Preface: IANAL, but I am a law student doing fairly well for himself so far.
In legal systems there has always been give-and-take between flexibility and predictability. On the one hand, it is important for citizens to live in a society where they can confidently predict the legal outcomes of their actions (even if that means consulting a lawyer first). On the other hand, lawmakers cannot predict future events and developments, and vague laws enable courts to adapt to rapidly changing legal, social and ethical environments.
TFA is advocating certainty in law. This is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but you must acknowledge what is being lost. Courts will not be able to handle new technologies, new cultural interactions, or changing social standards. Currently, the courts provide a very cheap way to keep laws up-to-date. If you want to have this process operate as the sole means of progressing the law, then expect to be pouring huge amounts of money into the civil service.
Also, this flies in the face of common law systems such as that used in the UK. This is a system which has proven so resilient to abuse that former British colonies such as Jamaica still use the common law of England and Wales to settle many legal disputes. (e.g. R v Beckford 1988). While there are many arguments against Common Law systems, it has proven to be fairly sustainable in England's case, and I would suggest reading more about those.
To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, "Common law is the worst possible legal system, with the exception of all the other systems which have been tried from time to time."
Overall, this article looks, smells and tastes like someone writing about a topic they don't really understand. I don't mean any offense by this, but I do recommend reading some books on political and legal theory before suggesting a radical overhaul of the world's legal structure.
Google manages to achieve the open standard on the new network which it has been gunning for, allowing it to put into action plans and hardware/software sales which it has no doubt been designing and planning for months. The next day, Microsoft (a major software competitor for mobile devices) bids on Yahoo (a major internet portal competitor versus Google).
Everyone who thinks this is a coincidence, please raise your hand.
If this actually happens, and researchers are willing to make their data-sets open source, it would be a huge boon for budding researchers. It would allow students to do more than just work with a sample dataset out of a textbook. Graduate students learning how to do advanced modeling would be able to work with real datasets, vastly improving their skillset and employability. Just consider these two lines on a CV, and ask yourself which one jumps out at you.
"Designed a model for the dataset on the CD-ROM included with the Modeling Organic Systems textbook"
"Designed a model for the WISK-III heart output dataset published in 2006."
New entrants to a field would have instant access to enormous amounts of data very quickly and easily. Although the big kudos comes when you can do totally original work (new data, new analyss), a researcher who could come up with a new critique of older papers and studies would definitely get themselves noticed.
Overall, this is a really positive step for everyone on the lower rungs of the scientific ladder, and especially positive for those with limited resources.
One of the major problems here is that students are used to being able to Google "mitigating factors in murder" and get a nice website with clean design which provides them with the history and current state of the topic, all in a single easy-to-use package.
In contrast, academic articles are usually much narrower in scope than your average webpage and require much more reading and time before an understanding of the subject can be cultivated. Of course, the benefit of using academic articles is that after having read a dozen of them, a student will have a much better and more balanced understanding of a subject than they would have if they'd just gone to Crazy Bob's Information Hut.
When I peer-review papers (I'm currently in law school), it's very obvious which students started their research with academic sources, and which started on Google. The problem can be quickly solved by professors taking the approach seen at my institution: students failing to have in-depth research on the topic get poor marks.
The only way that online games are going to have a chance at getting away from these issues is with the implementation of skill-based advancement instead of advancement based on accumulated experience/gold. As it stands, a high-level player in many online games doesn't need to have learned any particular skill themselves, but a simple accumulation of wealth via goldsellers to buy high-quality equipment and mindless hack-n-slash, combined with good macros, and they can usually come out on top.
Contrast this approach with what's seen in something like Jumpgate, where players have to actually develop their skill as a pilot in order to be successful in combat. I'd expect that gold-buying in that game is significantly lower per-capita than in your standard grind games like WoW or LotRO.
When we pray for the end of goldselling, what we're really hoping for is the beginning of an era where non-transferable capital (the skill you develop from playing the game) becomes the dominant factor in advancement.
Posting the link to the public comment filing system was an excellent decision. The problem with these "Public" comment periods is that there are very minimal requirements for advertising the opportunity to comment, and too often the only people who know about it are the parties actually involved in the litigation. Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues, and Slashdot editors ought to ensure that they include information about opportunities to make public comments on ongoing regulatory issues whenever possible.
