How about that doctor doing unrequested invasive surgery to find out I had SARS?
This guy entered a private network and viewed private files. A side effect is obviously to warn the NYT that their security is not as good as it needs to be, but that in no way excuses or justifies this little dweebs illegal behavior.
Nonsense. Would you argue that theft of data stored on a network is no crime simply it is a netowrk? That theft of credit card info from a network is not theft? That unauthorized electronic transfer of funds from my bank account to your ban account is not a crime simply because it is on a network?
You're assertion that crime cannot occur on a network is ludicrous. And typical of the specious logic that infests this place.
By the way, this character broke through proxy servers in order to trespass on private files of the NYT. Asserting that no crime took place simply because he started at a public website is comparable to asserting that a burglar is innnocent of his crime because he drove to the house on a public street.
This guy apparently deliberately got through the NYT's public servers, via some proxy servers, into internal servers. Once there, he opened and view company files.
I'd accept public website notion if Lamo had only accessed files intentionally made accessible via a public website. He deliberately trespassed on private property belonging to others. THe fact that he uncovered configurtation errors in NYT servers is irrelevant. Rather like arguing that a burglar who picks a lock deserves leniency because he found errors in someone's lock configuration.
>> If you're not smart enough to go for C in the first place, you better be thankful to get A and not B. And if you're not, B might be just waiting to happen.
Well, sure, if you want to argue that any network that this guy broke into has left the keys in the door. I don't agree with that analogy.
How about this: You put a lock for your door, lock it, and go away. While you're gone, some smart kid picks the lock, sits down in your living room, looks through the family album, checks out your bank accounts, helps himself to pizza and a beer, and then leaves you a note reminding you not to brings charges but, instead, to buy an ad in the local paper praising him.
Yeah, I'm sure going to do that.
Following your logic, we'd absolve all criminal behavior due to the presumed failure of the victims to protect themselves.
Sounds like a kid with an inflated ego and a bit of a Robin Hood complex.
I wouldn't feel like thanking someone who broke into my house while I was on vacation, nosed around in my papers, and then told me about my "security problem" when I returned home. Why would I, or any business, reward the same kind of behavior inside someone else's network? Both examples are, at minimum, illegal invasions of another's property.
Businesses that didn't press charges against this guy were negligent and only encourage the phony notion that crime on a network isn't serious.
>>... our incredibly disproportionate levels of consumption...
Seems your politics are driven by guilt about thet American standard of living.
I don't share that guilt. Rather, I think it's a pity that the rest of the world doesn't live the way we do. They could, if they'd just put aside their medieval bigotries and attitudes about government behind them and get on with building real democracies.
I've lieved in Africa and the Arab Middle East. One of many debilitating things those two areas have in common is a widespread belief that people owe their allegiance to the ruler, no matter how corrupt, wrong or inept that ruler might be. It's still a belief in "ruler" and "subjects", of "the leader" and the "led". Couple that with rampant tribalism based on ethnicity (racism) and you have a recipe for continuing disaster.
Well, I know that when I want to read biased unsubstantiated propaganda packaged as journalism, I turn first to the Villege Voice.
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
>> Slight difference between your use of your personal property (wallet) and your use of THEIR property (computer).
Crucial distinction. Whether or not you spend your time at work staring out the window is not a privacy issue. It's a performance issue. It's easy for people who've been goofing off to start yelling about privacy.
But, what you do with the boss's property is the legitimate business of the boss. As long as the boss is up front about what's going on, I don't have any heartburn with monitoring.I might not like it, but it's my option to stay there.
>>...give them an advantage over a simple disposable Apollo style capsule.
What advantages? There's no advantage in reuse unless it offers something that expendables don't. Reuse, to me, is only attractive if it (A) works; and, (B) is actually cheaper. Lifting bodies might meet those criteria. But, until we're certain that they do, why not move forward using what we know works. We should not hold progress hostage to unproven technology.
The original post seemed to argue that science fiction is obsolete because te things it writes about are no longer impossible. I don't accept that because it assumes that humanity is approaching the limits of the knowable. That, to me, is arrogant and preposterous. Every new thing we learn illuminates much more that we don't know.
