Watch a fellow in a jetpack run out of fuel at 60 feet and I think you'll see the difference.
In basic Jet-Pack training they will teach you "buddy fueling", in which a jet-pack flyer who is low on fuel hooks up his fuel tanks to his buddy's fuel tanks, so that they can both land safely.
On that note, has anyone done any security audits of the popular remote-exploit tools? It would be fun to write a "special" version of wu-ftpd 1.0 (or whatever) that recognizes when a particular tool is trying to exploit it, and responds by taking advantage of a bug in that tool to give you a root shell on the attacker's machine....;^)
That is, if one of the arresting officers were an undercover detective, then his identity might well have been blown.
If the officer is undercover and wants to remain so, he shouldn't be arresting people in public. Arresting people is a pretty good giveaway that you're a police officer.
Third, even though the guy "got off," the chilling effect (just what the police/government hoped for) is VERY "far reaching." Who among us after reading about incidents like this will not henceforth think twice before photographing police or any other government official?
Very true. I think the real practical solution to the problem will come only when cameras become so small that it's not obvious to anyone that you are using one. Imagine a digital camera embedded into your hat or eyeglasses, activated by a button inside your jacket pocket. They can't harrass you if they don't know what you are doing...
It's entirely reasonable that part-time "citizen cops" could undergo just as much training as current entry-level professional police
Of course it's also entirely likely that part-time "citizen cops" (aren't the existing cops also citizens?) would suffer from all the problems that the current cops have, plus extra problems because they won't get as much on-the-job experience.
The solution to bad policing is to make the police more professional, not less.
Police don't have anymore power than an ordinary citizen.
I didn't mean legal power so much as raw physical power. Police have access to guns, batons, police cars, other police officers, handcuffs, jails, combat training, etc. That is what gives them more power than most citizens.
you could say that the police have a right to privacy
Police officers on duty in a public area have no more right to privacy than anyone else, i.e. none, and thank God for that. Power corrupts, and police have power. The only thing that reliably prevents police abuses is public accountability, which can only happen if the public is informed.
Bah. Clerks II wasn't a sequel so much as a remake. Same themes, same gags, same actors. The only significant difference is that this version was filmed in color.
I've met sadly too many people (and most of this group seems to be women) whose main concern about whether to see a movie is "who's in it?" The idea of a movie as an artform to tell a story is utterly alien to them
Devil's Advocate: If seeing the faces of people they like and are familiar with is what is important to them, then who are we to say they made a poor choice? Either they enjoy their movie-going experience, or they don't -- if they do, then good for them; if they don't, then they'll stop going.
You could argue that their, erm, 'different' criteria for movie selection is bad for us because it pushes the movies we would like to see out of the theaters... but it's the 21st century, there's Internet video, Netflix, video stores.... lots of ways for you to see any movie created, and most of them cheaper than going to the theater anyway. So perhaps the culture-drones are really doing us a favor;^)
I would say we are faring pretty well compared to Vietnam, Korea, and any other past war. There are fewer casualties in this entire war than at many of the battles America has faced in the past.
Apples and oranges. Those other wars are over and done, this one is still ongoing, with no end in sight. We are three years into this war -- for comparison, in 1962, five years into the Vietnam war, only 53 Americans had been killed. By the time we got completely out of Vietnam, the death toll was 58,178.
That is why the Powell Doctrine specifies that you should only start a war if the objectives are clearly and you have a clear exit strategy. Otherwise you end up in a meat grinder, where the casualties just keep mounting and you can't find a good way to leave. Too bad the Bush Administration refused to learn from history -- now we are condemned to repeat it.
Despite what a lot of people want you to believe, most of our troops are good people trying to help establish infrastructure and order in Iraq.
I agree. But I think the problem is that the environment we've created in Iraq turns good people bad. Imagine you're an American soldier sent to Iraq: you arrive with the best of intentions, but after weeks and months of trying to help the Iraqi people and seeing things only get worse, of seeing your friends and countless civilians murdered, of not knowing who you can trust because the "good guys" and the "bad guys" look alike (indeed, may be the same people, on different days)... you start to lose it. You try to hold it together because you're a professional and you have a code of ethics, but it gets harder and harder. Finally one day something happens that is the last straw, and the constant fear and stress causes you to snap and go postal. And when that happens, you are (as always) likely to be carrying a lot of highly effective weaponry and be in the vicinity of a lot of Iraqi civilians, so of course the results are going to be quite gory and tragic. And of course your 'episode' then becomes the fuel for another round of anti-American revenge killings by the relatives of the people you killed. And on it goes...
Unfortunately, unless some miracle happens I think we're going to see a lot more breakdowns in American conduct in Iraq. The similarities to Vietnam are evident: you can only keep soldiers in a shooting gallery for so long before they (quite understandably) get demoralized, paranoid and angry, especially if they realize that their mission is a lost cause and their presence isn't doing anything except buying time for politicians who don't want to admit they lost a war.
