The satellite with the net must spend a lot of time and fuel maneuvering to match velocities with the junk. At typical orbital collision speeds the net would have little chance of catching anything.
Very Cool. Seems incomprehensible that women would still receive decades of discrimination in the workplace after such feats; if the military trusted their intellect for such delicate matters, why couldn't everyone else?
It was not necessarily a matter of trust. Keep in mind that the great depression and massive unemployment did not really end until the ramp up of military spending for WW2. One of the great fears of the time was that when the war ended the US might return to economic depression and high unemployment. They wanted the returning veterans to have more job opportunities so wartime workers were let go, and it was not just the women. Many men who had not served in uniform were considered less desirable.
Some considered making sure returning vets got a job to be part of the "thank you" to those who made the greater sacrifices. Others may have been more practical and thought it better that those who were trained and well practiced in the use of weapons should be employed first. Don't laugh, this was the era of red scares and "communist revolt". The US did not help to rebuild Europe and Japan purely out of generosity and compassion, there was a very strong political stability motivation.
Umm. We might be able to retain more lives and limbs if we celebrate brains as a way of winning wars.
Why? Brains have given us ever more devastating weapons that require fewer people and effort to operate? Gatling/machine guns, poison gas, etc were all thought up by "brains" to reduce the casualties. Things didn't quite work out as expected. Atomic weapons are sort of the exception, so far.
Umm, you know that there were very few (less than 10?) ship to ship battles in WWII right? And even fewer had battleships exchanging gunfire.
Naval gunnery occurred far more often than you suggest, its not specific to battleships. Cruisers and destroyers engaged in many "gun fights". Perhaps one of the more famous areas for such combat was around Guadalcanal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Bottom_Sound
Oh - really. The people hired to do the calcs were almost invariably women. So - how do you explain all the naval gunnery? No women aboard ships back then.
The sailors did not do calculations by hand. They had mechanical calculating devices that calculated a targeting solution. The sailors set relative bearing, distance, speed, etc of targets and the machines did the calculations. If sailors were doing hand calculations, there were expected to fight even if the fancy calculating machine was inoperable, they were using shortcuts such as data tables. They were not doing the full calculations from the most primitive inputs. These data tables were what the women on dry land were calculating.
Even when the first computer became available (Colossus) it was mostly operated by women.
Its been decades since I read a book on it, but I recall something about Bletchley hiring a special type of woman. Besides the obvious technical skills they also selected women with an immediate family members in front line combat units. With a son/father/husband/brother in harms way the military expected women to take security very seriously.
Besides, the US entered the WWII in 1942 if I'm not mistaken.
Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941 and war was declared on Japan the next day. War was declared on Germany and italy a few days later after they declared.
However the US build up to war had been going on for years. This includes modernizing the army and navy, instituting the draft, ramping up military production, etc. "New" war jobs computing ballistic tables and such could have been created years before actual fighting and declarations of war.
I am guessing, but I think the poster was asking if Sony published in the context of protecting a trade secret. My understanding is that if a company fails to protect and/or publishes a trade secret, either intentionally or accidentally, the information loses its trade secret status in the eyes of the law. So in this context it is an interest question, does publicly repeating what an outside has said count as disclosure of a trade secret with respect to the law?
In my eyes, the real danger that exists in the gap between the GPL and the BSD licenses are the companies who can take BSD-licensed code, modify it, and re-release modified binaries without source. For me, this is why I am extremely hesitant to contribute to such projects. Under both licenses, anyone could grab the code and do whatever they want with it in-house or for personal use. Only under the BSD licenses (and similar ones) can you distribute modified code without telling your users what has changed. I'm surprised that Theo didn't take a stance on that, rather than on the code that he retained access to.
Actually it seems that BSD developers like Theo take no stance on corporate use of their code because that is OK with them. Their goal is to improve the quality and security of end user's software in practice, take Mac OS X for instance - arguably the best and most successful desktop *NIX. They want to bring technical excellence to the computing world, not an ideology. Think of how much better the computing world might be had Microsoft adopted BSD code rather than rolled their own. The "leachers", corporate or GPL re-branders, are the cost that Theo and other BSD devs seem to accept in order to deliver this excellence. The stance he takes with the GPL re-branders seems to involve not so much the act of leaching but the hypocrisy it represents.