Facebook can be immensely useful. On my profile, I have links to the classes that I teach. I also have my office hours, a shortened CV, my current research projects, images of recent projects, notifications of upcoming opportunities, links to the Facebook pages of other teaching staff, and other information for students. It's easily accessible for students, and allows for more two-way communication than a simple website.
For people like me who don't have the time, skill or inclination to set up an interactive multimedia website, Facebook can be integral to communicating with colleagues, students and staff. Unfortunately, with the recent spate of privacy-related concerns, I will be leaving the Facebook service. I suppose my students and I will have to live with email lists and a very basic website (I've heard Geocities has a simple interface which I'm sure I can figure out).
If 3D ever become mainstream for computing environments, my big question is how we'll navigate it. You can't exactly move your mouse up and down through the table as it tends to leave big holes. Maybe an orientation-based thing a la Twiddler 1, or a POV button for vertical movement and rotation. It's something I haven't seen addressed at all, and if we want to get support for 3D computing then I think we need to start with some interesting ideas on how we'll use it.
I hacked two bokken (curved japanese wooden swords) into a D&D-style double sword using duct tape, screws and crazy glue.
I also made something that tosses up beanbag balls as moving targets. Base components: Blender, slingshot, springs from an old BB gun and a length of p-cord.
The technology creats a sound wave at the point where the two ultrasonics intersect. So, if the energy of the ultrasonics were high enough, or enough ultrasonic waves intersected close to each other, this could create a huge sonic force, enough to throw someone through the air, or knock down walls. Interesting weaponry applications, eh?
After the trail period, where Sunland would sue the first four Flightships
Maybe next time they should use a trained monkey to edit the story.
Seriously, though, do these things need to have a specific balance of weight when they're in flight? And also, does their wing dip down when they turn? because if it does, it would be really easy for them to catch a wave with the wing and go splat.
the system which the FBI has renamed
DCS-1000, a name spokesman Paul Bresson said did not signify
anything in particular.
So, do they expect us to have more respect for it, just because they give it a technical name? Personally, I think they're doing this so that the court system and the general population won't fixate on its scary name, and instead see it as some new high-tech way of protecting themselves from the evil bad hacker people, as seen in the accurate movie "Hackers". (for those of you who don't realize it, the previous sentence was sarcastic in nature)
I realize that you meant this as a joke (hopefully), but try to make jokes that are at least coherent and make sense to the world-wise audience of Slashdot....Fear my squirrely powers...
It's amazing how fast dumb points of view are excluded in a moderation system.
And who, may I ask, decides what is "dumb"? It was originally considered "dumb" for the US to rebel against England, since they'd have no chance. But that "dumb" idea got through.
This is exactly the kind of close-mindedness that censors Slashdot posts that don't exactly conform to their way of thinking.
This post will probably get modded down, but I want you to read it first.
--Cheesethegreat
Its akin to using words like paradox and proactive; those are words stupid
people use to sound important.
While I agree that "proactive" is just a catch word, "paradox" is a very real word. I do not consider myself stupid, but I use "paradox" when in debates, to draw attention to the fact that a certain hypothetical situation is actually impossible. Also, in mathematics, "paradoxical" is important to describe a diagram that contradicts itself. In religion, the Bible (Old Testament) is full of contradictions, leading to..."paradoxes"!
Sorry to be so nit-picky, but that's just the way I am.
I am Demosthenes, don't you dare put me under Locke and key.
As a Linux zealot, I realize you don't respect the copyright and trademark wishes of others, but don't be surprised when they come to enforce their legal rights.
If you read my post, the key phrase was "that they think looks like their music." My question was, is there an objective protocall for deciding if something is too similar to a pre-existing product. Whether it be software, music or anything else.
If Apple can sue for something that resembles its OS, then can musicians sue other musicians something that they think sounds like their music?
Also, how far does this extend? If Apple sues for something that looks like their OS, then what provisos are they usuing to determine if it's too similar?
Answer: Probably none.
It disturbs me to see yet another example of Big Business thinking that they own everything, and crushing everything that they percieve as a challenge under their silicon-toed boot.
