All nanotech cloaking technology currently employs nanoscopic materials that capture, conduct, and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. It won't work for waves that are not constituted from both magnetic and electronic radiation.
The first quarter-century there seems pretty likely to me. I hope slashdot is around in 25 years so I can look back and regret my not taking privacy more seriously.
web browsing, picture editing, movie editing, were all routinely done 10 years ago
You make strong arguments throughout your post, but there you crossed the line. 10 years have shown major improvements in web browsing, picture editing, and movie editing.
In 2000, nearly every website was merely unformated text and animated gifs, or they were being encapsulated entirely within a single flash file. Javascript was slow, RSS didn't exist, and 95% of web surfers were stuck with IE5. Pop-up blockers? No (thanks IE5). Ad-blockers? No. Themes and extensions? Only for the 5% not on IE.
I used to use Photoshop 5.5, and while color alteration and the beloved clone stamp were strong tools, that antique program doesn't hold a candle to Photoshop CS4 when creating original art. The difference is even more obvious when you compare free, common photo-editing tools from 2000 to modern ones. Auto red-eye removal works. Facial recognition. Simple file conversion. I wouldn't touch the older programs now given the choice.
Movie editing? What can I say? Have you even seen what people can do with home rigs compared to 2000? It's not simply a mater of processor power. Masking, post-processing, and CGI have all improved to the point that your amateur film editor can cobble together something that looks as good as Godzilla 2000. Sure, processor power needed to improve, but the software to automate so many tasks is what makes modern-day CGI so much more straight forward. And that's saying nothing of the improved file management.
What happens if fan-art popularizes counter-culture versions of the IP characters, like Zelda and Link doing cocaine or joining in orgies? It's true that fan art is for the most part supportive of the original artist's direction, much like the amateur film in question, but without any control over which derivative works are allowed, the integrity of the game character could be obliterated. Even something as mild as suggesting Link is gay, while not inherently or morally negative, could hurt the image and damage sales of the Zelda games in areas that aren't as tolerant.
Sure, small-scale fan-fiction is impossible to control, but for all intents and purposes that type of derivative work only influences the community that created it and finds interest in it. When it comes to something as high-profile as this film, it becomes much more important that the IP holder has some say in how its characters are depicted. However, in general I think companies should be more willing to grant no-fee licenses to devoted fans since it only builds a stronger bond in the community. It's a shame Nintendo is fighting back against this rather than supporting it and sharing in the attention.
Global warming legislation aims to be the largest power grab since the civil war.
And we all know how badly that one turned out. If only that war never happened, then slavery and officially sanctioned power-through-wealth could be still dominate in half the county.
Seriously, it's good to doubt the purpose behind all politics, but in this case, scientists were researching and warning against global warming even when Bush was president (and many of those scientists on bush's payroll were silenced for it). Beyond politically-driven scientific research, a vast amount of study comes from non-profit institutions that have no ulterior motive other than accurately understanding any given aspect of our universe, whether it's about the truth of planets orbiting stars or gaseous molecules in the atmosphere trapping infrared radiation.
And by making exclusive deals with content providers like Wolfram Alpha and News Corp.. When things get tough, the tough innovate and Microsoft returns to making monopolies.
That is precisely how I feel. Why is a series of everyday, physical activities seen as so intuitively not special, but when those same activities are translated into an electronic representation, the process becomes unique? Sure, I can accept copyrighting the particular code used to implement said functionality, but a patent on the process itself makes an arbitrary division between one's actions in the real world and one's actions in the digital world. There are so many examples of business method patents granted by the USPTO that describe the electronic version of business models that have been in practice for centuries. And unlike copyrights, if the "invention" that a patent is applied for isn't new and inventive, it must not be granted.
Take this podcast case: ever heard of a magazine subscription? Book/DVD of the month subscriptions? Honestly, I would like someone to explain to me why this bad patent doesn't cover something like e-mail newsletters.