The point is that the opportunity exists to take someone else's code, modify it, sell it, and never contribute back or tell your users what has changed, because this is permitted by the BSD-family licenses.
It seems GPL enthusiasts have committed similar offenses and have taken from a community without giving back to that community. "Leeching" as you might say. One key BSD developer writes:
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic." http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code
Arguing against this is analogous to arguing against a law forbidding murder (or theft, etc.) because hardly anyone does it anyway.
Careful, you are dangerously close to demagoguery with a comparison to murder. A manipulative appeal to emotions not logic. Regarding "theft", I think *many* people around here would disagree if they were honest and applied their music sharing / RIAA arguments - basically there is no theft since no one was deprived of their property. A more appropriate analogy would be a law enforcing the 10% tithing to the poor that many churches recommend. OK, not a perfect analogy but certainly better than murder and theft.:-)
Lets say your company adopts a BSD project and a GPL project.....
The difference is that on the GPL you can only keep the code in house if you do not want to give out improvements.
BSD? Rip, sell, earn money, do not contribute back.
Or... at the least you can do that. Which does not help the community.
Well for a limited definition of "helping the community". GPL'd projects have directly benefitted by incorporating BSD code and indirectly benefitted from the knowledge and experience of UC Berkeley's pioneering work in developing a *truly* free and open UNIX implementation. Apple, Sun, SGI and other have advanced the world of computing using BSD based code *and* they have also given back in various ways *including* giving code to the community. For example Apple HFS, which I believe has been incorporated into FreeBSD. And some have argued that some GPL folks take without giving back. One key BSD developer writes:
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great
problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock
us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving
us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get
it back. Ironic." http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code
Basically I'm saying that the meme that GPL gives back and BSD does not is false. Things are far more complicated than that.
A PDF can be easily transferred and distribute. Passwords on a PDF can be cracked in seconds with open source tools.
Its more likely the reader app will be a customized app with multiple layers of security. An enterprise app locked to specific iPads and distributed internally, data internally distributed and encrypted, etc.
Check your contract. It says Apple has the right to revoke your apps' certificates without cause or warning. Lose the app, you lose access to your data.
You seem to be referring to public apps distributed on the App Store to the general population. However there are also corporate apps that are distributed only to those within the organization and not to the public in general. The rules are likely to be quite different for the later.
More importantly the current playbook is not likely to be an app. Perhaps its just a PDF or data for custom app.
What's the advantage of running Debian with a BSD kernel instead of linux?
If you want to make money, and don't want to contribute back to the free software economy, its easier with a BSD license than a GPL license. Other than that...
That's a somewhat FUD'ish response. There are plenty of BSD users who contribute back. I'd say that one advantage is that you don't have a 3rd party (FSF) dictating terms to you, in particular a 3rd party that is on a quasi-religious campaign. I know the FSF claims otherwise, but they are not the free'er license. Restriction are restrictions, whether or not those restrictions have a socially beneficial goal and are altruistic. As GPL v3 introduced some controversy and drama, what will GPL v4 introduce. Some may not want to have to deal with it.
Now I realize some GPL fans are probably feeling their emotions rise and some zealots have already stopped reading and have started composing their flames:-), but if a church or government was compelling you to do good and altruistic things would you consider that freedom? Why is being compelled by the FSF any different?
It is already against the rules for prison guards and staff to supply cell phones to prisoners. Penalty is dismissal or other sanctions. Legislation will do nothing.
Getting fired is one thing. A felony conviction for someone who is socially advantaged enough to be a prison guard is another thing, its a lifelong downgrade. Having a former prison guard wind up in prison is something that it is far beyond getting fired, its a potential death sentence. The legislation can drastically alter the risk/reward for the guards.
Just like the drug laws keep drugs under control, right? You can lose it all there, but people still do it anyways.
That's not a very good analogy. Drugs have a physical addiction component that screws up the risk/reward evaluation. Phones won't have that sort of demand. Phones (and chargers) are also a bit larger and bulkier. They are more difficult to conceal and pass off than drugs.
Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.
I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.
You are misusing statistics. The statistics you quote are for large diverse populations. The sample of the population being targeted here is quite small and it is not random. It is a highly screened segment of the population that has been determined to be "more" law abiding than a random selection. The "sample" being targeted are the guards/staff, a key component in this smuggling.
