Re:Life fills a space defined by its environment
on
Did Sea Life Arise Twice?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've read similar theories (Aquatic ape hypothesis) that stated similar ideas about human evolution. They proposed that humans are poorly adapted to land (relatively speaking). We go through large volumes of water compared to other land based mammals. Humans require far more water and lose more water than most other land based species. We also have very little hair whereas most land based mammals are covered with it. We are also better adapted to water than other apes. The idea was that human ancestors may have been forced back into the oceans, at least partially. Possibly into shallow areas causing adaptions to develop that have changed us in some fundamental way compared to our Ape cousins.
Agreed. If it was a true mac fan, that was just embarrassing (and this coming from me, a true Mac user). If it was a troll pretending to be a mac fan, it was still just embarrassing. All computers are vulnerable to exploits.
Back on topic, this PDF vulnerability reads a lot like the vulnerability exposed in iOS4 that allowed a jailbreak in the user space via a PDF exploit.
I'm sorry, but it's all cringeworthy. When you start spelling your emotions, you should seek counseling. I have a home schooled friend who used to do that. There are some things friends shouldn't let friends do. This is one of them...
He now laughs like a normal person, and may even have a date in the near future. There is always hope...
I take it from there, they must judge how likely it was that someone could consider how dangerous their actions where, and what potential risk it was to others?
I've always been curious how penalties like this are judged and how they decide on a penalty. For instance, what if I put someone in harms way but other circumstances which were out of my control then contributed to the outcome? To put it into a framework of this particular case, what if the monitoring software I used reported the laptop as stolen in some way, and when I activated the camera, it happend to catch a student rubbing one out while chatting with his girlfriend. Would the maker of the software be guilty in this case, or the school district for enabling the camera without enough safeguards to prevent such?
Thank you. That actually makes sense to me (death by reckless behavior) although I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
Involuntary manslaughter still requires a component of recklessness or disregard, and specifies that the accused willfully engaged in conduct knowing that the conduct carried the risk of serious injury or death (intoxication is specifically disallowed as a defense here in most jurisdictions). The recklessness is the mens rea. Otherwise it was merely an accident (though there might still be civil liability as far as wrongful death goes).
I'm assuming that if they can prove that of the 56,000 images taken from the laptops owned by this school district, that some of them were not reported as missing or stolen, they could very well have proven Mens rea? What about considering the risk that activating the camera and capturing these images could be proved as reckless by the school district? The school obviously can't prove that the family who filed the lawsuit had reported the laptop stolen since it was still in the family's possession?
I've always wondered about that. What about cases like Involuntary Manslaughter, which seem to be more about carelessness rather than criminal intent?
As to this case in general, although the Feds have dropped their case, the original lawsuit made by the family against the school district is going forward.
Always. Criminal guilt carries to elements:
Actus reus = the guilty act Mens rea = the guilty mind
He wanted to drive a competitor out of the marketplace, which is easy, when you control the marketplace.
Apple doesn't control either the mobile, or the media market. They aren't #1 in any particular market except for possibly iPod's, which aren't really a market for flash anyway. They don't have a proprietary 'product' that competes with Flash/Adobe either. Too many people try to make it out as some sort of personel vendetta from Steve to Adobe, but given Adobe's horrible track record when it comes to security, it's lack of support for modern platforms like x64 (which I might remind folks, have been around for a decade and we're only now seeing support). Would you want to allow such a product on to your platform, with the potential to end up supporting thousands of applications (indirectly of course). Security issues would be even worse. A potential flaw like the recent Apple bug that allowed jailbreaking on the iPhone is an excellent example. Apple patched their own within a few weeks. They would be completely at the mercy of Adobe if such a bug existed in Flash. Would you put yourself willingly in that position?
I have to point out that SSD's have been using the same basic process since around 1995 when they started using Flash.
