Pizza delivery is better than sliced bread. You think WOW is "simplistic"? Copyright laws (blech) require some skill and patience to circumvent.
Horse was better than foot, car better than horse. Do I lack self discipline because I use a car? Because I would rather learn the skill of flying the model aeroplane before spending hours learning the skill of construction?
Scientists wouldn't know a problem if it bit them.
The hex date has been translated twice to decimal. So.the date was (taking baseline as Y2K) Hex "A" which got translated to decimal "10" which was again translated to decimal (Hex "10" = dec "16")
No binary except as incidental that 4 binary bits=1hex digit.
Not really. Photographers who were very good at their trade would get very high pay from e.g. people who wanted flattering (or whatever) publicity shots.
Theres lots of income options besides concert tours. They just don't make you so rich. If you want to pay the rent, go play at the local club. If your music is really great, fans will travel from everywhere to wherever you choose to play.
Creative commons attribution is the only copyright and patent law we need.
I look forward to the day when music is free to copy and musicians make their money from live performance, when images are free to copy and the original has value because it's, well, the original. When the written word may be copied and recopied, when patent law is no longer needed because people invent and discover for prestige.
Someone above said a pro programmer can use any language. That is true. It is what you do if employed by the hour. For stuff you want to do, you should choose your own favourite language.
I also endorse someone's comment above that you should have experience programming in a mnemonic machine code, (aka assembly). Personally, if I couldn't find a Pascal compiler for the job, I wouldn't bother thinking about the algorithm.
Telstra's boss has the unenviable job of trying to pay dividends to all those shareholders that Howard foisted Australia's teleco onto. So although I think Telstra's prices are too high, I recognize that Sol provides technical ability with a quality product.
As Sol says, censorship is presently too hard. Also, my concern is it is dangerous to democracy. China probably manages it's censorship by blocking everything, then having about 10,000 Chinese censors reading & approving webpages, and if they pass a page as OK, then that URL/IP is unblocked. (well maybe that's a bit of hyperbole, but you get the idear.)
The problem is, sooner or later intelligent censorship software will reach the public domain (I assume NSA already has something that would do the job, like it had the RSA algorithm for a decade before it reached the public domain). If intelligent software were doing the censorship, then the censor could effortlessly block whatever thoughts they prescribed from network communications.
It's necessary to have this fight asap. If we lose now, we may well have lost the war.
By participation, I also meant that more legislative questions could be referred to the people.
For instance, if say 10% of voters signaled for a public vote on a particular piece of legislation before the parliament, then that piece of legislation would have to be put to the people for a decision. A bit like the Californian "propositions" system.
I believe that if each person could check his own voting record online, and the vote tally procedure was open source, then most of the issues you raise are negligible.
In answer to your killer ap, that vote buying must be impossible. If votes were modifiable, then sighting a person's vote would be meaningless except during the final tally.
Like Socrates, I agree that perfection is impossible, but that should not stop us from trying to improve on what exists.
If banks can securely (with ~ 99.999% security) transfer thousands of dollars online, then the technology exists to securely permit voting online.
Anything that speeds up voting encourages greater participation. Our present voting system originated in the dark ages. The fastest communication was by horse, it took several days for a horse to get from one side of the USA to the other, or about 2 months by boat to get from UK to Australia.
If the internet had existed in the time of the founding fathers, I feel sure they would have used it to give the people greater oversight of the legislative process.
Government. It is not a good resource management system if there is a need to rely on the authorities or anyone else to behave in a trustworthy fashion.
Extrapolate. If CCTV and facial recognition technology are combined, then we don't just have a database of everyone, we actually have a database-recording of where everyone was and is, & who they have associated with.
Results So if there is a suicide bomber, we can probably find cohorts and supporters. Most property crimes would vanish overnight. Crimes against the person would become rare.
Options. The horse is out of the stable. The technology exists. CCTVs could be made near invisible, and then the government (or whoever) has exclusive access to that data. Or we bite the bullet, and demand that everybody (well those computer literate enough) has access.
I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you.
Extrapolating this to the modern world, a world-wide facial recognition database would be compatible if the following additional conditions were met:
a) everyone had access to it (Everyone knows everyone else)
b) it was trivially easy to see where the cameras were (when you see me, I see you)
c) cameras were only in a relatively few number of places. (when I'm behind "closed doors" I'm out of public view)
I'm not convinced governments can abide by these above rules, but if they could I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".
libertarian option.
I agree with (a), but expand it to "and everyone also has access to the public CCTV network." In this way, everybody loses their privacy. However to balance that, people would also be able to inspect the CCTV records and recognition software and know who was watching them...
I consider (b) & (c) to be irrelevant.
Now that that particular technological cat has got out of the barn door, how about the Google option - make all those CCTV's into publicly accessible web cams?
Just think. With person recognition software tied in I could keep track of my wife and kids, check up on my gf, and in my spare time develop software to keep an eye on the local pedophiles and Muslim terrorists.
Nah. I think I would prefer to trust Mr Brown (and whoever else can afford a private CCTV spy network) to do the right thing with all that private information.
Slashdot Mirror
Pizza delivery is better than sliced bread. You think WOW is "simplistic"? Copyright laws (blech) require some skill and patience to circumvent.
Horse was better than foot, car better than horse. Do I lack self discipline because I use a car? Because I would rather learn the skill of flying the model aeroplane before spending hours learning the skill of construction?
Scientists wouldn't know a problem if it bit them.