--Demosthenes
Never Underestimate The Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.
The point of this was not that DirectTV needed the money, but that they wanted to make a statement. They've set a precendent for fighting on the hacker's terms. By doing this, they've made people realize that big corporations are not going to stand for any amount of piracy. Besides, this is a great PR thing for them with the general hacker/computer interested people community.
sorry, I was having a really bad day. I just got through being yelled at by professors for writing a paper in defense of hacking instead of against it. I just needed to let off some steam, and unfortunatly, slashdot ended up being the target.
Maybe you ought to reexamine what "hacking" actually means. It does not mean getting into systems, or being " 'leet". It means doing things which help make your computing experience easier and better. The people who hacked the Aqua OS just couldn't stand it, and are trying to make it better for the general public. So, don't go making fun of them, when they're trying to help you.
First of all, how are they planning to steer these nano-subs. I don't want one of these things inside me taking a wrong turn, and ending up dropping drugs in the wrong place, or even worse, puncturing a capillary, or other body organ.
Second, how would they retrieve the sub once it finished it's work. I'd hate to think of these things degrading inside my body, and releasing all their chemicals and left-over bio-products.
Also, what if one of the nano-subs gets transferred to another person through an open wound. It would start delivering its drugs to the wrong person, with potentially serious results. In that same vein, what if the person was in an accident, and during an emergency surgery, the nano-sub was disabled, or accidentally moved to another part of their body. How would the doctors be able to track them?
Don't get me wrong, though, I really like this idea. Assuming that they get everything working, this could mean that people could simply have a little port on their body where they get the nano-subs put in, and then could have the drug delivered over a long term period. It could be great for people on continuous medication, because they would only have to get one injection, and then could go on with their life.
This doesn't mean that Silicon Startups are doomed, it just means that they need to be a bit more careful in their planning and in their long-term plans. While it is true that some startups make millions, it's only because they do the right thing, with the right planning, at the right time. So, if the tech people are more discerning about who they work for, then this will force startups to make themselves look good for the long term.
-- Lawrence We now return you to your regularly scheduled chaos.
Heck when are we going to put a man back on the moon?
The reason that we aren't going to put a man (or woman) back on the moon anytime soon is because there really isn't any point to it. A moon mission is a really big investment, and until we establish a permenant base there, there's no point to spending all the money. I think that instead of building the ISS, we should be building an international base on the moon. It would be much more permenant, wouldn't have to worry about a degrading orbit. Also, it could be used as a future point from which to launch spacecraft. If we could harvest fuel from the moon or from space debris, and transport all the materials up to the moon, then it would be very efficient to do continuous lauches from the moon.
--
Lawrence
Thank you for listening, we now return you to your regularly scheduled chaos.
The only reason that the government was able to get this accomplished is because average people don't consider things that they read on a screen to be as important as what they can hold in their hand.
For example: when someone accesses John Doe's email account, he doesn't get all worried and scared. But, if someone reads one of his snail mail letters, from his dear old aunt, you can bet that he'll be on the phone to the FBI, CIA and NSA demanding that they launch a twelve part investigation into the entire US Mail System.
This may be a slight exaggeration, but you get my drift. I think that the public needs to wake up, and to realize that physical assets are not the most important things anymore; but that information is now the international currency. They need to realize that it is not control of gold or land or weapons that determines who has the power; but it is those that hold the information that control the power.
After all, it may be a cliche, but it is finally true: Knowledge is power. (Incredible, frightning, unlimited power.)
If the technology center of the world starts using open source, this could provide a boost at a key point for Linux. Also, does anyone see the posibiliteis of major corporations publicly switching to Linux. Open source Cell Phones? PDAs? What we're seeing here could be a hallmark of an increasingly "yay Linux" time.
Also, if opne source starts being used extensively in PDAs, Cell Phones, and other everyday items, we would be able to find ways to make our data more secure; because 2 million open source programmers will find more ways to solve problems than 50 closed-source programmers.
And let us never forget one thing Never throw a dead chipmunk at a police officer- Lawrence Wiseman
Slashdot Mirror
Preface: IANAL, but I am a law student doing fairly well for himself so far.