Your comparison to the outside world is flawed. The guards/staff are a critical component here, their active participation or looking the other way is key. If they could lose their jobs, generous union benefits, pensions and face incarceration themselves then their active or passive participation is far less likely. The problem would likely move from out of control to under control. Note that under control is not necessarily zero phones.
Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?
In general there are three categories of laws. Infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. At the lower categories the penalty may only be a fine, maybe a relatively small one. Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.
I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.
Note that the summary says "prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in". These suppliers are the weak link and are somewhat likely to respond to the legislation.
This seems like the credit card number aliases that many banks offer, a temporary number that locks to the first merchant to use it. Hopefully it works out as well.
... but then you're not connected to the AT&T network.
Better to just switch off the "cellular data" setting and then *nothing* can connect to the internet, but you still have voice service
Not being connected in any way would be the point of this individual test. Airplane mode gives you a known base where there should be nothing at all. If AT&T claims data traffic that would be quite suspicious, indicating a bug on their side of things. Day 1 airplane mode, day 2 data service turned off, day 3 data service on with no apps running and the phone sitting around unused in standby mode, day 4 apps only in the background and the phone sitting around unused in standby mode,...
Agreed. It would be interesting to know if they ran the same test with the data service actually turned off on the phone. Then I'd start to see fault with the carrier.
Airplane mode. It turns everything off, cellular, wifi, etc.
... I hope Youtube will remove h.264 encoding from their videos as soon as most Firefox and Chrome users migrated to a version that supports WebM...
And wouldn't the followup to that be h.264 advocates promoting a different video sharing site? Such a site may get critical mass merely by Apple replacing the Mac Safari built-in YouTube link and the iPhone/iPad built-in YouTube app. Apple might even do such a site themselves, they have that new data center. It would be a textbook retaliatory attack on a competitor's core asset. Microsoft might join in.
Basically Google could start a chain of events that seriously undermine a core asset. YouTube is probably more easily replaced than MySpace and Google is probably smart enough to know this. Dropping h.264 from chrome is a minor thing, unlikely to prompt serious retaliation, doing so with YouTube would be quite different.
Slashdot Mirror
The satellite with the net must spend a lot of time and fuel maneuvering to match velocities with the junk. At typical orbital collision speeds the net would have little chance of catching anything.
Very Cool. Seems incomprehensible that women would still receive decades of discrimination in the workplace after such feats; if the military trusted their intellect for such delicate matters, why couldn't everyone else?
It was not necessarily a matter of trust. Keep in mind that the great depression and massive unemployment did not really end until the ramp up of military spending for WW2. One of the great fears of the time was that when the war ended the US might return to economic depression and high unemployment. They wanted the returning veterans to have more job opportunities so wartime workers were let go, and it was not just the women. Many men who had not served in uniform were considered less desirable.
Some considered making sure returning vets got a job to be part of the "thank you" to those who made the greater sacrifices. Others may have been more practical and thought it better that those who were trained and well practiced in the use of weapons should be employed first. Don't laugh, this was the era of red scares and "communist revolt". The US did not help to rebuild Europe and Japan purely out of generosity and compassion, there was a very strong political stability motivation.
Umm. We might be able to retain more lives and limbs if we celebrate brains as a way of winning wars.
Why? Brains have given us ever more devastating weapons that require fewer people and effort to operate? Gatling/machine guns, poison gas, etc were all thought up by "brains" to reduce the casualties. Things didn't quite work out as expected. Atomic weapons are sort of the exception, so far.
Umm, you know that there were very few (less than 10?) ship to ship battles in WWII right? And even fewer had battleships exchanging gunfire.
Naval gunnery occurred far more often than you suggest, its not specific to battleships. Cruisers and destroyers engaged in many "gun fights". Perhaps one of the more famous areas for such combat was around Guadalcanal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Bottom_Sound
Oh - really. The people hired to do the calcs were almost invariably women. So - how do you explain all the naval gunnery? No women aboard ships back then.
The sailors did not do calculations by hand. They had mechanical calculating devices that calculated a targeting solution. The sailors set relative bearing, distance, speed, etc of targets and the machines did the calculations. If sailors were doing hand calculations, there were expected to fight even if the fancy calculating machine was inoperable, they were using shortcuts such as data tables. They were not doing the full calculations from the most primitive inputs. These data tables were what the women on dry land were calculating.