Data is data. It shouldn't matter if the data is in the form of written language, auditory language or sounds, or static or dynamic visual pieces. It also shouldn't matter if you get the data by spoken conversation, radio waves, or binary streams. If a business method patent isn't limited to a single, explicit representation, but rather it is abstracted to cover any possible infrastructure system it sits on (i.e., TCP/IP), then real life should count as prior art. It's outrageous.
Actually, he very well could be using the word "literally" literally. As you said, he stated that he believes certain shows intend to physically cause harm to his brain. If he really does hold the opinion that those shows display reasoning, taste, or behavior so atrocious that the only reasonable explanation for its transmission is to disrupt and whither the synapses in his brain, then he would be accurate in labeling the programming an assault on his brain.
That's what I keep telling the guys in the IT department about antivirus software. That stuff gets so annoying when it asks me questions when I'm trying to download the newest joke video of the week.
The current Macbooks have a touchpad interface that supports multi-touch. You can right click on those by pressing and holding with one finger and then tapping with a second finger.
Assuming Toppy's set of genes is required for genetic evolution/improvement. A better sniffer could potentially evolve out of an altogether different set of parental genes...
Also the least future proof. Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.
An apt description. I apply the same logic to my personal finances. My spending will outpace my income, so why bother pinching pennies when it's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye?
The same goes for health too. No matter what you do, you will die at some point. But you don't need vitamins or exercise when you're dead, so why bother with it now? I'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have, I'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot.
On the flip side, it's actually not too hard to have the computer deny users from using passwords that contain words from the dictionary. So you don't need to say "there must be a digit and an uppercase letter and a non-character symbol..." You can just say "no words" and have the computer check the password for strings that match dictionary words.
The problem for society in general is that positive feelings for a particular brand that are based on personal experience, word of mouth, or even effective advertising can be corrupted when a competitor misappropriates the brandname or other trademarks. If I am a long-time Google user and expect a high level of quality operation and privacy from them, then if a different company that hides behind Google's trademarks tricks me into using its own services, then I, as the consumer, will be confused and possibly frustrated or harmed by this rogue company. Obviously, it's also bad for the business that built up its good name and goodwill just to have a competitor snatch away customers by masquerading as the well-known company. That's why we want to keep trademarks relatively distinct.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
Of course, "property of the city" doesn't mean anything if they haven't already used those passwords to access the "private" information. If they're quick enough, the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak. On the other hand, having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search. If you publish it online, it's no longer private.
Exactly, the definition is the key. In my opinion, there is a vast difference between the term "free will" as attributed to human decision-making and as a term in contrast to cause-and-effect.
I for one, can't see any way of defining "free will" as pertains to human choice that DOES include randomness. I see free will as describing a sentient life form's ability to evaluate a external situation, select a set of goals, and based on internal preferences, take an action or pursue a plan of actions that the actor deems desirable. If, instead, human free will were described in terms of randomness or probabilities, the notion of future planning would be superficial and we would be faced with the same conclusion that a belief in absolute Fate leads to: that we are not responsible for our choices.
In contrast, my view of free will could never be applied to an object without first establishing sentience. A quantum particle may respond to stimulus in a probabilistic manner, but there is no evidence that evaluation, preferences, and planning take place.
Under these definitions, the OP's report does nothing more than reestablish the common belief that our actions (liberated under free will) can have an effect and impact on our world and universe. Just because the ultimate outcome of any quantum measurement will be influenced by the experimenter's free will doesn't mean that a probabilistic reaction itself embodies choice and sentient free will.
Granted, I don't know as much about the science as the researchers do, but my off-the-cuff impression is that they are abusing the definition of a decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the Tamagotchi Generation. We pay for virtual entertainment, not real entertainment.
All nanotech cloaking technology currently employs nanoscopic materials that capture, conduct, and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. It won't work for waves that are not constituted from both magnetic and electronic radiation.
Unless you were trying to evade sonar, radar, IR, and UV detection too.