20 years old laughing at sex... how surprising. Soldiers are still human. They still do stupid shit to entertain themselves.
Well, if our soldiers can use a $20 million helicopter to watch people having sex, then I don't see why other government employees (teachers, officeholders, etc) shouldn't be allowed to use their $1000 office PC to watch porn while on the job. After all, they are only human.
If you are going to have to gun down people (regardless if they truly are villains or not) in cold blood, you might be surprised what sorts of coping mechanisms you develop.
Hell, I might even refuse to do it. Unless there is an actual invasion of my homeland going on, I'll stick to jobs that don't require me to carry out mass murder. Trumped up wars started on highly dubious grounds aren't worthing losing my soul over.
Unless you know of a better way to train killers, this is the way it has to be.
The trick isn't to train better killers, so much as to find ways of dealing with the world that don't require lots of trained killers.
But we all trust Apple with all of our data, don't we?
With or without TPM, every computer user has to trust the people who wrote the operating system they use. They don't have any choice -- you either trust an existing operating system not to screw you, or write your own from scratch. Needless to say, writing your own operating system is not a practical choice for anybody these days.
As to whether people should trust Apple with their data... it's never good to trust anyone or anything completely, but I'd say Apple has given people much more reason to trust them then Microsoft has, both in terms of their intentions and their technical competence.
I think if Apple could make some kind of "Borrow a Mac for two weeks for $20" offer, they couldn't keep them in stock.
Given the number of people who would interpret that as "New Macs on sale for $20, as long as you make sure Apple can't find you in two weeks", I daresay you're right;^)
You'd be an idiot (quite literally) to waste time and money for no reason. That's the public attitude.
Yeah, but Apple's got the antidote to that: slick marketing. We live in a world where people happily pay $3 for a bottle of water for God's sake -- the same stuff they can all get for free at home. Don't underestimate the mileage you can get out of making something 'cool'. (of course, in Apple's case it doesn't hurt that their products really are quite good)
Further, you completely ignore the point (and it's an important one) that it's the action of government itself, by creating the artificial monopolies we call "patents", that reduces competition and increases prices in this field.
I'm not sure that's true... the reason they invented patents was because otherwise every company would have to keep every invention a tightly guarded secret, or fall victim to cheap knockoffs. With patents, companies get a government-sponsored monopoly (for a limited time) in exchange for sharing their invention with the public. At the end of the patent period, the knowledge enters the public domain.
So patents don't create a monopoly so much as substitute one monopoly for another. Instead of a natural monopoly based on secrecy and lasting potentially forever, you get an artificial one based in law and lasting a fixed amount of time. Arguably this increases competition because (a) companies are able to build on each other's inventions, at least in the long run, and (b) companies can afford to develop products whose nature is not easy to keep secret, because they know they can make a profit on it before the patent expires.
Slashdot Mirror
Their dropped weight belts can, though. Ouch!
Watch a fellow in a jetpack run out of fuel at 60 feet and I think you'll see the difference.
In basic Jet-Pack training they will teach you "buddy fueling", in which a jet-pack flyer who is low on fuel hooks up his fuel tanks to his buddy's fuel tanks, so that they can both land safely.
Works like a charm
True, but I'll be damned if I can find a place that will sell it to me. For now I guess I'll just stick with soda.
I'd say that a proper honeypot would simulate the other site as well. Once you've taken the blue pill, there's no escape...
On that note, has anyone done any security audits of the popular remote-exploit tools? It would be fun to write a "special" version of wu-ftpd 1.0 (or whatever) that recognizes when a particular tool is trying to exploit it, and responds by taking advantage of a bug in that tool to give you a root shell on the attacker's machine....
Hmm. So according to TJ's world view, he was into sex with animals. Not looking good, there...
Either the ideas described in the quote are valid, or they aren't. It doesn't matter who said it.
If the officer is undercover and wants to remain so, he shouldn't be arresting people in public. Arresting people is a pretty good giveaway that you're a police officer.
Very true. I think the real practical solution to the problem will come only when cameras become so small that it's not obvious to anyone that you are using one. Imagine a digital camera embedded into your hat or eyeglasses, activated by a button inside your jacket pocket. They can't harrass you if they don't know what you are doing...
In California, at least, you have the right to protest in the public areas of a shopping mall.
Of course it's also entirely likely that part-time "citizen cops" (aren't the existing cops also citizens?) would suffer from all the problems that the current cops have, plus extra problems because they won't get as much on-the-job experience.
The solution to bad policing is to make the police more professional, not less.
I didn't mean legal power so much as raw physical power. Police have access to guns, batons, police cars, other police officers, handcuffs, jails, combat training, etc. That is what gives them more power than most citizens.
Police officers on duty in a public area have no more right to privacy than anyone else, i.e. none, and thank God for that. Power corrupts, and police have power. The only thing that reliably prevents police abuses is public accountability, which can only happen if the public is informed.
