I think Dan made it clear, but they don't do all that is needed to reach their goal. If they did, I might be inclined to buy their product, because they would've put effort into something other than lock-in.
It might be something like the stabilization motors in a Segway. You have one set of motors acting to control the position of the chassis, and one set of motors powering the wheels. This could allow the robot to climb stairs, by spinning the motors in opposite directions. Or simply allow the robot to move on two wheels like a Segway (though that probably doesn't have any applications.)
There's a very big difference between incompetence and malice. I know plenty of high school students and college dropouts that I would trust not to do this sort of thing just as soon as anyone with a degree.
Honesty is far more important than a degree. After a month of working on machines, I'll take a completely unskilled hire I know to be honest over a slimeball with a boatload of certifications. 90% of engineering is trial and error, and the rest can be taught. I'd rather have a tech that tells me the repair will take 3 hours and does it than a tech who can do the same job in 5 minutes, but still tells me it's worth 3 hours of his time.
Teaching honesty - I don't think anyone's nailed that one.
What they're doing is a lot like writing a 100 line proprietary plugin for Firefox, and then suing anyone who writes a plugin that duplicates your functionality.
Data like this has no real value in isolation. There's no gene X that causes a disease. There's usually a set of 3 or 4 genes, and lets not even start on how epigenetics comes into play. Restricting the ability to test to one organization hurts everyone. The only way to do this sort of research is to have as large a database as possible containing as much genetic and demographic information as possible. Restricting the testing to those who can pay drastically reduces the quality of the database, and makes making any real sense of it impossible.
Only in aggregate do the numbers even begin to add up. Patents like this completely stunt the research they intend to support.
Also, on a pedantic note, I think you meant "pore over this data." To pore, to pour, and a pore are 3 very different things. Wtf English, I know.
No, patenting "A method for maximizing fertility by restricting copulation to times during the female's menstrual cycle when conception seems most probable."
Your nuclear option has merit, but as for C4, he asked for something that would brick it, not vaporize it.
All you need is some sort of a catch that connects the CPU directly to the power supply. Or possibly a conductive gel packet that bursts on a command, preferably right on top of the SSD. Though I don't know how you would fit that in there.
Re:I would disagree with the premise.
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you read the whole article (why would you do that, I know) he gets into that in the end.
What he's saying is that if it does identify a computer, it's patently absurd to say that that does not necessarily identify a person. An address does not necessarily identify a person either, just a house. But it remains PII.
If you did all that, then, yes, you might say the ip belongs to a person, because that's the only process that can eliminate reasonable doubt.
Actually, the courts have already ruled (in the Jammie Thomas case, as well as countless RIAA lawsuits) that IPs do in fact identify people.
But TFA goes on to give several more logical explanations of why it is not PII.
I think my ideal solution is mirrored drives on my main computer, an external 3-drive raid, and a single portable USB that I sync whenever I need to go on the road.
Currently, I can only really afford the mirrored machine with a single usb drive backup. Eventually, I think I'll supplement with an external RAID and a laptop.
I also backup everything offsite, as my hosting provider gives me far more space than I need for my site, and I have 30GB of stuff that needs to be backed up.
That's a fairly naive cost assessment. The lifespan of that SSD is much shorter than the 2.5" drive. I'd suspect that it is at least half as long, making it in fact 400 times as expensive, and (most importantly) requiring more frequent backups.
My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.
We haven't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing, but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents, prospective students, donors, etc.
Of course, figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing, but that's a question of software, not hardware. If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays, that might be interesting.
Copyleft/Share Alike
If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
I'm not sure he's planning on modifying, but it still sounds like a pretty clear-cut copyright violation.
Yes, but a single Slashdot article with comments loads at least 30% faster, and I do that a lot more often than opening a ton of bookmarks in tabs. I think on the whole it saves me a lot more time than it costs.
The assumption is that if you're using iTunes, you're buying music off the iTunes store. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of people using the iTunes/Palm Pre combo are buying music from Apple, now that the DRM has been lifted off of the music (but not the player.)
Well, it also doesn't really quantify how often, or the circumstances of the responses. I mean, at one point I had my e-mail address hijacked because I entered my AOL address into a website in an email.
But that was over a decade ago, when I was about 10 years old, and had very little guidance on Internet use.