The first quarter-century there seems pretty likely to me. I hope slashdot is around in 25 years so I can look back and regret my not taking privacy more seriously.
I LOLt.
web browsing, picture editing, movie editing, were all routinely done 10 years ago
You make strong arguments throughout your post, but there you crossed the line. 10 years have shown major improvements in web browsing, picture editing, and movie editing.
In 2000, nearly every website was merely unformated text and animated gifs, or they were being encapsulated entirely within a single flash file. Javascript was slow, RSS didn't exist, and 95% of web surfers were stuck with IE5. Pop-up blockers? No (thanks IE5). Ad-blockers? No. Themes and extensions? Only for the 5% not on IE.
I used to use Photoshop 5.5, and while color alteration and the beloved clone stamp were strong tools, that antique program doesn't hold a candle to Photoshop CS4 when creating original art. The difference is even more obvious when you compare free, common photo-editing tools from 2000 to modern ones. Auto red-eye removal works. Facial recognition. Simple file conversion. I wouldn't touch the older programs now given the choice.
Movie editing? What can I say? Have you even seen what people can do with home rigs compared to 2000? It's not simply a mater of processor power. Masking, post-processing, and CGI have all improved to the point that your amateur film editor can cobble together something that looks as good as Godzilla 2000. Sure, processor power needed to improve, but the software to automate so many tasks is what makes modern-day CGI so much more straight forward. And that's saying nothing of the improved file management.
What happens if fan-art popularizes counter-culture versions of the IP characters, like Zelda and Link doing cocaine or joining in orgies? It's true that fan art is for the most part supportive of the original artist's direction, much like the amateur film in question, but without any control over which derivative works are allowed, the integrity of the game character could be obliterated. Even something as mild as suggesting Link is gay, while not inherently or morally negative, could hurt the image and damage sales of the Zelda games in areas that aren't as tolerant.
Sure, small-scale fan-fiction is impossible to control, but for all intents and purposes that type of derivative work only influences the community that created it and finds interest in it. When it comes to something as high-profile as this film, it becomes much more important that the IP holder has some say in how its characters are depicted. However, in general I think companies should be more willing to grant no-fee licenses to devoted fans since it only builds a stronger bond in the community. It's a shame Nintendo is fighting back against this rather than supporting it and sharing in the attention.
Follow these easy instructions.
LMGTFY
Global warming legislation aims to be the largest power grab since the civil war.
And we all know how badly that one turned out. If only that war never happened, then slavery and officially sanctioned power-through-wealth could be still dominate in half the county.
Seriously, it's good to doubt the purpose behind all politics, but in this case, scientists were researching and warning against global warming even when Bush was president (and many of those scientists on bush's payroll were silenced for it). Beyond politically-driven scientific research, a vast amount of study comes from non-profit institutions that have no ulterior motive other than accurately understanding any given aspect of our universe, whether it's about the truth of planets orbiting stars or gaseous molecules in the atmosphere trapping infrared radiation.
And by making exclusive deals with content providers like Wolfram Alpha and News Corp.. When things get tough, the tough innovate and Microsoft returns to making monopolies.
That is precisely how I feel. Why is a series of everyday, physical activities seen as so intuitively not special, but when those same activities are translated into an electronic representation, the process becomes unique? Sure, I can accept copyrighting the particular code used to implement said functionality, but a patent on the process itself makes an arbitrary division between one's actions in the real world and one's actions in the digital world. There are so many examples of business method patents granted by the USPTO that describe the electronic version of business models that have been in practice for centuries. And unlike copyrights, if the "invention" that a patent is applied for isn't new and inventive, it must not be granted.
Take this podcast case: ever heard of a magazine subscription? Book/DVD of the month subscriptions? Honestly, I would like someone to explain to me why this bad patent doesn't cover something like e-mail newsletters.
