The Nazis are a good example of the abuse of a national ID system.
But as I have pointed out, there are plenty of counter-examples. In fact, in this very thread I mentioned the California State ID, which has not resulted in Nazi-like oppression at all.
So it seems obvious to me that government ID programs don't automatically result in oppression, and have good uses totally unrelated to their potential abuse by evil dictators.
In fact, the significant characteristic of the Nazis is not that they used national ID cards to oppress people. Rather, it's that they used the entire apparatus of industrialization to pursue their terrible goals of genocide and world conquest.
But we use the industrial apparatus all the time, for all sorts of things. We'd be idiots to reject civilization simply because it was once perverted by Nazis.
These things do almost nothing but enable the governement to trample individual rights.
Please tell me you have concrete examples of this, and aren't just talking out your ass.
Perhaps you could discuss how the California State Driver's License, which doubles as a state ID, does "almost nothing but enable the [state] government to trample individual rights".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and sometimes even using intel reveals too much about your collection methods. This is a classic conundrum of information warfare, and one which military leaders have famously struggled to resolve in all the major conflicts in recent history.
A lot of intelligence-gathering techniques rely on the fact that your enemy is unaware that he is leaking intel in some way.
As long as he remains unaware, and continues to leak intel, you can stay a step ahead of his game (whatever it may be).
The moment you describe your techniques, the enemy has an opportunity to become aware of his leaks, and plug them.
Leveraging your enemy's ignorance is a key component in getting good intel on your enemy. It is very different from encryption, in the sense that good encryption does not become stronger from being secret, but good intel is often unattainable unless it is kept secret.
When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.
When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.
Thus, it is always in your best interest--and in the best interest of those you have set out to defend--to never reveal to the enemy the various was in which he is helping you to defeat him.
"Publicity"
Just beating them to the punch.
I don't get it.
I just think people tend to go overboard when others don't "believe".
Some people, sure.
But do you really think it's "going overboard" when the believers come up with a reasonable explanation for why the Bible doesn't include descriptions of aliens?
Also, why bring the issue up at all? It's not like anybody besides you was talking about the religious angle in the first place. So why the gratuitous jabs?
While I am a huge fan of positive thinking as a way to overcome setbacks, and a vocal proponent of finding the silver lining in every gray cloud, I think it's a serious mistake to think of recovering from failure is a suitable substitute for achieving success.
Also, I'm not sure quoting homilies from a Hollywood adaptation of a comic book is really the best way to make a serious point...
by not succeeding we only incur the loss of a little human labour
Heh.
One of the big controversies of our time seems to be how little our society values the labor of others.
It's very easy for a philosopher to say, "enh, so what if we fail--after all, it's not like I'm the one doing all that hard work, all for nothing".
The International Space Station "catches" containers full of people all the time.
So far, none of them have died from the acceleration.
In fact, in the entire history of "stations on the ground launching elevators that are caught by stations in space", dating all the way back to the first proof-of-concept Gemini missions, nobody has ever died from the acceleration.
Heh.
Actually, you bring up an interesting point: Why should the Bible describe everything in the universe? What if it only describes things that are relevant to the main subject--the relationship between humanity and God?
Right, because an all-powerful being that created life once couldn't possibly have created it more than once in the same universe.
And wouldn't it be hilarious if we did find alien life forms, and they treated us as idiots on account of our theories of evolution being totally at odds with their metaphysical religious convictions about the origins of life?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
1) What if the bacteria escape from the implant and spread through my body?
Your immune system deals with them. If they're not optimized to reproduce in that environment, there wouldn't even be much risk of "spread". Not all bacterias thrive in the human body, after all.
2) Could an antibiotic cure for an unrelated infection kill my artificial heart?
Presumably your artificial heart's bacterial power source would not be exposed to your body, any more than today's artifical hearts press their battery leads right up against exposed tissue.
... full of bugs (cockroach eggs, anyone?)
Oh, come on.
We all know that cockroach eggs are no more "cockroaches" than human fetuses are "human beings".