In any case, science fiction is not about the possible versus the impossible. If a reader's only criteria for judging science fiction is the accuracy of an author's predictions. that reader would be better entertained by reading output from the Rand Corporation, rather than fiction.
Clarke was talking about societies or people lacking the ability to understand a technology and who, therefore, make the mistake of assuming something impossible has happened. By definition, if the impossible happens, it must be magic.
Science fiction, on the other hand, expects the reader to accept that the premise presented by the author is technologically possible and, therefore, be prepared to accept all that follows as possible. This is the opposite of magic, which requires the reader to accept the impossible.
Sawyer, like any good science fiction author, asks the reader to "suspend disbelief" by accepting the premise on which his story is built. In the case of these 3 novels, Sawyer asks us to accept his premise that a Neanderthal world exists in a parallel universe. Once we accept that premise, his novels no longer require suspension of disbelief, but are laid out in logical and convincing gashion, with real characters whose actions are consistent with the environments they occupy. I "know" there really is no parallel Neanderthal world, but, if I acceopt that premise, these novels -- like all good science fiction -- are perfectly plausible.
Fiction like Star Trek, however, doesn't provide us with the same level of consistent logic and development. When it succeeds, Star Trek builds logically on the premise that, by the 23rd century, humanity will have established a peacefule and near-Utopian federation of planets. When, all too often, it fails, it is often because Star Trek posits something that doesn't follow from that premise.
Your's, and other posts, seem to take as a premise the notion that science fiction is read simply because it expresses "dreams", and that it will not be read if those "dreams" don't come true. IN other words, that science fiction readers are looking only for accurate predictions, not good story telling.
To the contrary, science fiction is read for the same reason all literature is read: It tells a good story about interesting characters. If a science fiction story simply lays out a series of predictions and extrapolations, wrapping them around an implausible plot and cardboard characters, that's the fault of the author, not the genre.
I agree with Robinson that the health of science fiction has been better, but I suspect that it is to the authors, not the readers, we should look for the cause.
Writing that lacks character development is indicative of bad writing, whatever the genre. I'm sure that the fantasy shelves have their share of atrocious writing, too. (Especially considering that many authors trade in both arenas.)
Fantasy may be about magic, but science fiction is very definitely not about magic. Science fiction is about the plausible. Magic is impossibe. To me, that alone is the single clearest demaraction between fantasy and science fiction.
>>... The essence of fiction is that it is not real, and "science fiction" is supposed to take the idea a step further -- beyond real...
I disagree. Given the "suspension of disbelief" conceit, science fiction is clearly about what might be possible. That's what make science fiction inspiring, or frightening, or amusing. Fantasy is clearly impossible, and, as such, has no similar resonance with real experience.
>> But in this century, what is beyond possible?
Many, many things remain "beyond possible" for humans. Immortality? Faster-than-light travel? Societies that do not wage war?
>> Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures.
Who's been there? No one that I know. Just a few little machines. They don't count.
>> Science is possible... fantasy is impossible. Perhaps that's the problem.
I don't understand. I read science fiction not because it is impossible, but because it presents a world that is, plausibly, possible. Likewise, I can't tolerate fantasy because it is, well, fantasy. A story that has no plausibility holds no interest for me.
Agree with your points, but much of that technology is not fully proven, and, more importantly, developing and refining it would delay operational missions. That delay is not acceptable.
If the goal is putting people in LEO, what advantage is there to wait several years for a working lifting body, or any other proposed technology, to prove itself versus using proven capsule technology? What if the new technology never works right?
The Shuttle has never reached actual operational status. NASA's successive failed efforts to design a Shuttle follow-on (note the unchalleneged assumption that the next effort should, in fact, be a Shuttle follow-on) have floundered because each focused on pushing technology rather than using proven capabilities to meet a mission requirement. In other words, NASA has been acting as if their job is to invent new technology, not to put people into space. Pushing and developing new technologies is vital, but that is not why we should be in space. We should conduct operational missions using the simplest and most reliable technology available that will meet missions requirements, and conduct R&D work in a different track.
