Yeah. Just like the phones. The stupid banks let us call up and perform transactions over the phone, when the phone is notoriously insecure--it's easy to wiretap, and someone be using a speakerphone in a public place, the bank has no way of telling.
Mail is also insecure, since people steal mail all the time, yet banks mail statements to their customers.
Also, having multiple branches is risky, since it requires communication between them, which could be tapped.
So every bank should have just one branch, and you should have to go there to perform any transaction. That would solve most of the security problems you're worried about.
Except that one can choose to identify with anonymous or not; one has less choice about one's race (one can control one's own sense of identity somewhat, less how others perceive one).
It would be IF they could accurately predict the outcome of a given formulation. But that assumption may not hold if our knowledge of these materials' properties is insufficient.
Depends on how the software is set up and what the speeds are. If it's more or less a fixed rate, and it's high enough to max out the potential of the stream, then this is a good idea. Most streaming video isn't about the lower, post-burst level of this system. Certainly not Youtube, and not even something like Netflix or Hulu. But all the players seem to want a certain amount of data before they start playing. This means they get that data faster, and if the bandwidth required by the stream is sustainable, it's fine. But yes, if the post-burst bandwidth is too low, it could cause hiccups. But how many streaming sites want over 5 MB/s?
It could also be good for streaming video/audio: get enough into the buffer to start playing in a couple of seconds, then keep streaming at a more leisurely (but still sufficient) rate.
'specific designs to capture something and not leave traces... This would be a nuclear bomb of malware.'
Say what? Whenever I want to sneak in somewhere and get away all quiet-and-subtle-like, my first thoughts are of atomic weaponry. Want to steal sensitive documents? Just detonate a small thermonuclear device and no one will even realize you were there, and you'll leave no traces (unless you count a loud bang, bright light, mushroom cloud, charred corpses, fallout and a spike in cancer rates and radiation levels).
Ninjas. Men in Black-style mindwiping. Cat burglar. Evil hypnotist. Lots of available analogies. Nuclear bomb ain't one of them.
I run a large network with thousands of computers, and I recently noticed that there are thousands of keyboards sitting there unused most of the time. And even when they are being used, typically only one or two keys are being depressed, leaving over 100 keys unpressed. Can anyone smart think of a way to put those hundreds of thousands of underutilized keys to work? It just seems like such a waste.
Isn't this what already happens with public transit? Many systems have lower fares for "off-peak" times and weekends (or offer things like weekend passes, which amount to the same thing). And theaters have cheap matinees. Restaurants have early bird specials, and charge less for the same food at lunch. Power companies sell electricity for less at off-peak times.
What's weird about this debate is that you have libertarian types complaining, "I paid my taxes dammit, you liberals keep your hands off my free roads," while liberals are saying, "let's let the market take care of this." A role reversal. I know that's an inaccurate generalization, but the sides taken in the above posts have sometimes been rather strange.
On the other hand, creating a disincentive to driving can help create a market for superior public transportation. Many places have good public transit, in part, because the hassle and expense of driving--and parking--is too great.
Why? It is plausible that a "gene" for such behavior would survive, if a large number of robots could be "saved" by one robot's death, that "gene" might well prosper. Imagine two situations:
1. a small number of robots deceive others about where there is food and poison, and that majority of the population dies
2. a small number of robots engage in the same deception, but some "heroes" signal the truth to rest, so those who would have died don't
The evolution of behavior of the second type, while it causes a few robots to apparently sacrifice themselves, makes perfect sense. Those robots (or others like them--from the gene's point of view it doesn't matter who dies) would have died anyhow.
As a few others have pointed out, though, all of this is a gimmick. This business of running robots around in a physical environment is rather pointless; the same things have been done in silico (or in wetware) for decades, by game theorists. It's fun, like the recreation of video game scenarios in real life, but doesn't add much as far as I can tell. It's easy enough to program this situation into a computer and see what the entities (whether we think of them as robots or as simple artificial life forms) do.
As a Canadian, I have to say that you've made rather a silly argument. Aside from listing mostly entertainers, ones who found success by going south, you've created the interested paradox that the US does not exist except on a Hollywood back lot. Either the Hollywood back lot is being hidden somewhere in the backwoods of Manitoba and we Canucks are both a devious lot (for creating this sham) and also fooled (for believing the hype), or your hyperbole far exceeds your ability to make a rational argument. Also, that would make it a very short drive from any Canadian city to Mexico.
Actually some very smart people have been devoting a lot of thought to figuring out how to label nuclear waste. They start from the assumption that all human languages, all residual knowledge, etc. disappear, and they have to communicate with future humans with whom they have nothing in common culturally the idea that this place is dangerous. I can't find the details, but here's a page on the topic:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0115.shtml
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Just like the phones. The stupid banks let us call up and perform transactions over the phone, when the phone is notoriously insecure--it's easy to wiretap, and someone be using a speakerphone in a public place, the bank has no way of telling.
Mail is also insecure, since people steal mail all the time, yet banks mail statements to their customers.
Also, having multiple branches is risky, since it requires communication between them, which could be tapped.
So every bank should have just one branch, and you should have to go there to perform any transaction. That would solve most of the security problems you're worried about.
