I really find it sickening when parents push and drive their kids to an unnatural level, and start putting them in situations where they are graded and judged constantly.
Bah. You have no clue if that's happening. I was hardly at this kids level, but I wasn't very far off, and I've never met anyone who had a childhood as fun as mine. If your intelligent, excercising that intelligence is one of the most fun activites available. Of course, maybe the parents ARE pushing the kid--but it's not a given. And from the tutors comments, it sounds like the kids having fun--otherwise he wouldn't want to LEARN, he'd be concerned with GRADES.
Children need to interact with others to learn and develop the social skills to lead normal healthy lives. Teaching children to live lives where work and studying is their sole raison de etre, is part of the reason why society has become as messed up as it is. No wonder the biggest cause of death in young adults these days is suicide, if this is the sort of culture that we are creating.
Your full of absolute shit, sorry. MAYBE they need to interact with other people than their parents (why?) to have "normal" lives...as if THAT'S a good goal to work towards? It's sure as HELL not needed for "healthy" lives. I didn't go to school until I was 15--I spent the 10 years before that reading science fiction and playing computer games. Three years on I've just finished by 2nd year of university, know 8-9 computer languages, have a deep interest in robotics and embedded systems, the largest vocabulary of anyone I've ever met, an excellent knowledge of quantum mechanics and particle physics, a reasonable grasp of univeristy level calculus, an excellent grasp of the political and economic status of every country in the world, and have an average knowledge of phychology, sociology, and so forth. I was Dux of school (like a valedictorian), top of all my classes in my last (that is, 2nd) year of high school, won a large scholarship, was on my schools rugby team, have crossed the US by RV 5 times, sailed across the South Pacific, gone white water rafting, and I mountain bike in my spare time. Oh yes, and I have lots of friends, plus a girl friend (which puts me ahead of most of my fellow geeks, apparently). Apart from a monumental self confidence (and some would argue whether that's a BAD thing), I don't think I came out of the experience too badly. Plus, I've never "studied" in my entire life.
From the sound of things, the kid in question is doing something more strenous that what I did, but then he also sounds a bit brighter and not as lazy. There's no particular reason why he should end up maladjusted--although if he IS as bright as he sounds, he's probably go absolutely NUTS if he was denied access to the information he wants.
The biggest cause of death for teenagers may be suicide, but the quickest way to cause a suicide is to stifle someone, and make them conform. And even then I blame 98% of all suicides on poor parenting.
But they wearn't free. The abolition of slavery made little practical difference...which is why we had the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King so many decades afterwards. In the aftermath of that...the slaves (or rather, the members of the ethnic group who were once slaves) are free. But almost none of this is directly tracable to the civil war days. The slaves were not freed until society decided that treating them as slaves wasn't acceptable. One day society will decide that overly restrictive EULA's aren't cool. Until then the slaves couldn't vote, and we can't see the source to most of the software on the market.
The GPL is even worse than the emancipation act. It annoys the hell out of people who dislike viral copyleft licenses, doesn't have the teeth to enforce the "freedoms" it tries to offer, and doesn't actually help the open source movement any more than, say, the modified BSD license does.
One day society will treat software (which, of course, will come as source code with binaries tossed in as a courtesy) the same way we treat toasters--it's your toaster, take it apart if you feel like it, and if you find a design flaw the manufacturer would love to hear about it before they get hit with a lawsuit. If you don't like the toaster, feel free to modify it. And no, nobody cares if you let other people use your toaster. Look at the license for Inferno. It's an example of what I'm talking about.
Actually..... 'dir/s filename.txt' from the root directory of your filesystem will do just as well as a 'find / | grep "filename.txt"'.... no specialized tools required. (you'll need DOS 5 or better, though...:)
Amazing! I didn't know that. And here I posted something saying people should know the tool they use. I've been using a bootleg copy of an internal IBM hack for nearly two decades...I never realized a global search feature had made it to any version of the OS...
You complain about people who don't know how to use CLI's, yet it's obvious that you know little about GUI file managers--at least under Windows. Whats this garbage about associating extensions? To open a single file?! And in NOTEPAD?? I can open any file I like in any application I like with two mouse clicks, a key press, and two or three more mouse clicks. I can open any file I like in my Notepad-replacement-of-choice with two mouse clicks. The first operation is easily comparable to a CLI, the second operation is going to be FASTER, even WITH tab completion. And if changing the association was actually neccesary (it shouldn't be, since it's part of setting up your development eviroment--I can't recall the last time I had too), it sure as hell wouldn't take 20 minutes, or even 5.
As for ls -R | grep "filename.ext"...well sure, that's pretty fast. On the other hand, so is using an equivalent DOS-based tool (no, it doesn't come with the OS. Then again, a l33t hacker like you knows how to download stuff, right?). Even the find utility that comes with windows will be comparable for more complicated searches.
Knowing how to use the tool your using will save you time. Choosing the wrong tool will waste time, even if you know it well. It's obvious from your post that while you know the tool you use, you use the wrong tool.
Amen to that! Pity I don't have any mod points today.:-)
Still...you have to admit it's a good language to learn the basics on. You HAVE to do it right in Java for it to even work. Knowing the way things should be done is useful. I learnt C++ without learning more than the basics of OO. But when I was forced to learn Java by my university, I HAD to learn OO, and when I figured out what OO was all about I was amazed at all I had been missing until then. I frequently ignore OO concepts completly when they aren't neccesary, but I'm still a better programmer for knowing them. The value of Java isn't in knowing it--it's in knowing what Java forces you to learn.
To THAT extent, employers wanting you to know Java might have some merit. Not that they want you to USE it, but that they want to know that your familar with a range of programming concepts and language styles.
...the surprising thing is that more people aren't "jilitng java". I happen to think Java is a wonderful and useful language...to teach to new programmers as a fresh language. It's not particularly useful for anything else. It is, admittedly, a joy to program in--assuming you're not being graded on results, but on the quality of your code (ie, you're not doing it "for real").
To be honest, what *IS* Java's "killer app"? It's main claim to fame is that it runs everywhere--but since it's slow enough few people want to run it ANYWHERE, that's of dubious use.:-) All those icky applets that didn't silly graphic effects (waves and so on) seem to have died out (yes!). Most useful stuff is client side anyhow, and PHP works nicely for that. What *IS* the point of Java?
I mean, is it just me, or is this language about as useful as, let's say...Smalltalk? And I don't mean to offend any Smalltalk fans by that!:-)
See, people are stupid. It doesn't matter if the game was released in 1980, people will still call the manufactuer and complain about how it doesn't work on their system, runs too fast, doesn't have good graphics, and ask for hints. If they can't find the original publisher, they'll find one with a similar name.
That's why you very rarely see companies doing this. It's just a major headache. They want these games to VANISH. They're old, they're not supported, the people working there now probably never even played them, and MOST importantly, they will likely have problems on new hardware.
Remember the Warcraft advendure game? Blizzard didn't think it was *QUITE* up to their standards, and never released it (despite the fact that hardcore Blizzard fans would have given up their first born child for a copy). Similarly, many software companies may look back at old CGA titles, and recoil in horror. They do *NOT* want people associating that with *THEM*. Don't forget, people are stupid. You and *I* know that Kings Quest 1 - 4 and The Colonels Bequest were some of the finest non-text adventure games ever made (right up there with LucasArts offerings, IMHO), but Joe Sixpack wants something with sex, blood, and/or explosions, and screw the gameplay.
So you'll find that many companies ACTUALLY don't mind abandonwarez sites. They can have nothing to do with them, but so long as they keep a low profile and don't distribute anything too recent, it's not a problem. If the companies could, they'd likally distribute their old games themselves--but for the reasons above, they can't. It has to be a 3rd party.
Now, as to the IDSA, I'm thinking that they just have a bored legal staff that needs something to do. It's possible, however, some member complained. Games often are rereleased (happened to Transport Tycoon just recently), which removes any moral justification for the software being on an abandonwarez site. Frequently, it doesn't remove the software, which the IDSA may be trying to fix.