The key word was "knowingly". If you are aware that your hardware is being used for illegal purposes and do nothing, you've bitten off a big bite of responsibility.
If I was a school administrator, I'd consider making use of the school's netowrk contingent on the student's specific written acceptance of legal and financial responsibility for any harm attributable to that use.
Huh? I/m not certain what your point is, but every vehicle you listed carries a human crew. The point of using a separate vehicle to carry cargo to LEO is that no humans are onboard.
>> it would be a step backwards to return to a disposable Apollo like capsule.
Why would that be a step backwards? Don't assume that we'd simply build something per the Apollo blueprints.
Remember, the requirement is to get people to and from LEO. A capsule launched on an expendable booster meets that requirement. (And a capsule can be reusable.)
Wings are only worth the trouble if you need to fly somewhere. Wings are simply useless extra mass in space that, as we've seen, increase the risks of re-entry.
Ditto for a lift body. What necessary capabilities would it add to counter the increased cost, complexity, and risk? (FWIW, the Apollo Command Module generated a degree of lift on re-entry.)
The basic point is that NASA needs to stop basing its plans and its budgets around technology that doesn't exist, has never been made to work right, or solves problems that we don't need to solve.
Not really. The only part of the Shuttle that is really re-used is the Orbiter, and that is essentially rebuilt between flights. We lose the fuel tank, and need to fish the solid booster out of the Atlantic before they, too, are rennovated for use again.
If you're think that we've got a spacecraft that is reusable in the same sense that an airplane is reusable, we don't. And, we may never have.
As for space junk, it is only a problem if you're in LEO around this planet. It isn't going anywhere else.
(Besides, I wish people would understand the scale of the Universe and realize that being in LEO around Earth means you're only a couple hundred miles, at most,from sea level. That's like going from Boston to New York. Even something as close as the Moon is about 1,000 times farther away. The Universe is unimaginably large; our space junk is simply skimming the edge of our atmosphere.)
Admiral Gehman is right. I hope someone is paying attention. He's right because there is no requirement to add a Shuttle crew to a flight that delivers cargo to the ISS. He's right because making a vehicle system safe enough for humans wastes money if the vehicle is also used to carry cargo.
There's too much emphasis on debates about winged spaceplanes versus Apollo-derived capsules; too much debate about reusability versus expendable boosters.
Let's be sensible. If you need to send tons of cargo from New York to Los Angeles, you can stuff into a truck or a freight train. That is, a vehicle deisgned to carry cargo. If you want to send your family from New York to Los Angeles, you would put them on an airplane, a bus, or drive them there in your car. In other words, a vehicle designed to be safe enough and comfortable enough to carry people. We should follow the same principle in getting cargo and people to LEO.
And we don't need to develop new techology to do this. We solved the problem of getting into and out of LEO 40 years ago.
What we need is:
1) A reliable heavy-lift booster that can orbit cargo to the ISS; I argue that we should go the expendable vehicle route because any attempt to design and build a reusable vehicle will add years and dollars chasing a dubious goal. Since the ISS is designed to accept cargo from the Shuttle's bay, I would create this new heavy-lift vehicle by launching the Shuttle without the Orbiter. NASA has had a heavy-lift vehicle within its reach for 25 years and refused to build it, chossing instead to unnecessarily put live at risk. (Meanwhile, we also have the new Delta and Atlas designs at our disposal. Their heavy-lift configurations are nothing to sneeze at.)
2) Every effort to build a winged and resuable spacecraft has failed because it would have required technology that does not exist yet, or cannot be used without skyrocketing costs. The nascent Orbital Spaceplane will face the same problem. Let's shuffle this problem over to the advanced research department, and use technology that we know works to get humans into and out of LEO: capsules. Let's go the Apollo-derived route and get something flying ASAP.
Slashdot Mirror
Broken analogy.
How about that doctor doing unrequested invasive surgery to find out I had SARS?
This guy entered a private network and viewed private files. A side effect is obviously to warn the NYT that their security is not as good as it needs to be, but that in no way excuses or justifies this little dweebs illegal behavior.