In legal systems there has always been give-and-take between flexibility and predictability. On the one hand, it is important for citizens to live in a society where they can confidently predict the legal outcomes of their actions (even if that means consulting a lawyer first). On the other hand, lawmakers cannot predict future events and developments, and vague laws enable courts to adapt to rapidly changing legal, social and ethical environments.
TFA is advocating certainty in law. This is a perfectly valid viewpoint, but you must acknowledge what is being lost. Courts will not be able to handle new technologies, new cultural interactions, or changing social standards. Currently, the courts provide a very cheap way to keep laws up-to-date. If you want to have this process operate as the sole means of progressing the law, then expect to be pouring huge amounts of money into the civil service.
Also, this flies in the face of common law systems such as that used in the UK. This is a system which has proven so resilient to abuse that former British colonies such as Jamaica still use the common law of England and Wales to settle many legal disputes. (e.g. R v Beckford 1988). While there are many arguments against Common Law systems, it has proven to be fairly sustainable in England's case, and I would suggest reading more about those.
To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, "Common law is the worst possible legal system, with the exception of all the other systems which have been tried from time to time."
Overall, this article looks, smells and tastes like someone writing about a topic they don't really understand. I don't mean any offense by this, but I do recommend reading some books on political and legal theory before suggesting a radical overhaul of the world's legal structure.
Google manages to achieve the open standard on the new network which it has been gunning for, allowing it to put into action plans and hardware/software sales which it has no doubt been designing and planning for months. The next day, Microsoft (a major software competitor for mobile devices) bids on Yahoo (a major internet portal competitor versus Google).
Everyone who thinks this is a coincidence, please raise your hand.
*looks around*
Huh...nobody did.
If this actually happens, and researchers are willing to make their data-sets open source, it would be a huge boon for budding researchers. It would allow students to do more than just work with a sample dataset out of a textbook. Graduate students learning how to do advanced modeling would be able to work with real datasets, vastly improving their skillset and employability. Just consider these two lines on a CV, and ask yourself which one jumps out at you.
"Designed a model for the dataset on the CD-ROM included with the Modeling Organic Systems textbook"
"Designed a model for the WISK-III heart output dataset published in 2006."
New entrants to a field would have instant access to enormous amounts of data very quickly and easily. Although the big kudos comes when you can do totally original work (new data, new analyss), a researcher who could come up with a new critique of older papers and studies would definitely get themselves noticed.
Overall, this is a really positive step for everyone on the lower rungs of the scientific ladder, and especially positive for those with limited resources.
One of the major problems here is that students are used to being able to Google "mitigating factors in murder" and get a nice website with clean design which provides them with the history and current state of the topic, all in a single easy-to-use package.
In contrast, academic articles are usually much narrower in scope than your average webpage and require much more reading and time before an understanding of the subject can be cultivated. Of course, the benefit of using academic articles is that after having read a dozen of them, a student will have a much better and more balanced understanding of a subject than they would have if they'd just gone to Crazy Bob's Information Hut.
When I peer-review papers (I'm currently in law school), it's very obvious which students started their research with academic sources, and which started on Google. The problem can be quickly solved by professors taking the approach seen at my institution: students failing to have in-depth research on the topic get poor marks.
The only way that online games are going to have a chance at getting away from these issues is with the implementation of skill-based advancement instead of advancement based on accumulated experience/gold. As it stands, a high-level player in many online games doesn't need to have learned any particular skill themselves, but a simple accumulation of wealth via goldsellers to buy high-quality equipment and mindless hack-n-slash, combined with good macros, and they can usually come out on top.
Contrast this approach with what's seen in something like Jumpgate, where players have to actually develop their skill as a pilot in order to be successful in combat. I'd expect that gold-buying in that game is significantly lower per-capita than in your standard grind games like WoW or LotRO.
When we pray for the end of goldselling, what we're really hoping for is the beginning of an era where non-transferable capital (the skill you develop from playing the game) becomes the dominant factor in advancement.
Posting the link to the public comment filing system was an excellent decision. The problem with these "Public" comment periods is that there are very minimal requirements for advertising the opportunity to comment, and too often the only people who know about it are the parties actually involved in the litigation. Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues, and Slashdot editors ought to ensure that they include information about opportunities to make public comments on ongoing regulatory issues whenever possible.
