I suspect some basic education would work wonders on that issue, but the way the politicians in our country are going, they seem to want to drive the education level in the USA to pre-K levels.
Just because somebody didn't learn from all the other internet polls on naming suggestions that came before it, doesn't mean it'll stick. Even so, there's a great thing about taking suggestions, you don't have to follow them, especially the stupid ones.
So do other things, like MPC for instance. Of course, I haven't installed quicktime on a computer in a very very long time. I always find something else to play it if I have to.
They'll fight that tooth and nail due to the tendency of stock holders to sue them whenever this happens. Maybe if you included a clause that they can't get sued for repercussions of revealing that information...
It takes weeks for the solution to be created and TESTED so that it doesn't eat your computer. Of course, if you want a version of QuickProtect on your computer, I'm sure Dilbert would be happy to send you one.
I agree, the article says it'll send back a laser signal, but it might be too weak to even see. Seems like they really need to improve that feature first, otherwise it's utterly pointless.
Also, there was no mention of power supply. At the mass they're talking about, it won't be solar panels or nuclear batteries. Both are too heavy, and a solar panel would quickly become worthless and provide insufficient power. As to our regular batteries, I don't see them surviving that long, both because of insufficient storage, and vulnerability to the expected environment.
Ideally we'd want data sent home the entire trip. We don't know what's between the stars, and we really want to.
Besides, there's that whole too F-N cold issue that will trash our current electronics if they aren't kept warm by something. Yes, I said warm. At the really freaking cold temperatures we estimate are out there, you can expect that sucker to stop working and even physically break apart if it either isn't kept warm, or made of something rather different than what we currently do. (Overclockers with their megacooling come nowhere near these levels of cold.) It seems most likely there will be some kind of warming circuit (maybe just running the systems will be good enough), but that will require power, again a problem in the deep void between the stars with something only a few grams in mass. (That whole thing about non-nuclear batteries being vulnerable is a doubly nasty here as they'd have to spend power to keep themselves warm enough to operate, and I suspect we have nothing capable of that for those conditions, durations, and low mass.)
The final difficulty I'm going to throw in here is speed and deceleration. Ok, so we successfully get it up to 20%C and it zips out of our solar system in a few hours. Now you get to the target system, and either speed through it with almost no observations worth beaming home, or it needs to slow down and hang around for a bit. Sure you've got that tiny solar sail, but you don't have an equivalent megalaser blasting it. You can pretty much assume the solar wind from it's target star is going to have about as much effect as our sun. Not because it might not be stronger, but rather because you probably won't be hitting it at an optimum angle. This flimsy star grape with gossamer wings can't do aerobraking, even if we knew of a viable body to do that with. At those kinds of speeds, I'm rather doubtful it could even pull one of those gravity only based ones around the star and survive. Not to mention, they didn't say what kind of thrust levels it could produce with those "photonic thrusters", but I suspect it's very tiny, and so course corrections would take hours, which would probably exceed it's within system observable window much less maneuver to brake capability.
Have those guys thought about all this stuff? Maybe, but the article doesn't mention any of it, and they have indicated that they are hoping some technology is developed before hand as they're going to need it.
I love the idea, but I hope they have some better answers before spending that much money.
I've seen studies done on how people respond and listen to various voices. It was found that males are much more likely to listen to a females voice than a males voice. Oddly enough, that was also true with females, though not as extreme, it was still at a significant level. Also, the response difference was not a small one, so there is a definite advantage to using a female voice. By the way, the study didn't explain why this anomaly is so, it just reported the findings.
Maybe the designers of those knew about the study. Or maybe they just went with what seemed to work in testing. Of course it could be sexist, but considering how much greater the human response is to a female voice, it seems more likely they just chose a voice that's better for their design, even if they did it by instinct instead of cold logical design. (Just because something involves someone of a particular gender, that doesn't mean it's due to prejudice. I highly suspect that those who scream accusations of sexism the loudest and most frequent are often being sexist themselves.)
Hmmm.... A warrant will allow them to bust through locks, but the DMCA is loaded with so much b.s., including about you can't do such things, I wonder how that would actually play out. (I'm talking pure logic here, not the courts. The courts will handwave it away because they're 'law enforcement'.)
I saw an FBI agent in an office store collecting sample printouts from various printers so he could build a model typeface database like they have for the old physical typewriters. It took a while for me to explain it to the point where he finally got, but he eventually understood that the fonts used were determined by the computer, not the printer. They don't have any physical typefaces, and can print with any font you want. (Sure, there are some differences between the print heads, but it's pretty bloody minor in most cases and tends to have little to no distinguishing characteristics, especially since many components are sourced from other companies, and those can change several times in a single manufacturing run.)