Nonsense. Would you argue that theft of data stored on a network is no crime simply it is a netowrk? That theft of credit card info from a network is not theft? That unauthorized electronic transfer of funds from my bank account to your ban account is not a crime simply because it is on a network?
You're assertion that crime cannot occur on a network is ludicrous. And typical of the specious logic that infests this place.
By the way, this character broke through proxy servers in order to trespass on private files of the NYT. Asserting that no crime took place simply because he started at a public website is comparable to asserting that a burglar is innnocent of his crime because he drove to the house on a public street.
This guy apparently deliberately got through the NYT's public servers, via some proxy servers, into internal servers. Once there, he opened and view company files.
I'd accept public website notion if Lamo had only accessed files intentionally made accessible via a public website. He deliberately trespassed on private property belonging to others. THe fact that he uncovered configurtation errors in NYT servers is irrelevant. Rather like arguing that a burglar who picks a lock deserves leniency because he found errors in someone's lock configuration.
>> If you're not smart enough to go for C in the first place, you better be thankful to get A and not B. And if you're not, B might be just waiting to happen.
Well, sure, if you want to argue that any network that this guy broke into has left the keys in the door. I don't agree with that analogy.
How about this: You put a lock for your door, lock it, and go away. While you're gone, some smart kid picks the lock, sits down in your living room, looks through the family album, checks out your bank accounts, helps himself to pizza and a beer, and then leaves you a note reminding you not to brings charges but, instead, to buy an ad in the local paper praising him.
Yeah, I'm sure going to do that.
Following your logic, we'd absolve all criminal behavior due to the presumed failure of the victims to protect themselves.
Sounds like a kid with an inflated ego and a bit of a Robin Hood complex.
I wouldn't feel like thanking someone who broke into my house while I was on vacation, nosed around in my papers, and then told me about my "security problem" when I returned home. Why would I, or any business, reward the same kind of behavior inside someone else's network? Both examples are, at minimum, illegal invasions of another's property.
Businesses that didn't press charges against this guy were negligent and only encourage the phony notion that crime on a network isn't serious.
Please remember that I didn't advocate these developments. I'm just stating that they will come about as a result of the excesses of file sharing.
>>... our incredibly disproportionate levels of consumption...
Seems your politics are driven by guilt about thet American standard of living.
I don't share that guilt. Rather, I think it's a pity that the rest of the world doesn't live the way we do. They could, if they'd just put aside their medieval bigotries and attitudes about government behind them and get on with building real democracies.
I've lieved in Africa and the Arab Middle East. One of many debilitating things those two areas have in common is a widespread belief that people owe their allegiance to the ruler, no matter how corrupt, wrong or inept that ruler might be. It's still a belief in "ruler" and "subjects", of "the leader" and the "led". Couple that with rampant tribalism based on ethnicity (racism) and you have a recipe for continuing disaster.
Well, I know that when I want to read biased unsubstantiated propaganda packaged as journalism, I turn first to the Villege Voice.
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
>> Slight difference between your use of your personal property (wallet) and your use of THEIR property (computer).
Crucial distinction. Whether or not you spend your time at work staring out the window is not a privacy issue. It's a performance issue. It's easy for people who've been goofing off to start yelling about privacy.
But, what you do with the boss's property is the legitimate business of the boss. As long as the boss is up front about what's going on, I don't have any heartburn with monitoring.I might not like it, but it's my option to stay there.
Now you know what PR people get paid for....
>>...give them an advantage over a simple disposable Apollo style capsule.
What advantages? There's no advantage in reuse unless it offers something that expendables don't. Reuse, to me, is only attractive if it (A) works; and, (B) is actually cheaper. Lifting bodies might meet those criteria. But, until we're certain that they do, why not move forward using what we know works. We should not hold progress hostage to unproven technology.
The original post seemed to argue that science fiction is obsolete because te things it writes about are no longer impossible. I don't accept that because it assumes that humanity is approaching the limits of the knowable. That, to me, is arrogant and preposterous. Every new thing we learn illuminates much more that we don't know.