15 Years in the PC world is an eternity, with many standards being released, developing, and being sunset in such a long cycle. SSD's are NOT new. They came out before the SATA 1 standard which came in about 2001 give or take:
Flash-based SSDs In 1995, M-Systems introduced flash-based solid-state drives. Since then, SSDs have been used successfully as HDD replacements by the military and aerospace industries, as well as other mission-critical applications. These applications require the exceptional mean time between failures (MTBF) rates that solid-state drives achieve, by virtue of their ability to withstand extreme shock, vibration and temperature ranges. BiTMICRO made a number of introductions and announcements in 1999 around flash-based SSDs including an 18 gigabyte 3.5" SSD. Fusion-io announced a PCIe-based SSD with 100,000 Input/Output Operations Per Second (IOPS) of performance in a single card with capacities up to 320 gigabytes in 2007. At Cebit 2009, OCZ demonstrated a 1 terabyte (TB) flash SSD using a PCI Express x8 interface. It achieves a maximum write speed of 654 megabytes per second (MB/s) and maximum read speed of 712 MB/s. In December 2009, Micron Technology announced the world's first SSD using a 6 gigabits per second (Gbps) SATA interface.
Platter hard drives are about.10 cents a megabyte. SSD by comparison is still something like $2/MB. It's insane that a technology that is as old as this, being deployed in desktop and notebooks, still commands such a premium in price.
I did find a blurb on Wiki about the conversion from NOR Flash to NAND, which lets them cram far more into the silicon. According to Wiki, we should start seeing an annual decline of 50% in raw material costs.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of waiting...
I have to wonder why the cost is still so expensive. They are starting to see widespread use, with most vendors offing an SSD selection for notebook and desktop models. Most technology typically experiences a rapid drop in price long before the level of market acceptance we're seeing for SSD. These have been available for years now, yet the price is still prohibitive. Is it the raw materials that are so expensive? The R&D for the basic design is pretty much a done deal at this point, no?
Because they all offer the same contract? They all reserve the right to change the terms at any time. I essentially have no choice if I wish to use wireless service.
My solution? I would require that all telecom's comply with a 'nominal use' policy, which would force them to maintain available bandwidth. If they exceed it regularly, they would be fined. This would force them to either upgrade their pipes to add more customers, or they would simply have to limit their customer base to a reasonable amount more in line with the bandwidth they could supply.
I would also require that all telecom providers be separated from content providers. The current inbreeding only breeds corruption.
Which is perfectly legal. It is the citizen's responsibility to read every word prior to signing a contract. If you think small print should be outlawed then talk to your Congressman and ask for the law to be updated.
You mean the same contract that one party can modify the terms of at any time?
I agree they are not a monopoly, BUT, getting into this business is not a simple as you seem to believe. If these companies can continue to take in an unlimited number of customers, and then modify the terms of the contracts at any time to reduce their service offerings due to being over capacity, they essentially stifle any new competition. If all of the major wireless providers do the same (and they do due to lack of regulation), there is no room for competition.
What kind of 'contract' allows one of the parties to modify the terms at any time?
Add to that, the steep processes in place to even get the rights to put up a tower, the licensing, the legal costs from the EM wacko's, and it all becomes pointless to try to enter into competition. You would have no customers, no brand recognition, stiff legal costs and challenges.
You named 6 competitors, of which I've heard of 3. I don't consider that a health market. The barrier for entry is too high as it is.
Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts to account for cancellations, late passengers, and typical overhead. If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.
You deny that they have to go through procedures to access it, and then immediately link to a page that requires very specific info, such as the persons first and last name, booking date, release date, race, sex, and date of birth?
You really don't see how this differs from a Facebook page?
I don't have to 'believe' it. They DID promise 'unlimited' access. Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print. You consider that transparent?
Your idea of 'quite upfront' and mine apparently differ somewhat.
The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition into the telecom space because it would force more business to compete in that space. By allowing people like AT&T and Verizon to take an unlimited number of customers, while continuously lowering the bar, they stifle competition just as effectively as a monopoly.
Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers, sheer need would promote new entries into that space.
They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable. An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so. It is not so obvious for a telecom provider, and fighting net neutrality will just keep that as the status quo.
No, it is evil to recognize that they have less capacity, yet continue to sell to new customers who will continue to use more capacity. The telecom's are not the victims here. They made this mess of their own choosing.
We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service. Look where it's gotten us. Now the FCC has to try to get them re-classified under the original rules just to enforce fairness.
Although I would expect to see Joe Plumber bilked into rejecting Net Neutrality, I never expected to see such on Slashdot. If a Telecom provider must throttle traffic on their network in order to keep things running, then they should either throttle all traffic evenly, or they should stop overselling their capacity to try to wring every last penny out for their CEO's to the detriment of any customers foolish enough to use their service.
If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.
Yes, they are public record, BUT, you must generally also go through procedures to access such public data. They were not intended for random access in such a manner.
Generally, a formal state/county/city public records request must be made in writing, the agency you're making the request of has a state-law designated amount of time to reply within, and the agency has a right to charge you a reasonable fee to cover the cost of obtaining and copying the record.
Posting these on Facebook bypasses all of that, and could damage a persons reputation, without due process.
All well and good, except these are being posted when these people are arrested. At this time, they are still presumed innocent until guilt is proven or they are convicted of a crime. This smacks of harassment.
People should know who you are and what your proclivities are. In the above cases you should expect no right to privacy after your first conviction
The OS X design is actually rather elegant. It allows you to delete an 'app' while keeping all user data. It's segmented into 3 parts by design (preferences, app data, and app). I can dump 'Chrome' in the trash, yet keep all of my cookies, bookmarks, history, and preferences because they are stored in two different locations (PLIST and App Support). If you truly want to remove those bits, it's a simple matter of deleting an additional folder and PLIST file.
The same layout is also very useful for 'problem' application/troubleshooting, where you can remove preferences, app data, or app, without affecting the other two.
That isn't what it means at all. It's just means that it's more intuitive to someone not 'trained' to do something a specific way on a computer. Something that is inherently difficult for a computer geek to understand.
The 'uninstall' is a great example and something I observe all the time among new computer users. It's intuitive to throw something in the trash that you want to uninstall. It is not intuitive to go to the Control Panel, then Programs and Features. Find your program in a large list and then click the 'Change/Remove' button. Even Linux is branching out in totally new ways, away from the 'Windows' way of doing things. I happen to think they are making the right choices although I'm sure they too will also meet resistance for the same reasons.
Although Windows was king for productivity software for decades, they seem to have lost the ability (did they ever have it?) to create software that is intuitive to new users.
As with all things, the first one to do something didn't necessarily do it best.
Very few Mac programs 'close' when you click the 'X'. If you want to 'quit' a program, you either use the keyboard shortcut (Command-Q for every app on the Mac), or you click the app menu and select quit. It is consistent to such a degree that you will find the same options on every Mac program out there. In additional, there are almost no apps that 'quit' when you click the 'X'. The ones that do actually quit are limited to a few system utilities. The rest just stay resident in the background as needed. It makes launching them again much faster, and has no negative impact on performance since the memory management is so well done (Wired, Active, Inactive, and Free). The same is true for iOS4. It's all to common I will find 20 to 30 apps just sitting there in the background on my iPhone. They have no impact on performance, even when working with 512 MB.
The UI probably doesn't make sense to you, because your were raised on Windows or Linux. The OS X UI however, makes sense to someone who's never sat in front of a computer. They click the plus symbol to maximize the window to fit the doc. Why would it instead fill the entire screen when the doc only takes a portion of that? Just as uninstalling a program is more intuitive to just drop it in the trash. I can't say how many times I would try to stop family members from deleting folders on a Windows box to try to uninstall an app.
As to your comment about 'trashing' drives to eject them, they could just right click and select Eject, or click the 'eject' button in finder which shows up next to any media that can be ejected, or they could click Eject in Disk Utility. Additionally, they still support throwing it in the trash as well, although it's hardly the only way to eject a drive.