Even when the first computer became available (Colossus) it was mostly operated by women.
Its been decades since I read a book on it, but I recall something about Bletchley hiring a special type of woman. Besides the obvious technical skills they also selected women with an immediate family members in front line combat units. With a son/father/husband/brother in harms way the military expected women to take security very seriously.
Besides, the US entered the WWII in 1942 if I'm not mistaken.
Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec 7, 1941 and war was declared on Japan the next day. War was declared on Germany and italy a few days later after they declared.
However the US build up to war had been going on for years. This includes modernizing the army and navy, instituting the draft, ramping up military production, etc. "New" war jobs computing ballistic tables and such could have been created years before actual fighting and declarations of war.
I am guessing, but I think the poster was asking if Sony published in the context of protecting a trade secret. My understanding is that if a company fails to protect and/or publishes a trade secret, either intentionally or accidentally, the information loses its trade secret status in the eyes of the law. So in this context it is an interest question, does publicly repeating what an outside has said count as disclosure of a trade secret with respect to the law?
In my eyes, the real danger that exists in the gap between the GPL and the BSD licenses are the companies who can take BSD-licensed code, modify it, and re-release modified binaries without source. For me, this is why I am extremely hesitant to contribute to such projects. Under both licenses, anyone could grab the code and do whatever they want with it in-house or for personal use. Only under the BSD licenses (and similar ones) can you distribute modified code without telling your users what has changed. I'm surprised that Theo didn't take a stance on that, rather than on the code that he retained access to.
Actually it seems that BSD developers like Theo take no stance on corporate use of their code because that is OK with them. Their goal is to improve the quality and security of end user's software in practice, take Mac OS X for instance - arguably the best and most successful desktop *NIX. They want to bring technical excellence to the computing world, not an ideology. Think of how much better the computing world might be had Microsoft adopted BSD code rather than rolled their own. The "leachers", corporate or GPL re-branders, are the cost that Theo and other BSD devs seem to accept in order to deliver this excellence. The stance he takes with the GPL re-branders seems to involve not so much the act of leaching but the hypocrisy it represents.
The point is that the opportunity exists to take someone else's code, modify it, sell it, and never contribute back or tell your users what has changed, because this is permitted by the BSD-family licenses.
It seems GPL enthusiasts have committed similar offenses and have taken from a community without giving back to that community. "Leeching" as you might say. One key BSD developer writes:
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic."
http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code
Arguing against this is analogous to arguing against a law forbidding murder (or theft, etc.) because hardly anyone does it anyway.
Careful, you are dangerously close to demagoguery with a comparison to murder. A manipulative appeal to emotions not logic. Regarding "theft", I think *many* people around here would disagree if they were honest and applied their music sharing / RIAA arguments - basically there is no theft since no one was deprived of their property. A more appropriate analogy would be a law enforcing the 10% tithing to the poor that many churches recommend. OK, not a perfect analogy but certainly better than murder and theft. :-)
Lets say your company adopts a BSD project and a GPL project..... The difference is that on the GPL you can only keep the code in house if you do not want to give out improvements. BSD? Rip, sell, earn money, do not contribute back. Or... at the least you can do that. Which does not help the community.
Well for a limited definition of "helping the community". GPL'd projects have directly benefitted by incorporating BSD code and indirectly benefitted from the knowledge and experience of UC Berkeley's pioneering work in developing a *truly* free and open UNIX implementation. Apple, Sun, SGI and other have advanced the world of computing using BSD based code *and* they have also given back in various ways *including* giving code to the community. For example Apple HFS, which I believe has been incorporated into FreeBSD. And some have argued that some GPL folks take without giving back. One key BSD developer writes:
"GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic."
http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code
Basically I'm saying that the meme that GPL gives back and BSD does not is false. Things are far more complicated than that.
A PDF can be easily transferred and distribute. Passwords on a PDF can be cracked in seconds with open source tools.
Its more likely the reader app will be a customized app with multiple layers of security. An enterprise app locked to specific iPads and distributed internally, data internally distributed and encrypted, etc.
Check your contract. It says Apple has the right to revoke your apps' certificates without cause or warning. Lose the app, you lose access to your data.
You seem to be referring to public apps distributed on the App Store to the general population. However there are also corporate apps that are distributed only to those within the organization and not to the public in general. The rules are likely to be quite different for the later.