In any case, science fiction is not about the possible versus the impossible. If a reader's only criteria for judging science fiction is the accuracy of an author's predictions. that reader would be better entertained by reading output from the Rand Corporation, rather than fiction.
Clarke was talking about societies or people lacking the ability to understand a technology and who, therefore, make the mistake of assuming something impossible has happened. By definition, if the impossible happens, it must be magic.
Science fiction, on the other hand, expects the reader to accept that the premise presented by the author is technologically possible and, therefore, be prepared to accept all that follows as possible. This is the opposite of magic, which requires the reader to accept the impossible.
Sawyer, like any good science fiction author, asks the reader to "suspend disbelief" by accepting the premise on which his story is built. In the case of these 3 novels, Sawyer asks us to accept his premise that a Neanderthal world exists in a parallel universe. Once we accept that premise, his novels no longer require suspension of disbelief, but are laid out in logical and convincing gashion, with real characters whose actions are consistent with the environments they occupy. I "know" there really is no parallel Neanderthal world, but, if I acceopt that premise, these novels -- like all good science fiction -- are perfectly plausible.
Fiction like Star Trek, however, doesn't provide us with the same level of consistent logic and development. When it succeeds, Star Trek builds logically on the premise that, by the 23rd century, humanity will have established a peacefule and near-Utopian federation of planets. When, all too often, it fails, it is often because Star Trek posits something that doesn't follow from that premise.
Your's, and other posts, seem to take as a premise the notion that science fiction is read simply because it expresses "dreams", and that it will not be read if those "dreams" don't come true. IN other words, that science fiction readers are looking only for accurate predictions, not good story telling.
To the contrary, science fiction is read for the same reason all literature is read: It tells a good story about interesting characters. If a science fiction story simply lays out a series of predictions and extrapolations, wrapping them around an implausible plot and cardboard characters, that's the fault of the author, not the genre.
I agree with Robinson that the health of science fiction has been better, but I suspect that it is to the authors, not the readers, we should look for the cause.
Well, you really are pessimistic. Consider, though, if the dreams of your parents and grandparents didn't come true, why will your nightmares?
What happens during the course of a person's lifetime usually bears no resemblance to what that person expected in his or her youth.
Writing that lacks character development is indicative of bad writing, whatever the genre. I'm sure that the fantasy shelves have their share of atrocious writing, too. (Especially considering that many authors trade in both arenas.)
Fantasy may be about magic, but science fiction is very definitely not about magic. Science fiction is about the plausible. Magic is impossibe. To me, that alone is the single clearest demaraction between fantasy and science fiction.
>> ... The essence of fiction is that it is not real, and "science fiction" is supposed to take the idea a step further -- beyond real...
I disagree. Given the "suspension of disbelief" conceit, science fiction is clearly about what might be possible. That's what make science fiction inspiring, or frightening, or amusing. Fantasy is clearly impossible, and, as such, has no similar resonance with real experience.
>> But in this century, what is beyond possible?
Many, many things remain "beyond possible" for humans. Immortality? Faster-than-light travel? Societies that do not wage war?
>> Exploring the planets? Been there, done that, got pictures.
Who's been there? No one that I know. Just a few little machines. They don't count.
>> Science is possible... fantasy is impossible. Perhaps that's the problem.
I don't understand. I read science fiction not because it is impossible, but because it presents a world that is, plausibly, possible. Likewise, I can't tolerate fantasy because it is, well, fantasy. A story that has no plausibility holds no interest for me.
Agree with your points, but much of that technology is not fully proven, and, more importantly, developing and refining it would delay operational missions. That delay is not acceptable.
If the goal is putting people in LEO, what advantage is there to wait several years for a working lifting body, or any other proposed technology, to prove itself versus using proven capsule technology? What if the new technology never works right?
The Shuttle has never reached actual operational status. NASA's successive failed efforts to design a Shuttle follow-on (note the unchalleneged assumption that the next effort should, in fact, be a Shuttle follow-on) have floundered because each focused on pushing technology rather than using proven capabilities to meet a mission requirement. In other words, NASA has been acting as if their job is to invent new technology, not to put people into space.