The short of it is, *ALL* abandonwarez sites are breaking copyright law, and a close look shows that nearly all are breaking any impartial moral standards. If you can buy it in the local software store, it's not valid abandonware, and abandonwarez sites often don't look too closely. Of course, I know of one software shop thats still selling Betrayal at Krondor, despite Sierras decision (a rare exception to the general rule) to release it as freeware.:-) Even so, a small percentage of "abandonware" games aren't, and a large site is sure to have a few.
Should the/. masses be concerned? Not really. The abandonware site had indeed done something wrong (violating providers TOS if nothing else). If this develops into a general jihad against abandonware, *THEN* it's time to to start panicking. Until then...naaa. However I *DO* think the IDSA would have been better giving a list of titles they wanted removed. OTOH, there's enough abandonwarez sites out there one more or less won't really matter.
This entire thing is amazingly rediculous. It's silly that anyone is DOING this, and silly that anyone CARES they're doing this.
Let's make it simple, here. They're pinging people right? Yup. I've pinged people. You've pinged people. It's a tool for figuring out if there's anything at a given address, and if it's awake. That's what it's designed for, that's what I've used it for, that's what you've used it for, and that's what they're using it for.
Now, some companies with nearly enough brains to tell whether it's raining or not by standing outside have systems that actually page the sysadmin when they get pinged. Let's all feel sorry for the sysadmins, and hope they are lucky in their search for a job at someplace with an actual functioning clue. But none of that changes anything. If I go ping yahoo (I do this several times a week, since it's a nice easy to spell and remember domain name, will always be up, and if I can't reach it it means I've got connection problmes), I'm using ping for what it's designed for. So is this company. And if anyone doesn't like it, they should go back to whatever reality they came from, 'cause this one works differently.:-)
Same holds for traceroute too. Useful tool, being used for the purpose it was designed for.
Finally, what did the company get from all of this? A big-ass list of routers and stuff. Now if they fiddle around with nslookup, whois, dig, and so on, run a few regex searches through the list, and so on, they'll actually get some idea of what boxes are talking to what other boxes, and where they're located. Yipee. And although it's NEARLY useless for advertising, it's not COMPLETLY useless. Do a traceroute on my IP address, and you'll find fairly easily I'm PROBABLY in NZ. Or at least, the box that the IP address belongs to is in NZ, and thus I'm probably in NZ too. If some website uses this knowledge to put up a few fewer ads that are only useful to people in North America, I won't be even slightly sorry.
What does it mean for us? Nothing. Any website that wants to can record the IP of anyone who visits (which DOES effect your privacy, since *IF* your on a static IP, that child sex sting site operated by the FBI that you visited might record your IP and go talk to your ISP). Now the website has a chance of knowing the area the IP address comes from. Big deal. *THIS* doesn't effect privacy. The goverment doesn't need it, and corperations can't use it.
So to sum it all up... Some startup company is burning VC money doing something fairly silly (they'll certainly make money, but probably not enough to cover expenses). Some very silly corporations and security consultants are throwing a fit about it (do these people have NO idea how TCP/IP works?). And some silly/. posters are having a fit about privacy (honestly, do you EVER *THINK* before having panic attacks?). I personally find all three groups quite amusing.:-)
Guess again. I'm not even going to bother following the link--either you misinterpreted it, or they're wrong (likely the former).
You see, in the US, supreme power does not rest with the people. An example. If a majority of the US citizens of voting age wanted Bill Clinton to be president for a 3rd term, would it happen? Nope. There are restrictions on this (the constitution being the main one). Now, the US has a mechanism for changing the constitution, so we could change the constituion to allow presidents to have three consecutive terms. But doing so would change the US from a republic to a NEW republic. If Bill Clinton was then elected, he would be eligible for two further terms, since that would be his first term as president of that particular country (irrgardless of two earlier terms as president of a very similar country that occupied the same territory earlier.
So in short, the US has MAJOR checks on the exercise of democratic power, as can be seen every time a law is struck down, or a referndum is ignored. Which is why the US is not a democracy, whatever you might think.
No, this isn't flamebait or a troll. The Amiga name may be enough for you, and I'm not going to be the one to tell you you're wrong (if for no other reason than fear the Amiga zealots will hunt me down and hurt me).:-) Some people will worship it because it involves Amigas (and some will hate it for the same reason).
Any road, it actually looks like a decent enough language, and as anyone who's coded anything more complicated the Hello World will tell you, C has some problems--which is why we have C++, Objective C, C#, Java, and a wide range of other C-like languages (each with it's own little "something" it tries to add. We don't have a GREAT need for one more, but we didn't have a GREAT need for Gnome (and yes, I know all about Qt and it's "problems" and I stand by my opinion). But we're getting it, and a C-like language that tidied up a few of the messier bits, yet kept C's focus of being fast and (comparitivly) low-level has some merit. I've tried a lot of languages, and I still haven't found the perfect one yet. Maybe this will be it. Or not.
Certainly no use getting all sweaty about it, and from the look of the moderation already flying around, some people have already lost any objectivity.:-)
Uh huh. Sure, THAT'LL fix it. You know what the cheapest way to solve crime is? Invasion or privacy, and ignore the civil rights (if THAT'S too expensive, ignore guilt an innoncence, although we aren't nearly at THAT point). Carnivore is a very cost effective way of dealing with electronic crime, and the more it's abused, the more cost effective it becomes.
It's a real simple deal--give people a job to do, give them guidelines on how to do it, and give them the resources to do it. It's easy to skip the 3rd step, but the more it's done, the more steps 1 and 2 will get skipped (particularly 2). Thus, we get the FBI, in it's current state.
Here's a clue. If giving too few resources is a problem, even fewer will be a bigger problem. You can effectivly punish puppies--not large bueracracies.
Not really. It's not okay for the FBI to do that, but it makes sense, in the context of the situation. In a perfect world, it wouldn't have happened. The response is to see exactly why it happened, and how it can be fixed. Making sure FBI agents are a lot more computer literate might help. So might other things. All of which doesn't change that the FBI is doing some "grey" things. Nor does it change that these "grey" things make sense, given the constraints the FBI has to work with. They've been given a job they can't do well (by politicans), and haven't been giving the funding to fix that situation (again by policians). If you want to cast blame, blame the policians.:-)
Further, of course, he did a LITTLE bit more than look around the site. More like handle the debris and leave fingerprints. I'm a l33t linux hacker too, but *I* couldn't do what he did. Of course, I could learn how given 5 minutes and a search engine, but that's not the point:-)
Actually, if the FBI finds you lurking in a bombed building a few hours after the blast, they would question you. If your answers didn't make sense or sounded a bit "funny" (based on the agents opinion of how you should sound), they'd verify exactly who you were, why you were there, and what you were doing.
Now, it sounds like the FBI did the equivalent of this. They found the guy had been poking around in the site, and doing so in a very knowledge way. Let's assume that his guess on how the site was defaced was correct. Now, the person resposible for the hack might poke at the site in a similar fashion, to make sure it had worked, and to see how visible the method was. But lets assume that the hacker had NOT done this, and that this guy was the only one who had. From the FBI's point of view, it looks a bit odd. Perhaps a bit like finding that the person lurking in the building knew the type of bomb, and where it was placed. Was it because he set it, or because he just knew a lot about bombs?
Then they go and talk to the guy, and his answers don't make a lot of sense (he was half-asleep) and sound "funny" to the agent, because he's not knowledgable enough to know what the guy was talking about (the FBI is TRAINED to deal with bombs. Not websites). So they do the closest possible equivalent of searching his house for a bomb factory in the garage.
Now, this really wasn't a perfect solution. What could be better? Well, if the FBI had heaps more funding, they might have been able to send out someone well trained enough that they would have understood this guys answers--or maybe even been able to look at the computers on site. Either way, your standard FBI agent who went to the standard FBI school would have done a better job on a standard FBI case like a bombing.
What can YOU do? Call up your congressman, and tell him you wish the FBI was better funded. Tell him your particularly concerned that the FBI may not be properly equipped to deal with electronic crimes. Circulate a petition while your at it. Of course, the general consensus on/. seems to be that the FBI is all a bunch of knuckle dragging goons, so maybe you don't want to do that. Just don't be surprised if the FBI confiscates your computers and keeps them for a few months, because the agent in charge is a knuckle dragging goon.