That could technically put me in the 12% (though I've never tried to buy anything) but I am no longer a child, and now know not to even click on links if I have a suspicion that the source is not what it claims to be.
No, the receipt is a contract between you and the store, which both parties own equally (thus the store keeps a copy and you keep a copy.)
You fail to produce the contract showing you own merchandise, no contract exists, you do not own merchandise (obviously, any reasonable company will search their records, but they are not required to let you walk out.)
Increasingly, there are a lot of legitimate business tasks that require sites you might not expect. There are a lot of how-to videos on YouTube, for example. Or maybe you're evaluating speakers for an upcoming conference and you need to watch some clips of their speeches.
If this trend hits just a couple more major sites, you won't be able to run an office on IE6.
Quite true. But I will not be satisfied until IE7 support is phased out. The UI is fine, but the engine is still crap. IE8 at least brings Microsoft up to about Firefox 1.5, if not 2.0.
It could just as easily be run on computers powered by nuclear or solar power, producing no CO2 (past initial construction).
Maybe for solar, but in both cases that initial construction is not an insignificant caveat, and in the case of Nuclear, cleanup and waste storage bears significant costs.
CO2 is the end-all-be-all because the science is well established and reasonably convincing. Also, most things that generate coal dust or Mercury tend to generate CO2 as a byproduct.
Personally, I tend to just straight out how much something costs, since any cost fairly accurately reflects the energy input, and there isn't really any properly clean energy.
That's just silly. They obviously take security seriously enough that they found re-issuing all of their certs preferable to adding a second storage place for the private key, thus doubling the possibility of the system being compromised.
If the key had been compromised, that would be a breach of trust. This is more an example of the fact that as security increases, usability decreases.
If you legally purchased the merchandise, you should have a receipt. If you refuse to produce a receipt, that is perfectly reasonable cause to accuse you of theft.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Dan made it clear, but they don't do all that is needed to reach their goal. If they did, I might be inclined to buy their product, because they would've put effort into something other than lock-in.
It might be something like the stabilization motors in a Segway. You have one set of motors acting to control the position of the chassis, and one set of motors powering the wheels. This could allow the robot to climb stairs, by spinning the motors in opposite directions. Or simply allow the robot to move on two wheels like a Segway (though that probably doesn't have any applications.)
There's a very big difference between incompetence and malice. I know plenty of high school students and college dropouts that I would trust not to do this sort of thing just as soon as anyone with a degree.
Honesty is far more important than a degree. After a month of working on machines, I'll take a completely unskilled hire I know to be honest over a slimeball with a boatload of certifications. 90% of engineering is trial and error, and the rest can be taught. I'd rather have a tech that tells me the repair will take 3 hours and does it than a tech who can do the same job in 5 minutes, but still tells me it's worth 3 hours of his time.
Teaching honesty - I don't think anyone's nailed that one.
What they're doing is a lot like writing a 100 line proprietary plugin for Firefox, and then suing anyone who writes a plugin that duplicates your functionality.
Data like this has no real value in isolation. There's no gene X that causes a disease. There's usually a set of 3 or 4 genes, and lets not even start on how epigenetics comes into play. Restricting the ability to test to one organization hurts everyone. The only way to do this sort of research is to have as large a database as possible containing as much genetic and demographic information as possible. Restricting the testing to those who can pay drastically reduces the quality of the database, and makes making any real sense of it impossible.
Only in aggregate do the numbers even begin to add up. Patents like this completely stunt the research they intend to support.
Also, on a pedantic note, I think you meant "pore over this data." To pore, to pour, and a pore are 3 very different things. Wtf English, I know.
No, patenting "A method for maximizing fertility by restricting copulation to times during the female's menstrual cycle when conception seems most probable."
Actually, now that you said that, I don't know how I thought it was serious. *whoosh*
Your nuclear option has merit, but as for C4, he asked for something that would brick it, not vaporize it.
All you need is some sort of a catch that connects the CPU directly to the power supply. Or possibly a conductive gel packet that bursts on a command, preferably right on top of the SSD. Though I don't know how you would fit that in there.
If you read the whole article (why would you do that, I know) he gets into that in the end.
What he's saying is that if it does identify a computer, it's patently absurd to say that that does not necessarily identify a person. An address does not necessarily identify a person either, just a house. But it remains PII.