How so? By not kneeling to the FBI overlords at their beckoning whims? Because the FBI claims to have gotten help from someone else to break in and subsequently drops the case just when it's looking really positive they'll lose and set a precedent that the government can't make demands like that anymore? On top of that, they claim to have gotten into the phone, but of course we only have their word for it. (And that they didn't get into long before they made the demands on Apple for as far as that goes.)
Now I'm not saying Cook isn't a lowlife of some kind. After all, he is a CEO, and they aren't exactly known for morals. But I'm kind of wondering how you came up with your statement.
I think it's the other way around, the FBI backing out of a case that will set the precedent that's the exact opposite of the one they were trying for.
To try and make Apple their bitch. The going to court thing was to try and force a legal precedent they could use to make any company build shit for them to use against that companies customers. Funny how when it became apparent that they wouldn't win, suddenly they drop it and have a 3rd party way to get around the supposedly insurmountable problem. Apple never said it was unbreakable, they just said that Apple didn't have a way to break it. The method that was being discussed was to use the update feature to feed it a new pre-cracked version of OS, which Apple refused to develop, much less employ. How did the 3rd party break in? We don't know. Heck, so far we don't know if that was real or if the FBI was blowing smoke up our asses to try and cover theirs.
Remember, this whole thing wasn't about Apple not helping the FBI, after all they gave them the source code and access to their experts, rather it's about them being forced to eviscerate their own companies standing and have to smile and thank the government for letting them do it while paying for it as well.
Using encryption isn't criminal, in fact, it's very import to many things, including business. I'm aware of no company in this country that was "advertising a device as supporting criminals". If you try to imply that Apple was doing so by it's encryption, then you are also implying that every ad for a fast car is as well. You're logic fails. I'm not saying you can't score points in the discussion, but you are going the wrong direction here with such unsupported statements.
Hell, if a backdoor exists, someone will find it, and it will be abused. Often time little secrets like that are abused and also leak from the very people that were entrusted to keep it. That's why no security firm that's not a scam will ever include a backdoor.
Slashdot Mirror
So I take it you would have voted for "RTFM" ?
Nope. The ship name contest is non-binding, kind of funny, and nobody is getting hurt, repressed, or otherwise screwed.
Elections on the other hand...
Maybe they don't want their ships captain and crew attempting to commit suicide due to embarrassment every time they have to mention their ships name.
I suspect some basic education would work wonders on that issue, but the way the politicians in our country are going, they seem to want to drive the education level in the USA to pre-K levels.
I dunno. Maybe they thought there were some people out there that have passed puberty...
Just because somebody didn't learn from all the other internet polls on naming suggestions that came before it, doesn't mean it'll stick.
Even so, there's a great thing about taking suggestions, you don't have to follow them, especially the stupid ones.
Then it would be all Reich ?
:P
Before anyone spazzes out, I truly despise those scum, but I have no problems making fun of them, and neither did Monty Python.
Who was using it in 2010 ?
So do other things, like MPC for instance.
Of course, I haven't installed quicktime on a computer in a very very long time. I always find something else to play it if I have to.
How awful. :)
However, we can still legally kill them if they take flash photos after the lights go down, right?
They'll fight that tooth and nail due to the tendency of stock holders to sue them whenever this happens.
Maybe if you included a clause that they can't get sued for repercussions of revealing that information...
It takes weeks for the solution to be created and TESTED so that it doesn't eat your computer. Of course, if you want a version of QuickProtect on your computer, I'm sure Dilbert would be happy to send you one.
I agree, the article says it'll send back a laser signal, but it might be too weak to even see.
Seems like they really need to improve that feature first, otherwise it's utterly pointless.
Also, there was no mention of power supply. At the mass they're talking about, it won't be solar panels or nuclear batteries. Both are too heavy, and a solar panel would quickly become worthless and provide insufficient power. As to our regular batteries, I don't see them surviving that long, both because of insufficient storage, and vulnerability to the expected environment.
Ideally we'd want data sent home the entire trip. We don't know what's between the stars, and we really want to.
Besides, there's that whole too F-N cold issue that will trash our current electronics if they aren't kept warm by something. Yes, I said warm. At the really freaking cold temperatures we estimate are out there, you can expect that sucker to stop working and even physically break apart if it either isn't kept warm, or made of something rather different than what we currently do. (Overclockers with their megacooling come nowhere near these levels of cold.) It seems most likely there will be some kind of warming circuit (maybe just running the systems will be good enough), but that will require power, again a problem in the deep void between the stars with something only a few grams in mass. (That whole thing about non-nuclear batteries being vulnerable is a doubly nasty here as they'd have to spend power to keep themselves warm enough to operate, and I suspect we have nothing capable of that for those conditions, durations, and low mass.)