Infinite power is impossible. The Universe has a finite amount of Energy, and if I remember 11th grade Physics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
Not as clear cut as that. This assumes the universe is a closed system, which isn't neccesarily true. If we could open a "portal" to some alternate reality, and import hydrogen from there for a lower energy cost than the energy liberated by using that fuel in a fusion reactor, then we could add energy to the universe. And that's just ONE possible trick.
Still, I wouldn't mind it if Ontario Hydro started running a few tokamaks, just as long as they were nowhere near me:)
Why not near you? They're not particularly dangerous. Hell, fision power plants are pretty damn safe (relativly so--nothing is completly safe). The downside is the waste, and that's the sort of problem which can come to you where ever you are.
Might actually make Electric cars feasable, and I can stop paying that whopping $26 every two weeks for gas!
It's not the cost of electricity that makes electric cars unfeasible. As a matter of fact, they are arguably already feasible. The problem with them is the cost and ineficiencies of fuel cell technology. Cheap electricity won't change the cost of buying one, only running one, and they're already cheap to run.
I was quite impressed by the article. Fair, open, and quite well written. There was little I would wish to quibble with. If Ms. Rosen wrote it herself, she may have a future as an author...of fiction.
See, the problem with that article is that it had very little to do with the real world. In our world (unpleasent place that it is), artists are in the business of exchanging music for money, and listeners exchange money for music. But the RIAA (and the recording studios the RIAA represents)...what are they around for?
Time was, a few years back, that both artists and listeners needed them. An artist might have a great song idea, but for that song to end up as a record or tape in my hands wasn't easy. Thus, we have the RIAA. But that is no longer the case. An artist can write, perform, record, distribute and promote a song, even an album, with no help from a recording studio. It's no wonder the RIAA finds this a little scary.
"...the recording industry -- whose business is finding new ways to make music available to more people..." Really? If this were so, I'd be first in line for nominating the RIAA and Ms. Rosen for a public service award. But it ain't, as Ms. Rosen knows as well as any. Of course, as everyone should know and expect, the RIAA is in business to make money. On the other hand, the best way to make music available to as many people as possible is Napster and bootleg CD-presses in China. I'm hardly advocating copyright violation, but Ms. Rosen apparently IS. Which is why her excellent article is...fiction.
The reveiwer could have gone on a bit more about how cool Brunner is though. Most sci-fi writers are lucky if they haven't become dated in a few months, but Brunner seemed to know where we were headed. His books are MORE topical NOW than when I first read them almost a decade ago.
If you go read (or re-read, as the case may be) Neuromancer, or The Turing Option, you'll find they're ALREADY dated, and sound silly. It's like watching an old Star Trek episode, where the crew members have "communicators" bigger and clunkier than my cell phone. Reality has moved in a different direction, or already moved past there.
On the other hand, if you go a read (or re-read) Brunner, you'll start getting scared. How did he know? Or even, Why didn't we listen? Oh, and before I forget, apart from Shockwave Rider and Stand on Zanzibar, I'd also recommend The Sheep Look Up. And if you a fan of that sort of science fiction, Stanislaw Lem is somewhat similar, in my opinion. Much more whimsical (almost fable-like, some of it), and less apocalytical (well, some of it), but somewhat simialar in style, and even better in quality.
Well, not from that school, anyhow. Still, I doubt anyone at MY school has made ANY virus's. The quality of the virus apart, at least the guy got an A for effort...
Gosh, you're right. It's hard to imagine any scenario where thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs could be dangerous, isn't it?
Not compared to certain other scenarios, anyhow.
I agree that there are more likely threats out there. But the number of casualties resulting from an American pushing the button would have to be second only to a major asteroid strike, or perhaps the super-ebola bug you mention. If you still think we are particularly safe in American hands, have a look at Twenty mishaps that might have started Accidental Nuclear War between 1956 and 1995... scary stuff. We are lucky to still be here.
Not only are there more likely threats, there are worse ones. Take the probability of the scenario and multiply it by the likely number of casualties should it take place. In other words, a 10% chance of killing 1 million is twice as bad as bad as a 0.05% of killing 100 million, but half as bad as a 100% chance of killing 100,000. You can think of the results as expected losses. Not a "nice" sort of calculation, really. Anyhow, most estimates would give quite a few scenarios expected loss's significantly higher than any involving the US's nukes--either because of much higher probabilities, or much higher potential casualties, or both. You see, the big "problem" with the US pushing the button is that it is hugely unlikely (as opposed to an accidental launch), and would almost certainly be aimed at killing a very small number of people--a terrorist base, for example. Even an accidental launch is fairly unlikely, and might not even spark WWIII. OTOH, a lot of other scenarios are both more likely, and in some cases, could cause much more harm. Even WWIII isn't going to kill me, not down here in New Zealand. If an airborne retrovirus (possibly some sort of hemoraegic fever) finally decides to hop a species barrier (especially if it killed slow enough), I would probably die. A well executed Tom-Clancy style biological attack on the US could conceivably kill more people as well. If China gambles Russia's out of the fight and invades Siberia, and guesses wrong, more people could die. If China's leadership drops the ball, and another "Great Helsman" arises and decides it's time for another great leap into famine, more people could die. Fun, huh?
False. China may have capitalised on it by incorporating it into official declaration, but it didn't originate with China, and is representative of the views of a lot more than just China. This is simply Not What You Say in diplomatic circles (in fact, I'd suggest that only a country as powerful and stubborn as China would dare, or could get away with it without major repercussions. New Zealand, for example, would face serious consequences), so the lacks of use of this terms in diplomatic circles is expected - to tell you the truth, I had no idea until you mentioned China that any country had actually said it openly the USA's face. It's more of a consensus-behind-the-back sort of thing.
Sigh. Outside of whatever strange circles you move in, the Real World(tm) doesn't think that. China doesn't even think that, even though they happen to be big enough, tough enough, and stupid enough to actually say it (although even they were aiming for domestic consumption more than foreign). In the final analysis though, it doesn't really matter if the US is or isn't a "rogue superpower". The US just "is", and they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want, right or wrong. Not neccesarily a good thing, but it's the way things work. Or to put it anothr way, you can't have a rogue superpower becuase if a superpower does it, it's normal.
False. In addition to the nuclear incidents you refer too, there has been chemical use, and more recently, either biological or nuclear, depending on which you consider covers the devastating indiscriminant effects of depleted uranium, now recognised by the UN as responsible for massed civilian deaths as cancer rates already far surpass seven times the norm and show no signs of doing anything but continued acceleration. This is not even delving into covert CIA practises inside other sovereign nations.
Which sounds really nice and impressive and spooky and all, but er...let's start naming names and placing places. X-files style conspiracy theories aside, when has the US used a weapon of mass desruction against an enemy? There was the one nuclear incident against Japan, no biological incidents at all, and I can't think of any chemical ones. The uranium thing had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and even the conspiracy nuts don't acuse the CIA of using weapons of mass destruction. So some concrete examples, maybe?
Now, you imply that a nuclear device in the hands of the sort of country that might spy on the DoE is not as dangerous to innocent people as one in the US's hands.
Any such implication was unintentional or your own interpretation. My point was specifically to que0stion the assumption that nukes are _less_ dangerous in US hands.
Okay then. So you don't think that a nuke in Pakistan or North Koreas hands is more dangerous, you just think it's AS dangerous as a nuke in the US's hands. I'd burst out laughing if I didn't have a scary feeling you might actually be serious. You have to realize how rediculous that sounds? I'd give Pakistan even odds on using a nuclear device over the next 10 years. I'd give the US a miniscule fraction of those odds. Of course, the US might launch by accident--but even a fool would have to admit the chance is far far higher for Pakistan. Pakistan shows every indication of diving into a cold war without ANY of the restraints the US had on the use of weapons of mass destruction, and you yourself said that nuclear war nearly started ANYHOW! I don't know about you, but I find the entire thing outright chilling. And let's not forget the current Pakistani goverment is a military junta with links to radical muslim groups. If there's one reason why a putativly rational person would chuck a nuke, it's religion.
As for your comments about Iraq and the US being similar, your still way off. You seem focused on the Gulf War--try looking up some stuff about the one with Iran. And even if they had identical foreign policy records, it still doesn't matter, least of all to whether you could trust Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: you can't--Iraq uses them on it's enemies, both foreign and domestic.)