Facebook can be immensely useful. On my profile, I have links to the classes that I teach. I also have my office hours, a shortened CV, my current research projects, images of recent projects, notifications of upcoming opportunities, links to the Facebook pages of other teaching staff, and other information for students. It's easily accessible for students, and allows for more two-way communication than a simple website.
For people like me who don't have the time, skill or inclination to set up an interactive multimedia website, Facebook can be integral to communicating with colleagues, students and staff. Unfortunately, with the recent spate of privacy-related concerns, I will be leaving the Facebook service. I suppose my students and I will have to live with email lists and a very basic website (I've heard Geocities has a simple interface which I'm sure I can figure out).
If 3D ever become mainstream for computing environments, my big question is how we'll navigate it. You can't exactly move your mouse up and down through the table as it tends to leave big holes. Maybe an orientation-based thing a la Twiddler 1, or a POV button for vertical movement and rotation. It's something I haven't seen addressed at all, and if we want to get support for 3D computing then I think we need to start with some interesting ideas on how we'll use it.
I hacked two bokken (curved japanese wooden swords) into a D&D-style double sword using duct tape, screws and crazy glue.
I also made something that tosses up beanbag balls as moving targets. Base components:
Blender, slingshot, springs from an old BB gun and a length of p-cord.
The technology creats a sound wave at the point where the two ultrasonics intersect. So, if the energy of the ultrasonics were high enough, or enough ultrasonic waves intersected close to each other, this could create a huge sonic force, enough to throw someone through the air, or knock down walls. Interesting weaponry applications, eh?
After the trail period, where Sunland would sue the first four Flightships
Maybe next time they should use a trained monkey to edit the story.
Seriously, though, do these things need to have a specific balance of weight when they're in flight? And also, does their wing dip down when they turn? because if it does, it would be really easy for them to catch a wave with the wing and go splat.
the system which the FBI has renamed DCS-1000, a name spokesman Paul Bresson said did not signify anything in particular.
So, do they expect us to have more respect for it, just because they give it a technical name? Personally, I think they're doing this so that the court system and the general population won't fixate on its scary name, and instead see it as some new high-tech way of protecting themselves from the evil bad hacker people, as seen in the accurate movie "Hackers". (for those of you who don't realize it, the previous sentence was sarcastic in nature)
Just my $0.001
I realize that you meant this as a joke (hopefully), but try to make jokes that are at least coherent and make sense to the world-wise audience of Slashdot. ...Fear my squirrely powers...
It's amazing how fast dumb points of view are excluded in a moderation system.
And who, may I ask, decides what is "dumb"? It was originally considered "dumb" for the US to rebel against England, since they'd have no chance. But that "dumb" idea got through.
This is exactly the kind of close-mindedness that censors Slashdot posts that don't exactly conform to their way of thinking.
This post will probably get modded down, but I want you to read it first.
--Cheesethegreat
Its akin to using words like paradox and proactive; those are words stupid people use to sound important.
While I agree that "proactive" is just a catch word, "paradox" is a very real word. I do not consider myself stupid, but I use "paradox" when in debates, to draw attention to the fact that a certain hypothetical situation is actually impossible. Also, in mathematics, "paradoxical" is important to describe a diagram that contradicts itself. In religion, the Bible (Old Testament) is full of contradictions, leading to..."paradoxes"!
Sorry to be so nit-picky, but that's just the way I am.
I am Demosthenes, don't you dare put me under Locke and key.
As a Linux zealot, I realize you don't respect the copyright and trademark wishes of others, but don't be surprised when they come to enforce their legal rights.
If you read my post, the key phrase was "that they think looks like their music." My question was, is there an objective protocall for deciding if something is too similar to a pre-existing product. Whether it be software, music or anything else.
If Apple can sue for something that resembles its OS, then can musicians sue other musicians something that they think sounds like their music?
Also, how far does this extend? If Apple sues for something that looks like their OS, then what provisos are they usuing to determine if it's too similar?
Answer: Probably none.