Untrue.
Some restaurants have gone card-only.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6246139
Waiting to the end of your meal to pay isn't incurring a "debt" in a legal sense.
Ironclad security is whoever's on watch that day on the battleship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad
Except that one can choose to identify with anonymous or not; one has less choice about one's race (one can control one's own sense of identity somewhat, less how others perceive one).
It would be IF they could accurately predict the outcome of a given formulation. But that assumption may not hold if our knowledge of these materials' properties is insufficient.
Yes, AND they'll want to use aluminum foil to cover the leftovers.
Really great if you have life insurance payable to YOURSELF. Which not many companies issue.
Just try getting health coverage, though. It's really hard to find a good zombie doctor.
You get zinged on the sales tax though, or capital gains.
Depends on how the software is set up and what the speeds are. If it's more or less a fixed rate, and it's high enough to max out the potential of the stream, then this is a good idea. Most streaming video isn't about the lower, post-burst level of this system. Certainly not Youtube, and not even something like Netflix or Hulu. But all the players seem to want a certain amount of data before they start playing. This means they get that data faster, and if the bandwidth required by the stream is sustainable, it's fine. But yes, if the post-burst bandwidth is too low, it could cause hiccups. But how many streaming sites want over 5 MB/s?
It could also be good for streaming video/audio: get enough into the buffer to start playing in a couple of seconds, then keep streaming at a more leisurely (but still sufficient) rate.
Say what? Whenever I want to sneak in somewhere and get away all quiet-and-subtle-like, my first thoughts are of atomic weaponry. Want to steal sensitive documents? Just detonate a small thermonuclear device and no one will even realize you were there, and you'll leave no traces (unless you count a loud bang, bright light, mushroom cloud, charred corpses, fallout and a spike in cancer rates and radiation levels).
Ninjas. Men in Black-style mindwiping. Cat burglar. Evil hypnotist. Lots of available analogies. Nuclear bomb ain't one of them.
I run a large network with thousands of computers, and I recently noticed that there are thousands of keyboards sitting there unused most of the time. And even when they are being used, typically only one or two keys are being depressed, leaving over 100 keys unpressed. Can anyone smart think of a way to put those hundreds of thousands of underutilized keys to work? It just seems like such a waste.
Isn't this what already happens with public transit? Many systems have lower fares for "off-peak" times and weekends (or offer things like weekend passes, which amount to the same thing). And theaters have cheap matinees. Restaurants have early bird specials, and charge less for the same food at lunch. Power companies sell electricity for less at off-peak times.
What's weird about this debate is that you have libertarian types complaining, "I paid my taxes dammit, you liberals keep your hands off my free roads," while liberals are saying, "let's let the market take care of this." A role reversal. I know that's an inaccurate generalization, but the sides taken in the above posts have sometimes been rather strange.
On the other hand, creating a disincentive to driving can help create a market for superior public transportation. Many places have good public transit, in part, because the hassle and expense of driving--and parking--is too great.
Why? It is plausible that a "gene" for such behavior would survive, if a large number of robots could be "saved" by one robot's death, that "gene" might well prosper. Imagine two situations:
1. a small number of robots deceive others about where there is food and poison, and that majority of the population dies
2. a small number of robots engage in the same deception, but some "heroes" signal the truth to rest, so those who would have died don't
The evolution of behavior of the second type, while it causes a few robots to apparently sacrifice themselves, makes perfect sense. Those robots (or others like them--from the gene's point of view it doesn't matter who dies) would have died anyhow.
As a few others have pointed out, though, all of this is a gimmick. This business of running robots around in a physical environment is rather pointless; the same things have been done in silico (or in wetware) for decades, by game theorists. It's fun, like the recreation of video game scenarios in real life, but doesn't add much as far as I can tell. It's easy enough to program this situation into a computer and see what the entities (whether we think of them as robots or as simple artificial life forms) do.
As a Canadian, I have to say that you've made rather a silly argument. Aside from listing mostly entertainers, ones who found success by going south, you've created the interested paradox that the US does not exist except on a Hollywood back lot. Either the Hollywood back lot is being hidden somewhere in the backwoods of Manitoba and we Canucks are both a devious lot (for creating this sham) and also fooled (for believing the hype), or your hyperbole far exceeds your ability to make a rational argument. Also, that would make it a very short drive from any Canadian city to Mexico.
No roads, then? No schools?
That's not true. It's actually parchment. Much more durable.
Actually some very smart people have been devoting a lot of thought to figuring out how to label nuclear waste. They start from the assumption that all human languages, all residual knowledge, etc. disappear, and they have to communicate with future humans with whom they have nothing in common culturally the idea that this place is dangerous. I can't find the details, but here's a page on the topic: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0115.shtml
Or classical music.
Partly, it's not differentiating OBJECTS, it's differentiating PICTURES of objects. That is actually a somewhat different skill.
Assuming we're talking about light here, it's only about 15.25 nanoseconds. That's not very long at all!
When it's a choice between trying to leap the 20 foot chasm and walking an extra mile to the bridge, I know what I'm doing.
There is a fine line between courage and stupidity. You appear to be prepared to cross it.