Duh.
Biggest waste of money I ever perpetrated on myself was paying Masters Institute for a six-month Novell certification course.
But one of the very first classes was a basic overview of computer hardware: the major components of a PC, their roles, their relationships[1].
That, plus the basics of filesystems, paths, configuration files and wizards, and an introduction to basic networking concepts, is basic computer literacy.
It's not so much that everybody needs to be able to work with computers the way developers and sysadmins work with computers. It's more that everybody needs to have an agreement about the conceptual framework in which computers are understood and discussed.
I think it just did.
...some people also see that the current issues of DRM etc are just the very small tip of a very large iceberg.
You have no idea.
The iceberg isn't "copyright issues in the digital age", but rather how the inexorable advance of telecommunications technology will change everything in society, in ways we can't predict today, much less adapt to.
Our grandchildren will live in a world of vastly different rules and customs and attitudes regarding privacy, security, etiquette, terrorism, manufacturing, travel, etc. The rules of our world will not apply in the slightest.
Slashdot dreams of our rules, and making the **AA play by our rules in the digital age. I'm becoming more and more convinced that our rules are just as much of a dinosaur as the **AA itself. That the problems are new, but even Slashdot can't help but insist on trying to solve them in the same old way.
And none of their products break even. Office and Windows turn profits.
There seems to be a paradox here.
Remind me why artists need companies like Sony?
Because artists want to quit their day jobs and become OMGROCKSTARS right now.[*] And the only people willing to fund something like that are companies like Sony.
----------
[*]In reality, "right now" usually means "several years of back-breaking work". But think about how much longer it would take, and how much less fame and fortune rock stars would achieve in a lifetime, if they had to pursue their rockin' careers while keeping their day jobs. Nobody wants to settle for that. They'd rather sell their soul to Sony for more immediate gratification in much greater amounts.
It's my contention that the entire music industry is a perversion of human ambition, as much in the case of the artists as in the case of the record labels.
Please tell me you're not seriously arguing that Microsoft is actually unprofitable, that none of its products so much as break even, that Bill Gates has been keeping the company afloat this whole time with lawsuits and his inheritance, and--most bizarrely of all--industry analysts never noticed.
>> Its just a shame they haven't brought principles to their vast wealth.
Silly me. I keep forgetting how unpricinpled the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is.
Thanks for the timely reminder!
Haha, for a minute there you almost had me going.
I mean, you write as though Microsoft hasn't built itself into a major multinational corporation from nothing, or brought vast wealth to its principals.
The Nazis are a good example of the abuse of a national ID system.
But as I have pointed out, there are plenty of counter-examples. In fact, in this very thread I mentioned the California State ID, which has not resulted in Nazi-like oppression at all.
So it seems obvious to me that government ID programs don't automatically result in oppression, and have good uses totally unrelated to their potential abuse by evil dictators.
In fact, the significant characteristic of the Nazis is not that they used national ID cards to oppress people. Rather, it's that they used the entire apparatus of industrialization to pursue their terrible goals of genocide and world conquest.
But we use the industrial apparatus all the time, for all sorts of things. We'd be idiots to reject civilization simply because it was once perverted by Nazis.
Especially the San Fransiscan ones who dare to follow their own state's law regarding medical marijuana.
If a federal ID necessarily results in greater federal oppression, then by the same logic a state ID must lead to increased state oppression.
Please tell me more about how a California State ID has led to increased California State oppression.
These things do almost nothing but enable the governement to trample individual rights.
Please tell me you have concrete examples of this, and aren't just talking out your ass.
Perhaps you could discuss how the California State Driver's License, which doubles as a state ID, does "almost nothing but enable the [state] government to trample individual rights".
A national ID card would put us on the slippery slope straight to an oppressive totalitarian regime!
Just like establishing a police force has resulted in a police state!
And setting up a military has resulted in a military dictatorship!
And don't forget how totally oppressed Californian dissenters are, now that California has a state ID card!