Bah. Clerks II wasn't a sequel so much as a remake. Same themes, same gags, same actors. The only significant difference is that this version was filmed in color.
Au contraire, it's a very possible task. But they deliberately pick the bad ones, because those are a lot cheaper to license for broadcast.
Devil's Advocate: If seeing the faces of people they like and are familiar with is what is important to them, then who are we to say they made a poor choice? Either they enjoy their movie-going experience, or they don't -- if they do, then good for them; if they don't, then they'll stop going.
You could argue that their, erm, 'different' criteria for movie selection is bad for us because it pushes the movies we would like to see out of the theaters... but it's the 21st century, there's Internet video, Netflix, video stores.... lots of ways for you to see any movie created, and most of them cheaper than going to the theater anyway. So perhaps the culture-drones are really doing us a favor
Apples and oranges. Those other wars are over and done, this one is still ongoing, with no end in sight. We are three years into this war -- for comparison, in 1962, five years into the Vietnam war, only 53 Americans had been killed. By the time we got completely out of Vietnam, the death toll was 58,178.
That is why the Powell Doctrine specifies that you should only start a war if the objectives are clearly and you have a clear exit strategy. Otherwise you end up in a meat grinder, where the casualties just keep mounting and you can't find a good way to leave. Too bad the Bush Administration refused to learn from history -- now we are condemned to repeat it.
I agree. But I think the problem is that the environment we've created in Iraq turns good people bad. Imagine you're an American soldier sent to Iraq: you arrive with the best of intentions, but after weeks and months of trying to help the Iraqi people and seeing things only get worse, of seeing your friends and countless civilians murdered, of not knowing who you can trust because the "good guys" and the "bad guys" look alike (indeed, may be the same people, on different days)... you start to lose it. You try to hold it together because you're a professional and you have a code of ethics, but it gets harder and harder. Finally one day something happens that is the last straw, and the constant fear and stress causes you to snap and go postal. And when that happens, you are (as always) likely to be carrying a lot of highly effective weaponry and be in the vicinity of a lot of Iraqi civilians, so of course the results are going to be quite gory and tragic. And of course your 'episode' then becomes the fuel for another round of anti-American revenge killings by the relatives of the people you killed. And on it goes...
Unfortunately, unless some miracle happens I think we're going to see a lot more breakdowns in American conduct in Iraq. The similarities to Vietnam are evident: you can only keep soldiers in a shooting gallery for so long before they (quite understandably) get demoralized, paranoid and angry, especially if they realize that their mission is a lost cause and their presence isn't doing anything except buying time for politicians who don't want to admit they lost a war.
Well, if our soldiers can use a $20 million helicopter to watch people having sex, then I don't see why other government employees (teachers, officeholders, etc) shouldn't be allowed to use their $1000 office PC to watch porn while on the job. After all, they are only human.
If you are going to have to gun down people (regardless if they truly are villains or not) in cold blood, you might be surprised what sorts of coping mechanisms you develop.
Hell, I might even refuse to do it. Unless there is an actual invasion of my homeland going on, I'll stick to jobs that don't require me to carry out mass murder. Trumped up wars started on highly dubious grounds aren't worthing losing my soul over.
Unless you know of a better way to train killers, this is the way it has to be.
The trick isn't to train better killers, so much as to find ways of dealing with the world that don't require lots of trained killers.
Unless you are planning to emigrate, or go to jail for tax evasion, I don't see how you can avoid financing it.
With or without TPM, every computer user has to trust the people who wrote the operating system they use. They don't have any choice -- you either trust an existing operating system not to screw you, or write your own from scratch. Needless to say, writing your own operating system is not a practical choice for anybody these days.
As to whether people should trust Apple with their data... it's never good to trust anyone or anything completely, but I'd say Apple has given people much more reason to trust them then Microsoft has, both in terms of their intentions and their technical competence.
Given the number of people who would interpret that as "New Macs on sale for $20, as long as you make sure Apple can't find you in two weeks", I daresay you're right
Yeah, but Apple's got the antidote to that: slick marketing. We live in a world where people happily pay $3 for a bottle of water for God's sake -- the same stuff they can all get for free at home. Don't underestimate the mileage you can get out of making something 'cool'. (of course, in Apple's case it doesn't hurt that their products really are quite good)
I'm not sure that's true... the reason they invented patents was because otherwise every company would have to keep every invention a tightly guarded secret, or fall victim to cheap knockoffs. With patents, companies get a government-sponsored monopoly (for a limited time) in exchange for sharing their invention with the public. At the end of the patent period, the knowledge enters the public domain.
So patents don't create a monopoly so much as substitute one monopoly for another. Instead of a natural monopoly based on secrecy and lasting potentially forever, you get an artificial one based in law and lasting a fixed amount of time. Arguably this increases competition because (a) companies are able to build on each other's inventions, at least in the long run, and (b) companies can afford to develop products whose nature is not easy to keep secret, because they know they can make a profit on it before the patent expires.