Doomsday? Isn't that a little melodramatic? The thing really facing doomsday would be rampant consumer culture. The price of everything would double (or even triple) so people spend more of their money on food instead of disposable cellphones. People would have to walk or cycle instead filling the cardiac wards with diseases of sedentary lifestyles, filling the A&E wards with accident victims, filling the thoracic wards with respiratory illness, (and benzene-caused cancers if they eventuate). Sounds to me like a shock to the system that could conceivably make the whole thing stronger. My biggest regret might be that luxuries like powerful computers would probably move outside my means:-)
That would indeed be your biggest regret. Same with millions of others like you (and me, really). Most people in the first world would barely blink. Pity about the rest of the world, where civilization would come to a screeching halt. Millions would starve. Rioting would break out, famines would hit, disease and epidimics would run rampant. Frightened and confused, goverments would turn to domestic repression and foreign adventure, for as long as the goverments survived, of course. Africa could conceivably lose 80% of it's population, (which could conceivably happen anyhow just due to AIDS). Asia would probably come through mostly okay--probably. I'd give even odds--and if they didn't, they'd be looking at 20%+ casualties, easily. More if China gets frisky, and invades a nuclear armed neighbor for room and resources. Western Europe would be pretty much okay, but Eastern Europe would almost certainly implode. The hordes of refugees, combined with the huge economical hit would vault extreme right parties into power very easily--it's almost a certainty. The EU would collapse, of course, and WWIII (without the rest of the world this time) would probably break out. England could go it alone okay, assuming political stability can be maintained. North America would be fine. South America would hopefully survive okay, although they'd of course slip right back into dictatorship. Russia wouldn't be hit hard at all, mainly because they have nowhere to fall to.
Overall, it could easily be horrific. The total cost in lives would be horrendous--possibly a billion or more, before all was said and done. I don't think any of it will happen, of course, if for no other reason than we've got a rogue superpower ready to stick it's nose into other people business if things look like they're getting out of hand.
Hmmm - and the protectionists would leap for joy because the cost shipping something halfway around the world would form a natural tarrif, discouraging trade deficits:)
Which would, of course, boost inflation and unemployment, aiding and abetting all the other problems.
??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower"
False. China has declared that it considers the US so. It should be obvious to all and sundry that this is, at best, a useful diplomatic ploy, and at worst, pure propoganda. I seriously doubt China even really thinks that. The rest of the world certainly doesn't.
it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction
False. The US has used, to the best of my knowledge, two weapons of mass destruction, in one incident, several decades ago.
and weapons of indiscriminant destruction, it has one of the worst records of initiating force in other countries, undermining democracies, propping up dictatorships with force, and worse, and you talk of "the wrong hands"?!?!
What relevence does this have as to whether a nuke in the US's hands is safer than a nuke elsewhere?
Presumably by "dangerious... in the wrong hands" you actually mean "dangerous to _me_ personally", rather than "dangerous to innocent people". (I'm guessing you have US citizenship to protect you from US weaponry).
I do not mean me at all. I admit that I live in New Zealand, which does make me fairly safe from nukes. But I was, of course, reffering to innocent people. Now, you imply that a nuclear device in the hands of the sort of country that might spy on the DoE is not as dangerous to innocent people as one in the US's hands. Can you honestly claim to beleive that?! I would suggest the number of people who fear death at the hands of a nuclear explosion is probably slightly higher in Pakistan than in the US's bogey-of-the-month.
When a US General (among many others) states that the reality of the US nuclear stockpile is that it is a miracle that an accidental launch has not _already_ occured, you might begin to see why countries object to weapons stockpiling.
Oh, I understand the concerns with weapons stockpiling very well. What you neglect to mention is the risks posed by all the other nuclear arsenals in the world. The US's arsenal, and the threat is represents, is minor. Incosequential, you might say. Nobodies going to launch a nuke on purpose (unlike some other countries), and if the chance for an accidental launch exists, consider how much higher thar risk is for countries with smaller budgets and lower technology levels. Of course, we'd all be better off without any weapons stockpiles at all, but I daresay that we'd all be better off if the Easter Bunny was real too.
While the US can pretend to its citizens that it is somehow different from Iraq, its own actions frequently force the rest of the world to remain unconvinced.
Hardly. The US does, in many respects, move in it's own private dream world, but hardly to that extent. And Iraq and it's leader are hardly quite as bad as they're sometimes made out to be. But to compare Iraq and the US as equals is laughable. It's hardly even a comprehensible idea.
And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
Very much so. I could think of worse (bit's of south east asia, much of africa, and a few other places), but most are far too MUCH worse to come up with any weapons of mass destruction on their own. Iraq has already created some which it promptly used on it's own people (nice record there, yes), and gives every indication that it would like to keep any weapons it can, build any more that it can, and has no qualms on using them. Wonderful. And don't forget where Iraq is located. Right near far too much of the worlds oil reserves. If you want a doomsday scenario to hurt the maximum number of innocent people, driving the price of oil up to, oh...say $60-70 a barrel for a prolonged period of time will do that very nicely.
It matters not that you are doing weapons research. It matters not that you are checking an email from you girlfriend/boyfriend. When DOE is involved, the courts hardly matter. There are very few people in this country who are going to give a flying fsck about your privacy as soon as someone mentions nukes.
And, arguably, for very good reason. Not that I think that particular argument is correct, but it is a compelling argument, and many will think that. It's hard enough to make sure that security is air-tight for the areas where it's required without trying to make sure it is air-tight ONLY where it matters.
Personally, I think that they should be checking into just about everything having to do with DOE's security. There is very little on this planet more dangerous that the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America. I'd like to keep it that way.
Indeed. It's not that America's nuclear arsenal is so dangerous--it isn't. It's that the nukes and the knowledge to build them (especially the knowledge) would be dangerous to an unfortunate degree in the wrong hands. The world already has enough terrors. Far more than you imply, incidentally. I can think of nearly a dozen worse things than America's weapons of mass destruction. Near the top of the list would be the arsenals (nuclear, chemical, AND biological) of a range of countries. Or perhaps even worse, the possability of the emergence (either through random mutation or careful manipulation) of an air-borne retrovirus (what happens if you take a disease that is as hard to cure as AIDS, kills as fast as Ebola, and spreads like the common cold?). No, the world has enough worries without more nukes in more hands. Of course, one of those worries (and a very serious one) is infringements on free speach and privacy, such as this latest assault by the DoE. Nothing is ever easy.
Yes, but... Don't forget, we might think of ourselves as the people the Matrix was written for, and screw the rest, but we aren't. Fact is, a LOT of non-geeks saw it as well. And since this is Hollywood, 5 will get you 10 that the makers of the movie were hoping that would be the case. And what's more, a lot of geeks probably don't know what EMP is either. It's not exactly a common topic for everyday conversation. Further, I've read 3-4 different reviews of the Matrix here in NZ. Every single one complained that it was confusing, never explained what was happening, and you left the theatre not knowing what the Matrix was. I'm serious! Now, I saw it twice, and both times the theatre was pretty full. This is NZ here--chances are 4/5 of that theatre wearn't geeks and didn't know what an EMP blast was. Hell, if they were as clueless as the reviewers, they left the theatre wondering what the hell that scene where he woke up in the alien bathtub was all about. Don't underestimate either the stupidity or the numbers of the general public. And that's why they had to explain what EMP was. But as I say, there is absolutely nothing strange about the idea of Neo not knowing what EMP was. Now if they'd had to explain to him what a computer virus was, or something, you'd have a case. But EMP? Apart from a few mentions in Tom Clancy books, *I* wouldn't know what it is either.
It's hard to think of a genuine use for one of these, or, for that matter, a NOT so genuine use. Dunno about you, but I'D notice a changed keyboard. I can definitly think of better ways of doing anything this keyboard can do. For instance, a little "adaptor" that captures keystrokes for later retrieval. Or better yet, captures the signals going to the monitor. Of course, then you'd need some pretty efficient storage medium to hold the data, but... I wonder if anything remotely like that already exists?