Just because you've always done something a particular way doesn't make that way particularly good. If we always did things the same way, we'd probably all still be using command lines, mice would be eating your cheese, and icons would only be for music.
I'm guessing you haven't been reading the rest of this thread. There was other evidence. The forum post led the police to him. They canvased the neighborhood he was bragging about. Found witnesses who would testify to the event, and he pleaded guilty as a result.
“Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched,” said Const. Serguei Barmakov.
He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.
“Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched,” said Const. Serguei Barmakov.
He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read similar theories (Aquatic ape hypothesis) that stated similar ideas about human evolution. They proposed that humans are poorly adapted to land (relatively speaking). We go through large volumes of water compared to other land based mammals. Humans require far more water and lose more water than most other land based species. We also have very little hair whereas most land based mammals are covered with it. We are also better adapted to water than other apes. The idea was that human ancestors may have been forced back into the oceans, at least partially. Possibly into shallow areas causing adaptions to develop that have changed us in some fundamental way compared to our Ape cousins.
I have always been intrigued by this theory.
Agreed. If it was a true mac fan, that was just embarrassing (and this coming from me, a true Mac user). If it was a troll pretending to be a mac fan, it was still just embarrassing. All computers are vulnerable to exploits.
Back on topic, this PDF vulnerability reads a lot like the vulnerability exposed in iOS4 that allowed a jailbreak in the user space via a PDF exploit.
Are they related?
I'm sorry, but it's all cringeworthy. When you start spelling your emotions, you should seek counseling. I have a home schooled friend who used to do that. There are some things friends shouldn't let friends do. This is one of them...
He now laughs like a normal person, and may even have a date in the near future. There is always hope...
I take it from there, they must judge how likely it was that someone could consider how dangerous their actions where, and what potential risk it was to others?
I've always been curious how penalties like this are judged and how they decide on a penalty. For instance, what if I put someone in harms way but other circumstances which were out of my control then contributed to the outcome? To put it into a framework of this particular case, what if the monitoring software I used reported the laptop as stolen in some way, and when I activated the camera, it happend to catch a student rubbing one out while chatting with his girlfriend. Would the maker of the software be guilty in this case, or the school district for enabling the camera without enough safeguards to prevent such?
Thank you. That actually makes sense to me (death by reckless behavior) although I would question that someone 'knew' that their actions would cause harm to others.
I'm assuming that if they can prove that of the 56,000 images taken from the laptops owned by this school district, that some of them were not reported as missing or stolen, they could very well have proven Mens rea? What about considering the risk that activating the camera and capturing these images could be proved as reckless by the school district? The school obviously can't prove that the family who filed the lawsuit had reported the laptop stolen since it was still in the family's possession?
I've always wondered about that. What about cases like Involuntary Manslaughter, which seem to be more about carelessness rather than criminal intent?
As to this case in general, although the Feds have dropped their case, the original lawsuit made by the family against the school district is going forward.
Apple doesn't control either the mobile, or the media market. They aren't #1 in any particular market except for possibly iPod's, which aren't really a market for flash anyway. They don't have a proprietary 'product' that competes with Flash/Adobe either. Too many people try to make it out as some sort of personel vendetta from Steve to Adobe, but given Adobe's horrible track record when it comes to security, it's lack of support for modern platforms like x64 (which I might remind folks, have been around for a decade and we're only now seeing support). Would you want to allow such a product on to your platform, with the potential to end up supporting thousands of applications (indirectly of course). Security issues would be even worse. A potential flaw like the recent Apple bug that allowed jailbreaking on the iPhone is an excellent example. Apple patched their own within a few weeks. They would be completely at the mercy of Adobe if such a bug existed in Flash. Would you put yourself willingly in that position?
I have to point out that SSD's have been using the same basic process since around 1995 when they started using Flash.