The final difficulty I'm going to throw in here is speed and deceleration. Ok, so we successfully get it up to 20%C and it zips out of our solar system in a few hours. Now you get to the target system, and either speed through it with almost no observations worth beaming home, or it needs to slow down and hang around for a bit. Sure you've got that tiny solar sail, but you don't have an equivalent megalaser blasting it. You can pretty much assume the solar wind from it's target star is going to have about as much effect as our sun. Not because it might not be stronger, but rather because you probably won't be hitting it at an optimum angle. This flimsy star grape with gossamer wings can't do aerobraking, even if we knew of a viable body to do that with. At those kinds of speeds, I'm rather doubtful it could even pull one of those gravity only based ones around the star and survive. Not to mention, they didn't say what kind of thrust levels it could produce with those "photonic thrusters", but I suspect it's very tiny, and so course corrections would take hours, which would probably exceed it's within system observable window much less maneuver to brake capability.
Have those guys thought about all this stuff? Maybe, but the article doesn't mention any of it, and they have indicated that they are hoping some technology is developed before hand as they're going to need it.
I love the idea, but I hope they have some better answers before spending that much money.
It's not. They plan on sending a hundred or more so something will hopefully get through. RTFA
I've seen studies done on how people respond and listen to various voices.
It was found that males are much more likely to listen to a females voice than a males voice.
Oddly enough, that was also true with females, though not as extreme, it was still at a significant level.
Also, the response difference was not a small one, so there is a definite advantage to using a female voice.
By the way, the study didn't explain why this anomaly is so, it just reported the findings.
Maybe the designers of those knew about the study. Or maybe they just went with what seemed to work in testing.
Of course it could be sexist, but considering how much greater the human response is to a female voice, it seems more likely they just chose a voice that's better for their design, even if they did it by instinct instead of cold logical design.
(Just because something involves someone of a particular gender, that doesn't mean it's due to prejudice. I highly suspect that those who scream accusations of sexism the loudest and most frequent are often being sexist themselves.)
Hmmm.... A warrant will allow them to bust through locks, but the DMCA is loaded with so much b.s., including about you can't do such things, I wonder how that would actually play out. (I'm talking pure logic here, not the courts. The courts will handwave it away because they're 'law enforcement'.)
Ok, and who's going to arrest them?
Law enforcement pretty much seems to assume anymore that laws apply to us, not them.
I saw an FBI agent in an office store collecting sample printouts from various printers so he could build a model typeface database like they have for the old physical typewriters.
It took a while for me to explain it to the point where he finally got, but he eventually understood that the fonts used were determined by the computer, not the printer. They don't have any physical typefaces, and can print with any font you want. (Sure, there are some differences between the print heads, but it's pretty bloody minor in most cases and tends to have little to no distinguishing characteristics, especially since many components are sourced from other companies, and those can change several times in a single manufacturing run.)
LoL. I agree, and have been making much the same points, as have other people.
How so? By not kneeling to the FBI overlords at their beckoning whims?
Because the FBI claims to have gotten help from someone else to break in and subsequently drops the case just when it's looking really positive they'll lose and set a precedent that the government can't make demands like that anymore? On top of that, they claim to have gotten into the phone, but of course we only have their word for it. (And that they didn't get into long before they made the demands on Apple for as far as that goes.)
Now I'm not saying Cook isn't a lowlife of some kind. After all, he is a CEO, and they aren't exactly known for morals. But I'm kind of wondering how you came up with your statement.
I think it's the other way around, the FBI backing out of a case that will set the precedent that's the exact opposite of the one they were trying for.
To try and make Apple their bitch.
The going to court thing was to try and force a legal precedent they could use to make any company build shit for them to use against that companies customers.
Funny how when it became apparent that they wouldn't win, suddenly they drop it and have a 3rd party way to get around the supposedly insurmountable problem.
Apple never said it was unbreakable, they just said that Apple didn't have a way to break it. The method that was being discussed was to use the update feature to feed it a new pre-cracked version of OS, which Apple refused to develop, much less employ.
How did the 3rd party break in? We don't know. Heck, so far we don't know if that was real or if the FBI was blowing smoke up our asses to try and cover theirs.
Remember, this whole thing wasn't about Apple not helping the FBI, after all they gave them the source code and access to their experts, rather it's about them being forced to eviscerate their own companies standing and have to smile and thank the government for letting them do it while paying for it as well.
Using encryption isn't criminal, in fact, it's very import to many things, including business.
I'm aware of no company in this country that was "advertising a device as supporting criminals".
If you try to imply that Apple was doing so by it's encryption, then you are also implying that every ad for a fast car is as well.
You're logic fails. I'm not saying you can't score points in the discussion, but you are going the wrong direction here with such unsupported statements.
Hell, if a backdoor exists, someone will find it, and it will be abused.
Often time little secrets like that are abused and also leak from the very people that were entrusted to keep it.
That's why no security firm that's not a scam will ever include a backdoor.
Really? You're holding up the Constitution and Civil Rights to someone like that? Remember, those types don't believe you have a right to your rights.