ICANN's Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) governs the conflicting claims and is pretty clearly on the side of the trademark holder. Since a trademark exists for "Coke", the Coca-Cola company seems to have a pretty strong case.
Wrong. There is no evidence at all the name is being used in bad faith. Think about it--it's possible for two companies to have the same trademark (Acme Toilet Paper and Acme Furniture, for a hypothetical example). One of them might have the name acme.com. Assuming they're NOT using it against the other company, the other company has no rights. I.e., the second company could sue over the firsts website detailing the seconds labour practices, but not over the firsts website detailing the history of toilet paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah. You have no clue if that's happening. I was hardly at this kids level, but I wasn't very far off, and I've never met anyone who had a childhood as fun as mine. If your intelligent, excercising that intelligence is one of the most fun activites available. Of course, maybe the parents ARE pushing the kid--but it's not a given. And from the tutors comments, it sounds like the kids having fun--otherwise he wouldn't want to LEARN, he'd be concerned with GRADES.
Children need to interact with others to learn and develop the social skills to lead normal healthy lives. Teaching children to live lives where work and studying is their sole raison de etre, is part of the reason why society has become as messed up as it is. No wonder the biggest cause of death in young adults these days is suicide, if this is the sort of culture that we are creating.
Your full of absolute shit, sorry. MAYBE they need to interact with other people than their parents (why?) to have "normal" lives...as if THAT'S a good goal to work towards? It's sure as HELL not needed for "healthy" lives. I didn't go to school until I was 15--I spent the 10 years before that reading science fiction and playing computer games. Three years on I've just finished by 2nd year of university, know 8-9 computer languages, have a deep interest in robotics and embedded systems, the largest vocabulary of anyone I've ever met, an excellent knowledge of quantum mechanics and particle physics, a reasonable grasp of univeristy level calculus, an excellent grasp of the political and economic status of every country in the world, and have an average knowledge of phychology, sociology, and so forth. I was Dux of school (like a valedictorian), top of all my classes in my last (that is, 2nd) year of high school, won a large scholarship, was on my schools rugby team, have crossed the US by RV 5 times, sailed across the South Pacific, gone white water rafting, and I mountain bike in my spare time. Oh yes, and I have lots of friends, plus a girl friend (which puts me ahead of most of my fellow geeks, apparently). Apart from a monumental self confidence (and some would argue whether that's a BAD thing), I don't think I came out of the experience too badly. Plus, I've never "studied" in my entire life.
From the sound of things, the kid in question is doing something more strenous that what I did, but then he also sounds a bit brighter and not as lazy. There's no particular reason why he should end up maladjusted--although if he IS as bright as he sounds, he's probably go absolutely NUTS if he was denied access to the information he wants.
The biggest cause of death for teenagers may be suicide, but the quickest way to cause a suicide is to stifle someone, and make them conform. And even then I blame 98% of all suicides on poor parenting.
But they wearn't free. The abolition of slavery made little practical difference...which is why we had the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King so many decades afterwards. In the aftermath of that...the slaves (or rather, the members of the ethnic group who were once slaves) are free. But almost none of this is directly tracable to the civil war days. The slaves were not freed until society decided that treating them as slaves wasn't acceptable. One day society will decide that overly restrictive EULA's aren't cool. Until then the slaves couldn't vote, and we can't see the source to most of the software on the market. The GPL is even worse than the emancipation act. It annoys the hell out of people who dislike viral copyleft licenses, doesn't have the teeth to enforce the "freedoms" it tries to offer, and doesn't actually help the open source movement any more than, say, the modified BSD license does. One day society will treat software (which, of course, will come as source code with binaries tossed in as a courtesy) the same way we treat toasters--it's your toaster, take it apart if you feel like it, and if you find a design flaw the manufacturer would love to hear about it before they get hit with a lawsuit. If you don't like the toaster, feel free to modify it. And no, nobody cares if you let other people use your toaster. Look at the license for Inferno. It's an example of what I'm talking about.
Amazing! I didn't know that. And here I posted something saying people should know the tool they use. I've been using a bootleg copy of an internal IBM hack for nearly two decades...I never realized a global search feature had made it to any version of the OS...
You post deserves modding up as informitive.
You complain about people who don't know how to use CLI's, yet it's obvious that you know little about GUI file managers--at least under Windows. Whats this garbage about associating extensions? To open a single file?! And in NOTEPAD?? I can open any file I like in any application I like with two mouse clicks, a key press, and two or three more mouse clicks. I can open any file I like in my Notepad-replacement-of-choice with two mouse clicks. The first operation is easily comparable to a CLI, the second operation is going to be FASTER, even WITH tab completion. And if changing the association was actually neccesary (it shouldn't be, since it's part of setting up your development eviroment--I can't recall the last time I had too), it sure as hell wouldn't take 20 minutes, or even 5.
As for ls -R | grep "filename.ext"...well sure, that's pretty fast. On the other hand, so is using an equivalent DOS-based tool (no, it doesn't come with the OS. Then again, a l33t hacker like you knows how to download stuff, right?). Even the find utility that comes with windows will be comparable for more complicated searches.
Knowing how to use the tool your using will save you time. Choosing the wrong tool will waste time, even if you know it well. It's obvious from your post that while you know the tool you use, you use the wrong tool.
Amen to that! Pity I don't have any mod points today. :-)
Still...you have to admit it's a good language to learn the basics on. You HAVE to do it right in Java for it to even work. Knowing the way things should be done is useful. I learnt C++ without learning more than the basics of OO. But when I was forced to learn Java by my university, I HAD to learn OO, and when I figured out what OO was all about I was amazed at all I had been missing until then. I frequently ignore OO concepts completly when they aren't neccesary, but I'm still a better programmer for knowing them. The value of Java isn't in knowing it--it's in knowing what Java forces you to learn.
To THAT extent, employers wanting you to know Java might have some merit. Not that they want you to USE it, but that they want to know that your familar with a range of programming concepts and language styles.
...the surprising thing is that more people aren't "jilitng java". I happen to think Java is a wonderful and useful language...to teach to new programmers as a fresh language. It's not particularly useful for anything else. It is, admittedly, a joy to program in--assuming you're not being graded on results, but on the quality of your code (ie, you're not doing it "for real").
:-) All those icky applets that didn't silly graphic effects (waves and so on) seem to have died out (yes!). Most useful stuff is client side anyhow, and PHP works nicely for that. What *IS* the point of Java?
:-)
To be honest, what *IS* Java's "killer app"? It's main claim to fame is that it runs everywhere--but since it's slow enough few people want to run it ANYWHERE, that's of dubious use.
I mean, is it just me, or is this language about as useful as, let's say...Smalltalk? And I don't mean to offend any Smalltalk fans by that!
See, people are stupid. It doesn't matter if the game was released in 1980, people will still call the manufactuer and complain about how it doesn't work on their system, runs too fast, doesn't have good graphics, and ask for hints. If they can't find the original publisher, they'll find one with a similar name.
:-) Even so, a small percentage of "abandonware" games aren't, and a large site is sure to have a few.
/. masses be concerned? Not really. The abandonware site had indeed done something wrong (violating providers TOS if nothing else). If this develops into a general jihad against abandonware, *THEN* it's time to to start panicking. Until then...naaa. However I *DO* think the IDSA would have been better giving a list of titles they wanted removed. OTOH, there's enough abandonwarez sites out there one more or less won't really matter.
That's why you very rarely see companies doing this. It's just a major headache. They want these games to VANISH. They're old, they're not supported, the people working there now probably never even played them, and MOST importantly, they will likely have problems on new hardware.
Remember the Warcraft advendure game? Blizzard didn't think it was *QUITE* up to their standards, and never released it (despite the fact that hardcore Blizzard fans would have given up their first born child for a copy). Similarly, many software companies may look back at old CGA titles, and recoil in horror. They do *NOT* want people associating that with *THEM*. Don't forget, people are stupid. You and *I* know that Kings Quest 1 - 4 and The Colonels Bequest were some of the finest non-text adventure games ever made (right up there with LucasArts offerings, IMHO), but Joe Sixpack wants something with sex, blood, and/or explosions, and screw the gameplay.