15 Years in the PC world is an eternity, with many standards being released, developing, and being sunset in such a long cycle. SSD's are NOT new. They came out before the SATA 1 standard which came in about 2001 give or take:
Platter hard drives are about .10 cents a megabyte. SSD by comparison is still something like $2/MB. It's insane that a technology that is as old as this, being deployed in desktop and notebooks, still commands such a premium in price.
I did find a blurb on Wiki about the conversion from NOR Flash to NAND, which lets them cram far more into the silicon. According to Wiki, we should start seeing an annual decline of 50% in raw material costs.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of waiting...
I have to wonder why the cost is still so expensive. They are starting to see widespread use, with most vendors offing an SSD selection for notebook and desktop models. Most technology typically experiences a rapid drop in price long before the level of market acceptance we're seeing for SSD. These have been available for years now, yet the price is still prohibitive. Is it the raw materials that are so expensive? The R&D for the basic design is pretty much a done deal at this point, no?
Because they all offer the same contract? They all reserve the right to change the terms at any time. I essentially have no choice if I wish to use wireless service.
My solution? I would require that all telecom's comply with a 'nominal use' policy, which would force them to maintain available bandwidth. If they exceed it regularly, they would be fined. This would force them to either upgrade their pipes to add more customers, or they would simply have to limit their customer base to a reasonable amount more in line with the bandwidth they could supply.
I would also require that all telecom providers be separated from content providers. The current inbreeding only breeds corruption.
You mean the same contract that one party can modify the terms of at any time?
I agree they are not a monopoly, BUT, getting into this business is not a simple as you seem to believe. If these companies can continue to take in an unlimited number of customers, and then modify the terms of the contracts at any time to reduce their service offerings due to being over capacity, they essentially stifle any new competition. If all of the major wireless providers do the same (and they do due to lack of regulation), there is no room for competition.
What kind of 'contract' allows one of the parties to modify the terms at any time?
Add to that, the steep processes in place to even get the rights to put up a tower, the licensing, the legal costs from the EM wacko's, and it all becomes pointless to try to enter into competition. You would have no customers, no brand recognition, stiff legal costs and challenges.
You named 6 competitors, of which I've heard of 3. I don't consider that a health market. The barrier for entry is too high as it is.
Actually I do know what I'm talking about. Airlines can overbook, but only very small amounts to account for cancellations, late passengers, and typical overhead. If they exceed that, and bump too many customers, they get heavy fines.
http://www.startribune.com/business/99267109.html
You deny that they have to go through procedures to access it, and then immediately link to a page that requires very specific info, such as the persons first and last name, booking date, release date, race, sex, and date of birth?
You really don't see how this differs from a Facebook page?
I don't have to 'believe' it. They DID promise 'unlimited' access. Even now, they continue to offer 'unlimited access' with restrictions in small print. You consider that transparent?
Your idea of 'quite upfront' and mine apparently differ somewhat.
The very idea of Net Neutrality would force competition into the telecom space because it would force more business to compete in that space. By allowing people like AT&T and Verizon to take an unlimited number of customers, while continuously lowering the bar, they stifle competition just as effectively as a monopoly.
Were they not allowed to take unlimited numbers of customers, sheer need would promote new entries into that space.
They abuse the digital medium simply because it's less noticeable. An airline can't overbook as it would be immediately obvious to it's customers if they did so. It is not so obvious for a telecom provider, and fighting net neutrality will just keep that as the status quo.
No, it is evil to recognize that they have less capacity, yet continue to sell to new customers who will continue to use more capacity. The telecom's are not the victims here. They made this mess of their own choosing.
We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service. Look where it's gotten us. Now the FCC has to try to get them re-classified under the original rules just to enforce fairness.
Although I would expect to see Joe Plumber bilked into rejecting Net Neutrality, I never expected to see such on Slashdot. If a Telecom provider must throttle traffic on their network in order to keep things running, then they should either throttle all traffic evenly, or they should stop overselling their capacity to try to wring every last penny out for their CEO's to the detriment of any customers foolish enough to use their service.