Actually, the courts have already ruled (in the Jammie Thomas case, as well as countless RIAA lawsuits) that IPs do in fact identify people.
But TFA goes on to give several more logical explanations of why it is not PII.
You don't have to test at all if no one buys your software. That's how you really tie up loose ends.
I think my ideal solution is mirrored drives on my main computer, an external 3-drive raid, and a single portable USB that I sync whenever I need to go on the road.
Currently, I can only really afford the mirrored machine with a single usb drive backup. Eventually, I think I'll supplement with an external RAID and a laptop.
I also backup everything offsite, as my hosting provider gives me far more space than I need for my site, and I have 30GB of stuff that needs to be backed up.
That's a fairly naive cost assessment. The lifespan of that SSD is much shorter than the 2.5" drive. I'd suspect that it is at least half as long, making it in fact 400 times as expensive, and (most importantly) requiring more frequent backups.
This is in no way the first.
My University has had a room set up for 3D videoconferencing for over 5 years.
We haven't actually put the pieces together in a way that could be called videoconferencing, but we have a pair of projectors with polarized filters and a pair of cameras bolted together that we take 3D video with and roll out when we need something to show off to parents, prospective students, donors, etc.
Of course, figuring out the right way to put the two images together usually requires a bit of editing, but that's a question of software, not hardware. If they have a really good system for automatically calibrating the cameras and displays, that might be interesting.
Also, strictly speaking, what the poster wants to do is illegal according to the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:License#Re-use_of_text
I'm not sure he's planning on modifying, but it still sounds like a pretty clear-cut copyright violation.
Yes, but a single Slashdot article with comments loads at least 30% faster, and I do that a lot more often than opening a ton of bookmarks in tabs. I think on the whole it saves me a lot more time than it costs.
He didn't say he refused to purchase iTunes.
And mp3s - no, not legally, no.
The assumption is that if you're using iTunes, you're buying music off the iTunes store. And I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the majority of people using the iTunes/Palm Pre combo are buying music from Apple, now that the DRM has been lifted off of the music (but not the player.)
Apple sucks.
Well, it also doesn't really quantify how often, or the circumstances of the responses. I mean, at one point I had my e-mail address hijacked because I entered my AOL address into a website in an email.
But that was over a decade ago, when I was about 10 years old, and had very little guidance on Internet use.
That could technically put me in the 12% (though I've never tried to buy anything) but I am no longer a child, and now know not to even click on links if I have a suspicion that the source is not what it claims to be.
No, the receipt is a contract between you and the store, which both parties own equally (thus the store keeps a copy and you keep a copy.)
You fail to produce the contract showing you own merchandise, no contract exists, you do not own merchandise (obviously, any reasonable company will search their records, but they are not required to let you walk out.)
Increasingly, there are a lot of legitimate business tasks that require sites you might not expect. There are a lot of how-to videos on YouTube, for example. Or maybe you're evaluating speakers for an upcoming conference and you need to watch some clips of their speeches.
If this trend hits just a couple more major sites, you won't be able to run an office on IE6.
Quite true. But I will not be satisfied until IE7 support is phased out. The UI is fine, but the engine is still crap. IE8 at least brings Microsoft up to about Firefox 1.5, if not 2.0.
Maybe for solar, but in both cases that initial construction is not an insignificant caveat, and in the case of Nuclear, cleanup and waste storage bears significant costs.
CO2 is the end-all-be-all because the science is well established and reasonably convincing. Also, most things that generate coal dust or Mercury tend to generate CO2 as a byproduct.
Personally, I tend to just straight out how much something costs, since any cost fairly accurately reflects the energy input, and there isn't really any properly clean energy.
He specifically cites Ruby on Rails (and he wrote Mongrel, which is a server somewhere in the RoR stack.)
RoR isn't exactly "one guy," but the principle is the same. People take an off-the-shelf system and claim to be wizards when it works as designed.
That's just silly. They obviously take security seriously enough that they found re-issuing all of their certs preferable to adding a second storage place for the private key, thus doubling the possibility of the system being compromised.
If the key had been compromised, that would be a breach of trust. This is more an example of the fact that as security increases, usability decreases.
If you legally purchased the merchandise, you should have a receipt. If you refuse to produce a receipt, that is perfectly reasonable cause to accuse you of theft.
Slashdot needs a +1 recursive mod.