So you'll find that many companies ACTUALLY don't mind abandonwarez sites. They can have nothing to do with them, but so long as they keep a low profile and don't distribute anything too recent, it's not a problem. If the companies could, they'd likally distribute their old games themselves--but for the reasons above, they can't. It has to be a 3rd party.
Now, as to the IDSA, I'm thinking that they just have a bored legal staff that needs something to do. It's possible, however, some member complained. Games often are rereleased (happened to Transport Tycoon just recently), which removes any moral justification for the software being on an abandonwarez site. Frequently, it doesn't remove the software, which the IDSA may be trying to fix.
The short of it is, *ALL* abandonwarez sites are breaking copyright law, and a close look shows that nearly all are breaking any impartial moral standards. If you can buy it in the local software store, it's not valid abandonware, and abandonwarez sites often don't look too closely. Of course, I know of one software shop thats still selling Betrayal at Krondor, despite Sierras decision (a rare exception to the general rule) to release it as freeware.
Should the
This entire thing is amazingly rediculous. It's silly that anyone is DOING this, and silly that anyone CARES they're doing this.
:-)
/. posters are having a fit about privacy (honestly, do you EVER *THINK* before having panic attacks?). I personally find all three groups quite amusing. :-)
Let's make it simple, here. They're pinging people right? Yup. I've pinged people. You've pinged people. It's a tool for figuring out if there's anything at a given address, and if it's awake. That's what it's designed for, that's what I've used it for, that's what you've used it for, and that's what they're using it for.
Now, some companies with nearly enough brains to tell whether it's raining or not by standing outside have systems that actually page the sysadmin when they get pinged. Let's all feel sorry for the sysadmins, and hope they are lucky in their search for a job at someplace with an actual functioning clue. But none of that changes anything. If I go ping yahoo (I do this several times a week, since it's a nice easy to spell and remember domain name, will always be up, and if I can't reach it it means I've got connection problmes), I'm using ping for what it's designed for. So is this company. And if anyone doesn't like it, they should go back to whatever reality they came from, 'cause this one works differently.
Same holds for traceroute too. Useful tool, being used for the purpose it was designed for.
Finally, what did the company get from all of this? A big-ass list of routers and stuff. Now if they fiddle around with nslookup, whois, dig, and so on, run a few regex searches through the list, and so on, they'll actually get some idea of what boxes are talking to what other boxes, and where they're located. Yipee. And although it's NEARLY useless for advertising, it's not COMPLETLY useless. Do a traceroute on my IP address, and you'll find fairly easily I'm PROBABLY in NZ. Or at least, the box that the IP address belongs to is in NZ, and thus I'm probably in NZ too. If some website uses this knowledge to put up a few fewer ads that are only useful to people in North America, I won't be even slightly sorry.
What does it mean for us? Nothing. Any website that wants to can record the IP of anyone who visits (which DOES effect your privacy, since *IF* your on a static IP, that child sex sting site operated by the FBI that you visited might record your IP and go talk to your ISP). Now the website has a chance of knowing the area the IP address comes from. Big deal. *THIS* doesn't effect privacy. The goverment doesn't need it, and corperations can't use it.
So to sum it all up... Some startup company is burning VC money doing something fairly silly (they'll certainly make money, but probably not enough to cover expenses). Some very silly corporations and security consultants are throwing a fit about it (do these people have NO idea how TCP/IP works?). And some silly
Guess again. I'm not even going to bother following the link--either you misinterpreted it, or they're wrong (likely the former).
You see, in the US, supreme power does not rest with the people. An example. If a majority of the US citizens of voting age wanted Bill Clinton to be president for a 3rd term, would it happen? Nope. There are restrictions on this (the constitution being the main one). Now, the US has a mechanism for changing the constitution, so we could change the constituion to allow presidents to have three consecutive terms. But doing so would change the US from a republic to a NEW republic. If Bill Clinton was then elected, he would be eligible for two further terms, since that would be his first term as president of that particular country (irrgardless of two earlier terms as president of a very similar country that occupied the same territory earlier.
So in short, the US has MAJOR checks on the exercise of democratic power, as can be seen every time a law is struck down, or a referndum is ignored. Which is why the US is not a democracy, whatever you might think.
No, this isn't flamebait or a troll. The Amiga name may be enough for you, and I'm not going to be the one to tell you you're wrong (if for no other reason than fear the Amiga zealots will hunt me down and hurt me). :-) Some people will worship it because it involves Amigas (and some will hate it for the same reason).
Any road, it actually looks like a decent enough language, and as anyone who's coded anything more complicated the Hello World will tell you, C has some problems--which is why we have C++, Objective C, C#, Java, and a wide range of other C-like languages (each with it's own little "something" it tries to add. We don't have a GREAT need for one more, but we didn't have a GREAT need for Gnome (and yes, I know all about Qt and it's "problems" and I stand by my opinion). But we're getting it, and a C-like language that tidied up a few of the messier bits, yet kept C's focus of being fast and (comparitivly) low-level has some merit. I've tried a lot of languages, and I still haven't found the perfect one yet. Maybe this will be it. Or not.
Certainly no use getting all sweaty about it, and from the look of the moderation already flying around, some people have already lost any objectivity. :-)
Uh huh. Sure, THAT'LL fix it. You know what the cheapest way to solve crime is? Invasion or privacy, and ignore the civil rights (if THAT'S too expensive, ignore guilt an innoncence, although we aren't nearly at THAT point). Carnivore is a very cost effective way of dealing with electronic crime, and the more it's abused, the more cost effective it becomes.
It's a real simple deal--give people a job to do, give them guidelines on how to do it, and give them the resources to do it. It's easy to skip the 3rd step, but the more it's done, the more steps 1 and 2 will get skipped (particularly 2). Thus, we get the FBI, in it's current state.
Here's a clue. If giving too few resources is a problem, even fewer will be a bigger problem. You can effectivly punish puppies--not large bueracracies.
Not really. It's not okay for the FBI to do that, but it makes sense, in the context of the situation. In a perfect world, it wouldn't have happened. The response is to see exactly why it happened, and how it can be fixed. Making sure FBI agents are a lot more computer literate might help. So might other things. All of which doesn't change that the FBI is doing some "grey" things. Nor does it change that these "grey" things make sense, given the constraints the FBI has to work with. They've been given a job they can't do well (by politicans), and haven't been giving the funding to fix that situation (again by policians). If you want to cast blame, blame the policians. :-)
:-)
Further, of course, he did a LITTLE bit more than look around the site. More like handle the debris and leave fingerprints. I'm a l33t linux hacker too, but *I* couldn't do what he did. Of course, I could learn how given 5 minutes and a search engine, but that's not the point
Actually, if the FBI finds you lurking in a bombed building a few hours after the blast, they would question you. If your answers didn't make sense or sounded a bit "funny" (based on the agents opinion of how you should sound), they'd verify exactly who you were, why you were there, and what you were doing.
/. seems to be that the FBI is all a bunch of knuckle dragging goons, so maybe you don't want to do that. Just don't be surprised if the FBI confiscates your computers and keeps them for a few months, because the agent in charge is a knuckle dragging goon.
Now, it sounds like the FBI did the equivalent of this. They found the guy had been poking around in the site, and doing so in a very knowledge way. Let's assume that his guess on how the site was defaced was correct. Now, the person resposible for the hack might poke at the site in a similar fashion, to make sure it had worked, and to see how visible the method was. But lets assume that the hacker had NOT done this, and that this guy was the only one who had. From the FBI's point of view, it looks a bit odd. Perhaps a bit like finding that the person lurking in the building knew the type of bomb, and where it was placed. Was it because he set it, or because he just knew a lot about bombs?
Then they go and talk to the guy, and his answers don't make a lot of sense (he was half-asleep) and sound "funny" to the agent, because he's not knowledgable enough to know what the guy was talking about (the FBI is TRAINED to deal with bombs. Not websites). So they do the closest possible equivalent of searching his house for a bomb factory in the garage.
Now, this really wasn't a perfect solution. What could be better? Well, if the FBI had heaps more funding, they might have been able to send out someone well trained enough that they would have understood this guys answers--or maybe even been able to look at the computers on site. Either way, your standard FBI agent who went to the standard FBI school would have done a better job on a standard FBI case like a bombing.