The hex date has been translated twice to decimal. So .the date was (taking baseline as Y2K) Hex "A" which got translated to decimal "10" which was again translated to decimal (Hex "10" = dec "16")
No binary except as incidental that 4 binary bits=1hex digit.
bcd/hex mismatch
Not really. Photographers who were very good at their trade would get very high pay from e.g. people who wanted flattering (or whatever) publicity shots.
Theres lots of income options besides concert tours. They just don't make you so rich. If you want to pay the rent, go play at the local club. If your music is really great, fans will travel from everywhere to wherever you choose to play.
Creative commons attribution is the only copyright and patent law we need. I look forward to the day when music is free to copy and musicians make their money from live performance, when images are free to copy and the original has value because it's, well, the original. When the written word may be copied and recopied, when patent law is no longer needed because people invent and discover for prestige.
Someone above said a pro programmer can use any language. That is true. It is what you do if employed by the hour. For stuff you want to do, you should choose your own favourite language.
I also endorse someone's comment above that you should have experience programming in a mnemonic machine code, (aka assembly). Personally, if I couldn't find a Pascal compiler for the job, I wouldn't bother thinking about the algorithm.
Telstra's boss has the unenviable job of trying to pay dividends to all those shareholders that Howard foisted Australia's teleco onto. So although I think Telstra's prices are too high, I recognize that Sol provides technical ability with a quality product.
As Sol says, censorship is presently too hard. Also, my concern is it is dangerous to democracy. China probably manages it's censorship by blocking everything, then having about 10,000 Chinese censors reading & approving webpages, and if they pass a page as OK, then that URL/IP is unblocked. (well maybe that's a bit of hyperbole, but you get the idear.)
The problem is, sooner or later intelligent censorship software will reach the public domain (I assume NSA already has something that would do the job, like it had the RSA algorithm for a decade before it reached the public domain). If intelligent software were doing the censorship, then the censor could effortlessly block whatever thoughts they prescribed from network communications.
It's necessary to have this fight asap. If we lose now, we may well have lost the war.
Of more concern is censorship, which our government in Australia is reportedly planning. A little bit of censorship is like a little bit of pregnant.
Censorship will not stop powerful memes, which probably grow better in adversity anyway, but it might hinder their development.
I really couldn't give a stuff whether they sniff packets or the chair on which a hot female sat.
All banks need to know is that:
Incoming money has been received by the bank before that money is credited to an identified account.
Outgoing money has sufficient funds in the properly identified transferees account to cover any proposed payment.
Everything beyond those basic requirements is legal or police state gobblededook, and does not add directly to the security of the bank's money.
By participation, I also meant that more legislative questions could be referred to the people.
For instance, if say 10% of voters signaled for a public vote on a particular piece of legislation before the parliament, then that piece of legislation would have to be put to the people for a decision. A bit like the Californian "propositions" system.
I believe that if each person could check his own voting record online, and the vote tally procedure was open source, then most of the issues you raise are negligible.
In answer to your killer ap, that vote buying must be impossible. If votes were modifiable, then sighting a person's vote would be meaningless except during the final tally.
Like Socrates, I agree that perfection is impossible, but that should not stop us from trying to improve on what exists.
If banks can securely (with ~ 99.999% security) transfer thousands of dollars online, then the technology exists to securely permit voting online.
Anything that speeds up voting encourages greater participation. Our present voting system originated in the dark ages. The fastest communication was by horse, it took several days for a horse to get from one side of the USA to the other, or about 2 months by boat to get from UK to Australia.
If the internet had existed in the time of the founding fathers, I feel sure they would have used it to give the people greater oversight of the legislative process.
Government. It is not a good resource management system if there is a need to rely on the authorities or anyone else to behave in a trustworthy fashion.
Extrapolate. If CCTV and facial recognition technology are combined, then we don't just have a database of everyone, we actually have a database-recording of where everyone was and is, & who they have associated with.
Results So if there is a suicide bomber, we can probably find cohorts and supporters. Most property crimes would vanish overnight. Crimes against the person would become rare.
Options. The horse is out of the stable. The technology exists. CCTVs could be made near invisible, and then the government (or whoever) has exclusive access to that data. Or we bite the bullet, and demand that everybody (well those computer literate enough) has access.
I try to envision the right model for security and privacy as small town America. In this model everyone knows everyone else and for the most part, when you see your neighbor, he/she sees you.
Extrapolating this to the modern world, a world-wide facial recognition database would be compatible if the following additional conditions were met: a) everyone had access to it (Everyone knows everyone else) b) it was trivially easy to see where the cameras were (when you see me, I see you) c) cameras were only in a relatively few number of places. (when I'm behind "closed doors" I'm out of public view)
I'm not convinced governments can abide by these above rules, but if they could I'd be OK living in a world-wide "small town".
libertarian option. I agree with (a), but expand it to "and everyone also has access to the public CCTV network." In this way, everybody loses their privacy. However to balance that, people would also be able to inspect the CCTV records and recognition software and know who was watching them... I consider (b) & (c) to be irrelevant.
Now that that particular technological cat has got out of the barn door, how about the Google option - make all those CCTV's into publicly accessible web cams? Just think. With person recognition software tied in I could keep track of my wife and kids, check up on my gf, and in my spare time develop software to keep an eye on the local pedophiles and Muslim terrorists. Nah. I think I would prefer to trust Mr Brown (and whoever else can afford a private CCTV spy network) to do the right thing with all that private information.