Pushing and developing new technologies is vital, but that is not why we should be in space. We should conduct operational missions using the simplest and most reliable technology available that will meet missions requirements, and conduct R&D work in a different track.
The key word was "knowingly". If you are aware that your hardware is being used for illegal purposes and do nothing, you've bitten off a big bite of responsibility.
If I was a school administrator, I'd consider making use of the school's netowrk contingent on the student's specific written acceptance of legal and financial responsibility for any harm attributable to that use.
Huh? I/m not certain what your point is, but every vehicle you listed carries a human crew. The point of using a separate vehicle to carry cargo to LEO is that no humans are onboard.
Humans are not needed to get cargo into LEO.
>> it would be a step backwards to return to a disposable Apollo like capsule.
Why would that be a step backwards? Don't assume that we'd simply build something per the Apollo blueprints.
Remember, the requirement is to get people to and from LEO. A capsule launched on an expendable booster meets that requirement. (And a capsule can be reusable.)
Wings are only worth the trouble if you need to fly somewhere. Wings are simply useless extra mass in space that, as we've seen, increase the risks of re-entry.
Ditto for a lift body. What necessary capabilities would it add to counter the increased cost, complexity, and risk? (FWIW, the Apollo Command Module generated a degree of lift on re-entry.)
The basic point is that NASA needs to stop basing its plans and its budgets around technology that doesn't exist, has never been made to work right, or solves problems that we don't need to solve.
Yeah. You're right. Fingers were moving faster than brain.
Still argue that a Shuttle-based HLV makes good sense.
>> We have proven we can reuse space ships,
Not really. The only part of the Shuttle that is really re-used is the Orbiter, and that is essentially rebuilt between flights. We lose the fuel tank, and need to fish the solid booster out of the Atlantic before they, too, are rennovated for use again.
If you're think that we've got a spacecraft that is reusable in the same sense that an airplane is reusable, we don't. And, we may never have.
As for space junk, it is only a problem if you're in LEO around this planet. It isn't going anywhere else.
(Besides, I wish people would understand the scale of the Universe and realize that being in LEO around Earth means you're only a couple hundred miles, at most,from sea level. That's like going from Boston to New York. Even something as close as the Moon is about 1,000 times farther away. The Universe is unimaginably large; our space junk is simply skimming the edge of our atmosphere.)
Admiral Gehman is right. I hope someone is paying attention. He's right because there is no requirement to add a Shuttle crew to a flight that delivers cargo to the ISS. He's right because making a vehicle system safe enough for humans wastes money if the vehicle is also used to carry cargo.
There's too much emphasis on debates about winged spaceplanes versus Apollo-derived capsules; too much debate about reusability versus expendable boosters.
Let's be sensible. If you need to send tons of cargo from New York to Los Angeles, you can stuff into a truck or a freight train. That is, a vehicle deisgned to carry cargo. If you want to send your family from New York to Los Angeles, you would put them on an airplane, a bus, or drive them there in your car. In other words, a vehicle designed to be safe enough and comfortable enough to carry people. We should follow the same principle in getting cargo and people to LEO.
And we don't need to develop new techology to do this. We solved the problem of getting into and out of LEO 40 years ago.
What we need is:
1) A reliable heavy-lift booster that can orbit cargo to the ISS; I argue that we should go the expendable vehicle route because any attempt to design and build a reusable vehicle will add years and dollars chasing a dubious goal. Since the ISS is designed to accept cargo from the Shuttle's bay, I would create this new heavy-lift vehicle by launching the Shuttle without the Orbiter. NASA has had a heavy-lift vehicle within its reach for 25 years and refused to build it, chossing instead to unnecessarily put live at risk. (Meanwhile, we also have the new Delta and Atlas designs at our disposal. Their heavy-lift configurations are nothing to sneeze at.)
2) Every effort to build a winged and resuable spacecraft has failed because it would have required technology that does not exist yet, or cannot be used without skyrocketing costs. The nascent Orbital Spaceplane will face the same problem. Let's shuffle this problem over to the advanced research department, and use technology that we know works to get humans into and out of LEO: capsules. Let's go the Apollo-derived route and get something flying ASAP.