What can YOU do? Call up your congressman, and tell him you wish the FBI was better funded. Tell him your particularly concerned that the FBI may not be properly equipped to deal with electronic crimes. Circulate a petition while your at it. Of course, the general consensus on
Not as clear cut as that. This assumes the universe is a closed system, which isn't neccesarily true. If we could open a "portal" to some alternate reality, and import hydrogen from there for a lower energy cost than the energy liberated by using that fuel in a fusion reactor, then we could add energy to the universe. And that's just ONE possible trick.
Still, I wouldn't mind it if Ontario Hydro started running a few tokamaks, just as long as they were nowhere near me :)
Why not near you? They're not particularly dangerous. Hell, fision power plants are pretty damn safe (relativly so--nothing is completly safe). The downside is the waste, and that's the sort of problem which can come to you where ever you are.
Might actually make Electric cars feasable, and I can stop paying that whopping $26 every two weeks for gas!
It's not the cost of electricity that makes electric cars unfeasible. As a matter of fact, they are arguably already feasible. The problem with them is the cost and ineficiencies of fuel cell technology. Cheap electricity won't change the cost of buying one, only running one, and they're already cheap to run.
See, the problem with that article is that it had very little to do with the real world. In our world (unpleasent place that it is), artists are in the business of exchanging music for money, and listeners exchange money for music. But the RIAA (and the recording studios the RIAA represents)...what are they around for?
Time was, a few years back, that both artists and listeners needed them. An artist might have a great song idea, but for that song to end up as a record or tape in my hands wasn't easy. Thus, we have the RIAA. But that is no longer the case. An artist can write, perform, record, distribute and promote a song, even an album, with no help from a recording studio. It's no wonder the RIAA finds this a little scary.
"...the recording industry -- whose business is finding new ways to make music available to more people..." Really? If this were so, I'd be first in line for nominating the RIAA and Ms. Rosen for a public service award. But it ain't, as Ms. Rosen knows as well as any. Of course, as everyone should know and expect, the RIAA is in business to make money. On the other hand, the best way to make music available to as many people as possible is Napster and bootleg CD-presses in China. I'm hardly advocating copyright violation, but Ms. Rosen apparently IS. Which is why her excellent article is...fiction.
If you go read (or re-read, as the case may be) Neuromancer, or The Turing Option, you'll find they're ALREADY dated, and sound silly. It's like watching an old Star Trek episode, where the crew members have "communicators" bigger and clunkier than my cell phone. Reality has moved in a different direction, or already moved past there.
On the other hand, if you go a read (or re-read) Brunner, you'll start getting scared. How did he know? Or even, Why didn't we listen? Oh, and before I forget, apart from Shockwave Rider and Stand on Zanzibar, I'd also recommend The Sheep Look Up. And if you a fan of that sort of science fiction, Stanislaw Lem is somewhat similar, in my opinion. Much more whimsical (almost fable-like, some of it), and less apocalytical (well, some of it), but somewhat simialar in style, and even better in quality.
Well, not from that school, anyhow. Still, I doubt anyone at MY school has made ANY virus's. The quality of the virus apart, at least the guy got an A for effort...
And some of them know what they're doing and make $1000/day.
Yeah. $1000 a day...from people who are dumb as rocks!
Gosh, you're right. It's hard to imagine any scenario where thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs could be dangerous, isn't it?
Not compared to certain other scenarios, anyhow.
I agree that there are more likely threats out there. But the number of casualties resulting from an American pushing the button would have to be second only to a major asteroid strike, or perhaps the super-ebola bug you mention. If you still think we are particularly safe in American hands, have a look at Twenty mishaps that might have started Accidental Nuclear War between 1956 and 1995 ... scary stuff. We are lucky to still be here.
Not only are there more likely threats, there are worse ones. Take the probability of the scenario and multiply it by the likely number of casualties should it take place. In other words, a 10% chance of killing 1 million is twice as bad as bad as a 0.05% of killing 100 million, but half as bad as a 100% chance of killing 100,000. You can think of the results as expected losses. Not a "nice" sort of calculation, really. Anyhow, most estimates would give quite a few scenarios expected loss's significantly higher than any involving the US's nukes--either because of much higher probabilities, or much higher potential casualties, or both. You see, the big "problem" with the US pushing the button is that it is hugely unlikely (as opposed to an accidental launch), and would almost certainly be aimed at killing a very small number of people--a terrorist base, for example. Even an accidental launch is fairly unlikely, and might not even spark WWIII. OTOH, a lot of other scenarios are both more likely, and in some cases, could cause much more harm. Even WWIII isn't going to kill me, not down here in New Zealand. If an airborne retrovirus (possibly some sort of hemoraegic fever) finally decides to hop a species barrier (especially if it killed slow enough), I would probably die. A well executed Tom-Clancy style biological attack on the US could conceivably kill more people as well. If China gambles Russia's out of the fight and invades Siberia, and guesses wrong, more people could die. If China's leadership drops the ball, and another "Great Helsman" arises and decides it's time for another great leap into famine, more people could die. Fun, huh?
False. China may have capitalised on it by incorporating it into official declaration, but it didn't originate with China, and is representative of the views of a lot more than just China. This is simply Not What You Say in diplomatic circles (in fact, I'd suggest that only a country as powerful and stubborn as China would dare, or could get away with it without major repercussions. New Zealand, for example, would face serious consequences), so the lacks of use of this terms in diplomatic circles is expected - to tell you the truth, I had no idea until you mentioned China that any country had actually said it openly the USA's face. It's more of a consensus-behind-the-back sort of thing.
Sigh. Outside of whatever strange circles you move in, the Real World(tm) doesn't think that. China doesn't even think that, even though they happen to be big enough, tough enough, and stupid enough to actually say it (although even they were aiming for domestic consumption more than foreign). In the final analysis though, it doesn't really matter if the US is or isn't a "rogue superpower". The US just "is", and they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want, right or wrong. Not neccesarily a good thing, but it's the way things work. Or to put it anothr way, you can't have a rogue superpower becuase if a superpower does it, it's normal.
False. In addition to the nuclear incidents you refer too, there has been chemical use, and more recently, either biological or nuclear, depending on which you consider covers the devastating indiscriminant effects of depleted uranium, now recognised by the UN as responsible for massed civilian deaths as cancer rates already far surpass seven times the norm and show no signs of doing anything but continued acceleration. This is not even delving into covert CIA practises inside other sovereign nations.
Which sounds really nice and impressive and spooky and all, but er...let's start naming names and placing places. X-files style conspiracy theories aside, when has the US used a weapon of mass desruction against an enemy? There was the one nuclear incident against Japan, no biological incidents at all, and I can't think of any chemical ones. The uranium thing had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and even the conspiracy nuts don't acuse the CIA of using weapons of mass destruction. So some concrete examples, maybe?
Any such implication was unintentional or your own interpretation. My point was specifically to que0stion the assumption that nukes are _less_ dangerous in US hands.
Okay then. So you don't think that a nuke in Pakistan or North Koreas hands is more dangerous, you just think it's AS dangerous as a nuke in the US's hands. I'd burst out laughing if I didn't have a scary feeling you might actually be serious. You have to realize how rediculous that sounds? I'd give Pakistan even odds on using a nuclear device over the next 10 years. I'd give the US a miniscule fraction of those odds. Of course, the US might launch by accident--but even a fool would have to admit the chance is far far higher for Pakistan. Pakistan shows every indication of diving into a cold war without ANY of the restraints the US had on the use of weapons of mass destruction, and you yourself said that nuclear war nearly started ANYHOW! I don't know about you, but I find the entire thing outright chilling. And let's not forget the current Pakistani goverment is a military junta with links to radical muslim groups. If there's one reason why a putativly rational person would chuck a nuke, it's religion.
As for your comments about Iraq and the US being similar, your still way off. You seem focused on the Gulf War--try looking up some stuff about the one with Iran. And even if they had identical foreign policy records, it still doesn't matter, least of all to whether you could trust Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: you can't--Iraq uses them on it's enemies, both foreign and domestic.)
Doomsday? Isn't that a little melodramatic? The thing really facing doomsday would be rampant consumer culture. The price of everything would double (or even triple) so people spend more of their money on food instead of disposable cellphones. People would have to walk or cycle instead filling the cardiac wards with diseases of sedentary lifestyles, filling the A&E wards with accident victims, filling the thoracic wards with respiratory illness, (and benzene-caused cancers if they eventuate). Sounds to me like a shock to the system that could conceivably make the whole thing stronger. My biggest regret might be that luxuries like powerful computers would probably move outside my means :-)
That would indeed be your biggest regret. Same with millions of others like you (and me, really). Most people in the first world would barely blink. Pity about the rest of the world, where civilization would come to a screeching halt. Millions would starve. Rioting would break out, famines would hit, disease and epidimics would run rampant. Frightened and confused, goverments would turn to domestic repression and foreign adventure, for as long as the goverments survived, of course. Africa could conceivably lose 80% of it's population, (which could conceivably happen anyhow just due to AIDS). Asia would probably come through mostly okay--probably. I'd give even odds--and if they didn't, they'd be looking at 20%+ casualties, easily. More if China gets frisky, and invades a nuclear armed neighbor for room and resources. Western Europe would be pretty much okay, but Eastern Europe would almost certainly implode. The hordes of refugees, combined with the huge economical hit would vault extreme right parties into power very easily--it's almost a certainty. The EU would collapse, of course, and WWIII (without the rest of the world this time) would probably break out. England could go it alone okay, assuming political stability can be maintained. North America would be fine. South America would hopefully survive okay, although they'd of course slip right back into dictatorship. Russia wouldn't be hit hard at all, mainly because they have nowhere to fall to.
Overall, it could easily be horrific. The total cost in lives would be horrendous--possibly a billion or more, before all was said and done. I don't think any of it will happen, of course, if for no other reason than we've got a rogue superpower ready to stick it's nose into other people business if things look like they're getting out of hand.
Hmmm - and the protectionists would leap for joy because the cost shipping something halfway around the world would form a natural tarrif, discouraging trade deficits :)
Which would, of course, boost inflation and unemployment, aiding and abetting all the other problems.
??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower"
False. China has declared that it considers the US so. It should be obvious to all and sundry that this is, at best, a useful diplomatic ploy, and at worst, pure propoganda. I seriously doubt China even really thinks that. The rest of the world certainly doesn't.
it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction
False. The US has used, to the best of my knowledge, two weapons of mass destruction, in one incident, several decades ago.
and weapons of indiscriminant destruction, it has one of the worst records of initiating force in other countries, undermining democracies, propping up dictatorships with force, and worse, and you talk of "the wrong hands"?!?!
What relevence does this have as to whether a nuke in the US's hands is safer than a nuke elsewhere?
Presumably by "dangerious ... in the wrong hands" you actually mean "dangerous to _me_ personally", rather than "dangerous to innocent people". (I'm guessing you have US citizenship to protect you from US weaponry).
I do not mean me at all. I admit that I live in New Zealand, which does make me fairly safe from nukes. But I was, of course, reffering to innocent people. Now, you imply that a nuclear device in the hands of the sort of country that might spy on the DoE is not as dangerous to innocent people as one in the US's hands. Can you honestly claim to beleive that?! I would suggest the number of people who fear death at the hands of a nuclear explosion is probably slightly higher in Pakistan than in the US's bogey-of-the-month.
When a US General (among many others) states that the reality of the US nuclear stockpile is that it is a miracle that an accidental launch has not _already_ occured, you might begin to see why countries object to weapons stockpiling.
Oh, I understand the concerns with weapons stockpiling very well. What you neglect to mention is the risks posed by all the other nuclear arsenals in the world. The US's arsenal, and the threat is represents, is minor. Incosequential, you might say. Nobodies going to launch a nuke on purpose (unlike some other countries), and if the chance for an accidental launch exists, consider how much higher thar risk is for countries with smaller budgets and lower technology levels. Of course, we'd all be better off without any weapons stockpiles at all, but I daresay that we'd all be better off if the Easter Bunny was real too.
While the US can pretend to its citizens that it is somehow different from Iraq, its own actions frequently force the rest of the world to remain unconvinced.
Hardly. The US does, in many respects, move in it's own private dream world, but hardly to that extent. And Iraq and it's leader are hardly quite as bad as they're sometimes made out to be. But to compare Iraq and the US as equals is laughable. It's hardly even a comprehensible idea.
And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
Very much so. I could think of worse (bit's of south east asia, much of africa, and a few other places), but most are far too MUCH worse to come up with any weapons of mass destruction on their own. Iraq has already created some which it promptly used on it's own people (nice record there, yes), and gives every indication that it would like to keep any weapons it can, build any more that it can, and has no qualms on using them. Wonderful. And don't forget where Iraq is located. Right near far too much of the worlds oil reserves. If you want a doomsday scenario to hurt the maximum number of innocent people, driving the price of oil up to, oh...say $60-70 a barrel for a prolonged period of time will do that very nicely.
It matters not that you are doing weapons research. It matters not that you are checking an email from you girlfriend/boyfriend. When DOE is involved, the courts hardly matter. There are very few people in this country who are going to give a flying fsck about your privacy as soon as someone mentions nukes.
And, arguably, for very good reason. Not that I think that particular argument is correct, but it is a compelling argument, and many will think that. It's hard enough to make sure that security is air-tight for the areas where it's required without trying to make sure it is air-tight ONLY where it matters.
Personally, I think that they should be checking into just about everything having to do with DOE's security. There is very little on this planet more dangerous that the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America. I'd like to keep it that way.
Indeed. It's not that America's nuclear arsenal is so dangerous--it isn't. It's that the nukes and the knowledge to build them (especially the knowledge) would be dangerous to an unfortunate degree in the wrong hands. The world already has enough terrors. Far more than you imply, incidentally. I can think of nearly a dozen worse things than America's weapons of mass destruction. Near the top of the list would be the arsenals (nuclear, chemical, AND biological) of a range of countries. Or perhaps even worse, the possability of the emergence (either through random mutation or careful manipulation) of an air-borne retrovirus (what happens if you take a disease that is as hard to cure as AIDS, kills as fast as Ebola, and spreads like the common cold?). No, the world has enough worries without more nukes in more hands. Of course, one of those worries (and a very serious one) is infringements on free speach and privacy, such as this latest assault by the DoE. Nothing is ever easy.
Yes, but... Don't forget, we might think of ourselves as the people the Matrix was written for, and screw the rest, but we aren't. Fact is, a LOT of non-geeks saw it as well. And since this is Hollywood, 5 will get you 10 that the makers of the movie were hoping that would be the case. And what's more, a lot of geeks probably don't know what EMP is either. It's not exactly a common topic for everyday conversation. Further, I've read 3-4 different reviews of the Matrix here in NZ. Every single one complained that it was confusing, never explained what was happening, and you left the theatre not knowing what the Matrix was. I'm serious! Now, I saw it twice, and both times the theatre was pretty full. This is NZ here--chances are 4/5 of that theatre wearn't geeks and didn't know what an EMP blast was. Hell, if they were as clueless as the reviewers, they left the theatre wondering what the hell that scene where he woke up in the alien bathtub was all about. Don't underestimate either the stupidity or the numbers of the general public. And that's why they had to explain what EMP was. But as I say, there is absolutely nothing strange about the idea of Neo not knowing what EMP was. Now if they'd had to explain to him what a computer virus was, or something, you'd have a case. But EMP? Apart from a few mentions in Tom Clancy books, *I* wouldn't know what it is either.
It's hard to think of a genuine use for one of these, or, for that matter, a NOT so genuine use. Dunno about you, but I'D notice a changed keyboard. I can definitly think of better ways of doing anything this keyboard can do. For instance, a little "adaptor" that captures keystrokes for later retrieval. Or better yet, captures the signals going to the monitor. Of course, then you'd need some pretty efficient storage medium to hold the data, but... I wonder if anything remotely like that already exists?
Wrong. There is no evidence at all the name is being used in bad faith. Think about it--it's possible for two companies to have the same trademark (Acme Toilet Paper and Acme Furniture, for a hypothetical example). One of them might have the name acme.com. Assuming they're NOT using it against the other company, the other company has no rights. I.e., the second company could sue over the firsts website detailing the seconds labour practices, but not over the firsts website detailing the history of toilet paper.