Data is data. It shouldn't matter if the data is in the form of written language, auditory language or sounds, or static or dynamic visual pieces. It also shouldn't matter if you get the data by spoken conversation, radio waves, or binary streams. If a business method patent isn't limited to a single, explicit representation, but rather it is abstracted to cover any possible infrastructure system it sits on (i.e., TCP/IP), then real life should count as prior art. It's outrageous.
Actually, he very well could be using the word "literally" literally. As you said, he stated that he believes certain shows intend to physically cause harm to his brain. If he really does hold the opinion that those shows display reasoning, taste, or behavior so atrocious that the only reasonable explanation for its transmission is to disrupt and whither the synapses in his brain, then he would be accurate in labeling the programming an assault on his brain.
I say sue them all to hell.
That's what I keep telling the guys in the IT department about antivirus software. That stuff gets so annoying when it asks me questions when I'm trying to download the newest joke video of the week.
</sarcasm>
Not if the artist gave the company permission to include his song in a CD compilation without actually giving them full copyright ownership...
I thought the first clue was that she had an Adam's apple as big as her balls.
It all comes down to people identifying a clear goal and then trying their hardest to bust past it.
The current Macbooks have a touchpad interface that supports multi-touch. You can right click on those by pressing and holding with one finger and then tapping with a second finger.
Assuming Toppy's set of genes is required for genetic evolution/improvement. A better sniffer could potentially evolve out of an altogether different set of parental genes...
Also the least future proof. Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.
An apt description. I apply the same logic to my personal finances. My spending will outpace my income, so why bother pinching pennies when it's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye?
The same goes for health too. No matter what you do, you will die at some point. But you don't need vitamins or exercise when you're dead, so why bother with it now? I'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have, I'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot.
On the flip side, it's actually not too hard to have the computer deny users from using passwords that contain words from the dictionary. So you don't need to say "there must be a digit and an uppercase letter and a non-character symbol..." You can just say "no words" and have the computer check the password for strings that match dictionary words.
The problem for society in general is that positive feelings for a particular brand that are based on personal experience, word of mouth, or even effective advertising can be corrupted when a competitor misappropriates the brandname or other trademarks. If I am a long-time Google user and expect a high level of quality operation and privacy from them, then if a different company that hides behind Google's trademarks tricks me into using its own services, then I, as the consumer, will be confused and possibly frustrated or harmed by this rogue company. Obviously, it's also bad for the business that built up its good name and goodwill just to have a competitor snatch away customers by masquerading as the well-known company. That's why we want to keep trademarks relatively distinct.
ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
Of course, "property of the city" doesn't mean anything if they haven't already used those passwords to access the "private" information. If they're quick enough, the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak. On the other hand, having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search. If you publish it online, it's no longer private.
Exactly, the definition is the key. In my opinion, there is a vast difference between the term "free will" as attributed to human decision-making and as a term in contrast to cause-and-effect.
I for one, can't see any way of defining "free will" as pertains to human choice that DOES include randomness. I see free will as describing a sentient life form's ability to evaluate a external situation, select a set of goals, and based on internal preferences, take an action or pursue a plan of actions that the actor deems desirable. If, instead, human free will were described in terms of randomness or probabilities, the notion of future planning would be superficial and we would be faced with the same conclusion that a belief in absolute Fate leads to: that we are not responsible for our choices.
In contrast, my view of free will could never be applied to an object without first establishing sentience. A quantum particle may respond to stimulus in a probabilistic manner, but there is no evidence that evaluation, preferences, and planning take place.
Under these definitions, the OP's report does nothing more than reestablish the common belief that our actions (liberated under free will) can have an effect and impact on our world and universe. Just because the ultimate outcome of any quantum measurement will be influenced by the experimenter's free will doesn't mean that a probabilistic reaction itself embodies choice and sentient free will.
Granted, I don't know as much about the science as the researchers do, but my off-the-cuff impression is that they are abusing the definition of a decision.
Not if you build animatronic dogs and go on dates with women from internet dating services.