It disturbs me to see yet another example of Big Business thinking that they own everything, and crushing everything that they percieve as a challenge under their silicon-toed boot.
--Demosthenes Never Underestimate The Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.
The point of this was not that DirectTV needed the money, but that they wanted to make a statement. They've set a precendent for fighting on the hacker's terms. By doing this, they've made people realize that big corporations are not going to stand for any amount of piracy. Besides, this is a great PR thing for them with the general hacker/computer interested people community.
sorry, I was having a really bad day. I just got through being yelled at by professors for writing a paper in defense of hacking instead of against it. I just needed to let off some steam, and unfortunatly, slashdot ended up being the target.
Maybe you ought to reexamine what "hacking" actually means. It does not mean getting into systems, or being " 'leet". It means doing things which help make your computing experience easier and better. The people who hacked the Aqua OS just couldn't stand it, and are trying to make it better for the general public. So, don't go making fun of them, when they're trying to help you.
First of all, how are they planning to steer these nano-subs. I don't want one of these things inside me taking a wrong turn, and ending up dropping drugs in the wrong place, or even worse, puncturing a capillary, or other body organ.
Second, how would they retrieve the sub once it finished it's work. I'd hate to think of these things degrading inside my body, and releasing all their chemicals and left-over bio-products.
Also, what if one of the nano-subs gets transferred to another person through an open wound. It would start delivering its drugs to the wrong person, with potentially serious results. In that same vein, what if the person was in an accident, and during an emergency surgery, the nano-sub was disabled, or accidentally moved to another part of their body. How would the doctors be able to track them? Don't get me wrong, though, I really like this idea. Assuming that they get everything working, this could mean that people could simply have a little port on their body where they get the nano-subs put in, and then could have the drug delivered over a long term period. It could be great for people on continuous medication, because they would only have to get one injection, and then could go on with their life.
Just my $0.02
This doesn't mean that Silicon Startups are doomed, it just means that they need to be a bit more careful in their planning and in their long-term plans. While it is true that some startups make millions, it's only because they do the right thing, with the right planning, at the right time. So, if the tech people are more discerning about who they work for, then this will force startups to make themselves look good for the long term.
--
Lawrence
We now return you to your regularly scheduled chaos.
Heck when are we going to put a man back on the moon?
The reason that we aren't going to put a man (or woman) back on the moon anytime soon is because there really isn't any point to it. A moon mission is a really big investment, and until we establish a permenant base there, there's no point to spending all the money. I think that instead of building the ISS, we should be building an international base on the moon. It would be much more permenant, wouldn't have to worry about a degrading orbit. Also, it could be used as a future point from which to launch spacecraft. If we could harvest fuel from the moon or from space debris, and transport all the materials up to the moon, then it would be very efficient to do continuous lauches from the moon. -- Lawrence Thank you for listening, we now return you to your regularly scheduled chaos.
The only reason that the government was able to get this accomplished is because average people don't consider things that they read on a screen to be as important as what they can hold in their hand.
For example: when someone accesses John Doe's email account, he doesn't get all worried and scared. But, if someone reads one of his snail mail letters, from his dear old aunt, you can bet that he'll be on the phone to the FBI, CIA and NSA demanding that they launch a twelve part investigation into the entire US Mail System.
This may be a slight exaggeration, but you get my drift. I think that the public needs to wake up, and to realize that physical assets are not the most important things anymore; but that information is now the international currency. They need to realize that it is not control of gold or land or weapons that determines who has the power; but it is those that hold the information that control the power.
After all, it may be a cliche, but it is finally true: Knowledge is power. (Incredible, frightning, unlimited power.)
--Cheesethegreat
If the technology center of the world starts using open source, this could provide a boost at a key point for Linux. Also, does anyone see the posibiliteis of major corporations publicly switching to Linux. Open source Cell Phones? PDAs? What we're seeing here could be a hallmark of an increasingly "yay Linux" time.
Also, if opne source starts being used extensively in PDAs, Cell Phones, and other everyday items, we would be able to find ways to make our data more secure; because 2 million open source programmers will find more ways to solve problems than 50 closed-source programmers.
And let us never forget one thing
Never throw a dead chipmunk at a police officer-
Lawrence Wiseman