More importantly the current playbook is not likely to be an app. Perhaps its just a PDF or data for custom app.
What's the advantage of running Debian with a BSD kernel instead of linux?
If you want to make money, and don't want to contribute back to the free software economy, its easier with a BSD license than a GPL license. Other than that...
That's a somewhat FUD'ish response. There are plenty of BSD users who contribute back. I'd say that one advantage is that you don't have a 3rd party (FSF) dictating terms to you, in particular a 3rd party that is on a quasi-religious campaign. I know the FSF claims otherwise, but they are not the free'er license. Restriction are restrictions, whether or not those restrictions have a socially beneficial goal and are altruistic. As GPL v3 introduced some controversy and drama, what will GPL v4 introduce. Some may not want to have to deal with it.
:-), but if a church or government was compelling you to do good and altruistic things would you consider that freedom? Why is being compelled by the FSF any different?
Now I realize some GPL fans are probably feeling their emotions rise and some zealots have already stopped reading and have started composing their flames
It is already against the rules for prison guards and staff to supply cell phones to prisoners. Penalty is dismissal or other sanctions. Legislation will do nothing.
Getting fired is one thing. A felony conviction for someone who is socially advantaged enough to be a prison guard is another thing, its a lifelong downgrade. Having a former prison guard wind up in prison is something that it is far beyond getting fired, its a potential death sentence. The legislation can drastically alter the risk/reward for the guards.
Just like the drug laws keep drugs under control, right? You can lose it all there, but people still do it anyways.
That's not a very good analogy. Drugs have a physical addiction component that screws up the risk/reward evaluation. Phones won't have that sort of demand. Phones (and chargers) are also a bit larger and bulkier. They are more difficult to conceal and pass off than drugs.
Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.
I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.
You are misusing statistics. The statistics you quote are for large diverse populations. The sample of the population being targeted here is quite small and it is not random. It is a highly screened segment of the population that has been determined to be "more" law abiding than a random selection. The "sample" being targeted are the guards/staff, a key component in this smuggling.
Your comparison to the outside world is flawed. The guards/staff are a critical component here, their active participation or looking the other way is key. If they could lose their jobs, generous union benefits, pensions and face incarceration themselves then their active or passive participation is far less likely. The problem would likely move from out of control to under control. Note that under control is not necessarily zero phones.
Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?
In general there are three categories of laws. Infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. At the lower categories the penalty may only be a fine, maybe a relatively small one. Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.
I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.
Note that the summary says "prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in". These suppliers are the weak link and are somewhat likely to respond to the legislation.
This seems like the credit card number aliases that many banks offer, a temporary number that locks to the first merchant to use it. Hopefully it works out as well.
You don't need GPS, map or compass when a helicopter drops you on the high ground and you only need to figure out which way is down hill. ;-)
... but then you're not connected to the AT&T network. Better to just switch off the "cellular data" setting and then *nothing* can connect to the internet, but you still have voice service
Not being connected in any way would be the point of this individual test. Airplane mode gives you a known base where there should be nothing at all. If AT&T claims data traffic that would be quite suspicious, indicating a bug on their side of things. Day 1 airplane mode, day 2 data service turned off, day 3 data service on with no apps running and the phone sitting around unused in standby mode, day 4 apps only in the background and the phone sitting around unused in standby mode, ...
Agreed. It would be interesting to know if they ran the same test with the data service actually turned off on the phone. Then I'd start to see fault with the carrier.
Airplane mode. It turns everything off, cellular, wifi, etc.
... I hope Youtube will remove h.264 encoding from their videos as soon as most Firefox and Chrome users migrated to a version that supports WebM ...
And wouldn't the followup to that be h.264 advocates promoting a different video sharing site? Such a site may get critical mass merely by Apple replacing the Mac Safari built-in YouTube link and the iPhone/iPad built-in YouTube app. Apple might even do such a site themselves, they have that new data center. It would be a textbook retaliatory attack on a competitor's core asset. Microsoft might join in.
Basically Google could start a chain of events that seriously undermine a core asset. YouTube is probably more easily replaced than MySpace and Google is probably smart enough to know this. Dropping h.264 from chrome is a minor thing, unlikely to prompt serious retaliation, doing so with YouTube would be quite different.