If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.
Yes, they are public record, BUT, you must generally also go through procedures to access such public data. They were not intended for random access in such a manner.
Generally, a formal state/county/city public records request must be made in writing, the agency you're making the request of has a state-law designated amount of time to reply within, and the agency has a right to charge you a reasonable fee to cover the cost of obtaining and copying the record.
Posting these on Facebook bypasses all of that, and could damage a persons reputation, without due process.
All well and good, except these are being posted when these people are arrested. At this time, they are still presumed innocent until guilt is proven or they are convicted of a crime. This smacks of harassment.
You do know that Apple wrote and open sourced CUPS right?
The OS X design is actually rather elegant. It allows you to delete an 'app' while keeping all user data. It's segmented into 3 parts by design (preferences, app data, and app). I can dump 'Chrome' in the trash, yet keep all of my cookies, bookmarks, history, and preferences because they are stored in two different locations (PLIST and App Support). If you truly want to remove those bits, it's a simple matter of deleting an additional folder and PLIST file.
The same layout is also very useful for 'problem' application/troubleshooting, where you can remove preferences, app data, or app, without affecting the other two.
That isn't what it means at all. It's just means that it's more intuitive to someone not 'trained' to do something a specific way on a computer. Something that is inherently difficult for a computer geek to understand.
The 'uninstall' is a great example and something I observe all the time among new computer users. It's intuitive to throw something in the trash that you want to uninstall. It is not intuitive to go to the Control Panel, then Programs and Features. Find your program in a large list and then click the 'Change/Remove' button. Even Linux is branching out in totally new ways, away from the 'Windows' way of doing things. I happen to think they are making the right choices although I'm sure they too will also meet resistance for the same reasons.
Although Windows was king for productivity software for decades, they seem to have lost the ability (did they ever have it?) to create software that is intuitive to new users.
As with all things, the first one to do something didn't necessarily do it best.
Very few Mac programs 'close' when you click the 'X'. If you want to 'quit' a program, you either use the keyboard shortcut (Command-Q for every app on the Mac), or you click the app menu and select quit. It is consistent to such a degree that you will find the same options on every Mac program out there. In additional, there are almost no apps that 'quit' when you click the 'X'. The ones that do actually quit are limited to a few system utilities. The rest just stay resident in the background as needed. It makes launching them again much faster, and has no negative impact on performance since the memory management is so well done (Wired, Active, Inactive, and Free). The same is true for iOS4. It's all to common I will find 20 to 30 apps just sitting there in the background on my iPhone. They have no impact on performance, even when working with 512 MB.
The UI probably doesn't make sense to you, because your were raised on Windows or Linux. The OS X UI however, makes sense to someone who's never sat in front of a computer. They click the plus symbol to maximize the window to fit the doc. Why would it instead fill the entire screen when the doc only takes a portion of that? Just as uninstalling a program is more intuitive to just drop it in the trash. I can't say how many times I would try to stop family members from deleting folders on a Windows box to try to uninstall an app.
As to your comment about 'trashing' drives to eject them, they could just right click and select Eject, or click the 'eject' button in finder which shows up next to any media that can be ejected, or they could click Eject in Disk Utility. Additionally, they still support throwing it in the trash as well, although it's hardly the only way to eject a drive.
Just because you've always done something a particular way doesn't make that way particularly good. If we always did things the same way, we'd probably all still be using command lines, mice would be eating your cheese, and icons would only be for music.
I'm guessing you haven't been reading the rest of this thread. There was other evidence. The forum post led the police to him. They canvased the neighborhood he was bragging about. Found witnesses who would testify to the event, and he pleaded guilty as a result.
Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence
Although I typically despise spelling Nazis, why couldn't they start here?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/04/16/the-most-ridiculous-tea-party-protest-signs/
Think of the Tea Baggers...
Yes, since the summary was somewhat lacking:
Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence