That's why I contribute to my local NPR station. They, and the programs they run from NPR and Public Radio International, all do real investigative journalism (and post transcripts on their website in addition to free podcasts and radio broadcasts). I feel like my $100/yr is going to a good cause and I listen all the time. That said, at my house we also receive two daily newspapers, so we contribute to the AP that way.
The Associated Press is actually set up in a similar manner: "The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members." That means it is set up the same way as NPR. If you want to support the AP then you should pay your local papers. If you don't want the paper (or them to incur the cost of it) see if they have an online-only membership. Unfortunately, a lot of papers don't have that if they don't have a paywall, so that's something we should start pushing for.
The future of journalism is definitely nonprofit, which means it will be supported by good samaritans like ourselves. The value of information in the eye of the public has dropped so much that it can no longer be sold as a commodity and must be provided as a public service.
How else are we supposed to get it? Since when were classified document leaks "verifiable" anyways? I didn't think leaked documents were usable in court, they just give ideas of where to investigate. And yes, plenty of leaked documents have been forgeries, and yes, you'd think docs leaked by the news media would be more reliable than those released by kiddie hackers, but at this point I'm not so sure.
Which is why we aren't demanding to see her emails from least week. These are emails she sent while in public office, so they are fair game. You can question the motivations all you want, but it's perfectly legal, and frankly, an awful lot of corruption goes unnoticed while the official is in office only to result in charges brought years later after the investigation is complete. I am not implying there is any evidence of wrongdoing in this case; I am only pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that these emails are irrelevant because Palin is no longer in office.
Obviously, by powering on a device that contains embedded processors and firmware that you might not even know about, you implicitly agree to a EULA granting the manufacturer the right to sue you whenever they want. What, you think there should be something in the device to tell you this before you use it? That would complicate the user interface unnecessarily!
I would care less about the news of a Chinese large-aperture radio telescope if Arecibo weren't constantly held under the axe of NSF funding cuts. We need at least one operating on the planet to track earth-bound asteroids, among other things, and there's no guarantee the U.S. Congress will keep ours operating.
It still boggles my mind why anyone would even bother to create something that nobody can actually use. It's like they are professional sadists or something.
Oh wait, we're talking about copyright lawyers here, never mind.
Ah, sorry, I misread, and I completely agree with your post. There's more than one group that should care about this, and politicians are definitely one of them.
Sounds like somebody forgot to pad their campaign checks to make up for the politicians' increased bills. Those are not the people you want to piss off with your anti-competitive money grabs.
Isn't this how people want it to work? Don't sue the ISP or threaten the University. Go after the individual file sharers. And now that they're doing it, people are trying to stop the process? Ugh.
What you see here is known as "due process". You cannot sue someone if you have no information on them, no real evidence against a real person. It has already been determined that an IP address does legally point back to an individual without extra evidence. We really do want this suit to fail too, so that copyright holders will realize that fighting consumer "piracy" is pointless and go back to only suing commercial infringers.
Musicians should go back to performing for money, rather than just selling their recordings. Too much hassle.:-)
Exactly, and they should accept filesharing for what it is: free publicity. Who knows, they might even start providing a product we would actually want to pay for at a price we can afford. (Streaming & non-DRM downloads, concert tickets for less than a month's rent, etc.) So far those services have met with stiff resistance, but the ones that withstood the flood of lawsuits are flourishing.
I'm sure that if Watson suggested a hysterectomy for a male, it would be because it was totally stumped and would give a very low confidence value. That's the reason we would still have doctors even if the computer worked great most of the time--hopefully the doctors can catch the computer's mistakes as much as the computer can catch the doctors' mistakes.
Result? Fewer nuclear bombs on earth and no noticeable effect to the sun! Unless we intend to send 10 billion of them, which I understand is more than the world's stockpile ATM.
Yeah, you're right, that is kind of distracting. That it's sorta faster than solid state drives is nice, but what we really want to know is if it has better power, reliability, or density. Given the recent fuss about SSDs failing with no warning, it would also be relevant to compare the data retention reliability of PCM with magnetic hard drives, but certainly not the speed.
It's not switching between solid and liquid. It's switching between crystaline and amorphous solid (stated in the first wikipedia intro, second link in the article). It takes a small amount of heat to make it switch between the two states, and they have different properties that can be measured, but both states are static in the absence of heat. What you described would make no sense at all, since if the PCB knows to provide heat to certain places then it already has external memory.
Of more interest is the security of the data stored in PCM. Can you erase it by putting it in a microwave? Leaving it in a hot car? Will it be easy to make a microwave beam/laser to erase parts of the drive from outside? The answer is probably no, but it will be very interesting to see the temperature specs on the resulting consumer products.
Step 1: Manufacturers dumb down their phones until they're barely usable.
Step 2: Phone companies give them away like party favors to sucker people into overpriced service contracts.
Step 3: Consumers don't notice how crappy the phones are because they're too obsessed with the word "free."
Step 4: the Next Big Thing comes along and makes all the phones obsolete.
Step 4: Go to step 1.
The same applies for the huge subsidies carriers give on smart phones. The only way out of the cycle is for enough people to wake up and smell the roses that the markets for unlocked phones and bring-your-own-phone service plans become relevant. It doesn't help that the carriers are actively discouraging this behavior. Those of us who have already bailed out of the scam will never look back.
(My own personal experience is switching from Verizon to PagePlus Cellular. On PPC I get 5 cents/minute including taxes and fees. On VZW I was paying $50/month for 450 minutes, of which I only ever used 150. Even if I had used all my minutes, it would have been more than twice what I'm paying on PPC, which is why I call it a scam. But I'm not a smart phone user.)
If there's a fault line sitting right there, I think reasonable precautions are entirely necessary. If you know there's going to be an earthquake within the next fifty to one hundred years, why not prepare? Especially if lots of your buildings are old and not earthquake-ready, it seems disingenuous to tell people not to worry about them.
But the intent of this trial is not to punish scientists for their results, it is to determine who told lies to the public and whether the truth would have saved lives. A large part of the problem appears to be in translation, where the scientists said "it might not happen", and the politicians said "it will not happen".
IOW, you can already force someone to take evasive action at 60 mph, yet almost nobody does so.
The implication of the OP is that doing so by manipulating data does not involve the same danger to the perpetrator as swerving your car at somebody. It also could be automated as part of some malware / terrorist device and one person could cause more incidents in a larger area. (Oops, I said the T word.)
The obvious answer is to give sensor data priority over the communications--don't take any aggressive actions if the communication is not corroborated by radar. It could still provide useful information, such as warning of a sudden slow-down 1/2 mile in advance so the car can slowly brake instead of slamming on the brakes when it comes within radar range. With that limitation, such hacks would only be able to inconvenience people (causing temporary slowdowns / traffic jams) but not anything life-threatening. And in the vast majority of cases, it would make things run more smoothly.
But any public networked system will have this kind of vulnerability. The only way to avoid it is to have them completely off the network, BSG style. Just so long as they aren't auto-updating software (ala "I, Robot"), I think we'll be okay.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I contribute to my local NPR station. They, and the programs they run from NPR and Public Radio International, all do real investigative journalism (and post transcripts on their website in addition to free podcasts and radio broadcasts). I feel like my $100/yr is going to a good cause and I listen all the time. That said, at my house we also receive two daily newspapers, so we contribute to the AP that way.
The Associated Press is actually set up in a similar manner: "The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members." That means it is set up the same way as NPR. If you want to support the AP then you should pay your local papers. If you don't want the paper (or them to incur the cost of it) see if they have an online-only membership. Unfortunately, a lot of papers don't have that if they don't have a paywall, so that's something we should start pushing for.
The future of journalism is definitely nonprofit, which means it will be supported by good samaritans like ourselves. The value of information in the eye of the public has dropped so much that it can no longer be sold as a commodity and must be provided as a public service.
It may be complementary, but do you still have to pay them?
How else are we supposed to get it? Since when were classified document leaks "verifiable" anyways? I didn't think leaked documents were usable in court, they just give ideas of where to investigate. And yes, plenty of leaked documents have been forgeries, and yes, you'd think docs leaked by the news media would be more reliable than those released by kiddie hackers, but at this point I'm not so sure.
Which is why we aren't demanding to see her emails from least week. These are emails she sent while in public office, so they are fair game. You can question the motivations all you want, but it's perfectly legal, and frankly, an awful lot of corruption goes unnoticed while the official is in office only to result in charges brought years later after the investigation is complete. I am not implying there is any evidence of wrongdoing in this case; I am only pointing out that it is incorrect to assume that these emails are irrelevant because Palin is no longer in office.
Obviously, by powering on a device that contains embedded processors and firmware that you might not even know about, you implicitly agree to a EULA granting the manufacturer the right to sue you whenever they want. What, you think there should be something in the device to tell you this before you use it? That would complicate the user interface unnecessarily!
I would care less about the news of a Chinese large-aperture radio telescope if Arecibo weren't constantly held under the axe of NSF funding cuts. We need at least one operating on the planet to track earth-bound asteroids, among other things, and there's no guarantee the U.S. Congress will keep ours operating.
"Agile" programming is when you stop looking surprised and outraged when the customer changes the project requirements on you every few days.
But a feature, from the POV of the creator.
It still boggles my mind why anyone would even bother to create something that nobody can actually use. It's like they are professional sadists or something.
Oh wait, we're talking about copyright lawyers here, never mind.
I dunno, man. Seems to me they're not all that far off.
Ah, sorry, I misread, and I completely agree with your post. There's more than one group that should care about this, and politicians are definitely one of them.
Unfortunately, those who SHOULD give a shit are far too busy slowly killing themselves with addictive carcinogenic substances.
FTFY.
Wow, that sounds like a sight indeed. Maybe sometime I'll have to leave the States so I can see a real democracy in action.
Sounds like somebody forgot to pad their campaign checks to make up for the politicians' increased bills. Those are not the people you want to piss off with your anti-competitive money grabs.
Isn't this how people want it to work? Don't sue the ISP or threaten the University. Go after the individual file sharers. And now that they're doing it, people are trying to stop the process? Ugh.
What you see here is known as "due process". You cannot sue someone if you have no information on them, no real evidence against a real person. It has already been determined that an IP address does legally point back to an individual without extra evidence. We really do want this suit to fail too, so that copyright holders will realize that fighting consumer "piracy" is pointless and go back to only suing commercial infringers.
Musicians should go back to performing for money, rather than just selling their recordings. Too much hassle. :-)
Exactly, and they should accept filesharing for what it is: free publicity. Who knows, they might even start providing a product we would actually want to pay for at a price we can afford. (Streaming & non-DRM downloads, concert tickets for less than a month's rent, etc.) So far those services have met with stiff resistance, but the ones that withstood the flood of lawsuits are flourishing.
Holy shit, you're right. I inserted a dot in the middle of my gmail address and it went to my regular inbox.
I'm hoping their account creation filter knows this, and doesn't let someone create joe.smith if joesmith already exists.
I'm sure that if Watson suggested a hysterectomy for a male, it would be because it was totally stumped and would give a very low confidence value. That's the reason we would still have doctors even if the computer worked great most of the time--hopefully the doctors can catch the computer's mistakes as much as the computer can catch the doctors' mistakes.
Result? Fewer nuclear bombs on earth and no noticeable effect to the sun! Unless we intend to send 10 billion of them, which I understand is more than the world's stockpile ATM.
No, what's despicable is that some individuals consider themselves to be above human rights, in the name of the law.
FTFY.
Yeah, you're right, that is kind of distracting. That it's sorta faster than solid state drives is nice, but what we really want to know is if it has better power, reliability, or density. Given the recent fuss about SSDs failing with no warning, it would also be relevant to compare the data retention reliability of PCM with magnetic hard drives, but certainly not the speed.
It's not switching between solid and liquid. It's switching between crystaline and amorphous solid (stated in the first wikipedia intro, second link in the article). It takes a small amount of heat to make it switch between the two states, and they have different properties that can be measured, but both states are static in the absence of heat. What you described would make no sense at all, since if the PCB knows to provide heat to certain places then it already has external memory.
Of more interest is the security of the data stored in PCM. Can you erase it by putting it in a microwave? Leaving it in a hot car? Will it be easy to make a microwave beam/laser to erase parts of the drive from outside? The answer is probably no, but it will be very interesting to see the temperature specs on the resulting consumer products.
Step 1: Manufacturers dumb down their phones until they're barely usable.
Step 2: Phone companies give them away like party favors to sucker people into overpriced service contracts.
Step 3: Consumers don't notice how crappy the phones are because they're too obsessed with the word "free."
Step 4: the Next Big Thing comes along and makes all the phones obsolete.
Step 4: Go to step 1.
The same applies for the huge subsidies carriers give on smart phones. The only way out of the cycle is for enough people to wake up and smell the roses that the markets for unlocked phones and bring-your-own-phone service plans become relevant. It doesn't help that the carriers are actively discouraging this behavior. Those of us who have already bailed out of the scam will never look back.
(My own personal experience is switching from Verizon to PagePlus Cellular. On PPC I get 5 cents/minute including taxes and fees. On VZW I was paying $50/month for 450 minutes, of which I only ever used 150. Even if I had used all my minutes, it would have been more than twice what I'm paying on PPC, which is why I call it a scam. But I'm not a smart phone user.)
The only common ground I can think of microwave antenna technology, which is not a trivial development.
If there's a fault line sitting right there, I think reasonable precautions are entirely necessary. If you know there's going to be an earthquake within the next fifty to one hundred years, why not prepare? Especially if lots of your buildings are old and not earthquake-ready, it seems disingenuous to tell people not to worry about them.
But the intent of this trial is not to punish scientists for their results, it is to determine who told lies to the public and whether the truth would have saved lives. A large part of the problem appears to be in translation, where the scientists said "it might not happen", and the politicians said "it will not happen".
An obscure journalist attempts to demonstrate that she can capture the attention of the media by publishing yet another a crackpot conspiracy theory.
IOW, you can already force someone to take evasive action at 60 mph, yet almost nobody does so.
The implication of the OP is that doing so by manipulating data does not involve the same danger to the perpetrator as swerving your car at somebody. It also could be automated as part of some malware / terrorist device and one person could cause more incidents in a larger area. (Oops, I said the T word.)
The obvious answer is to give sensor data priority over the communications--don't take any aggressive actions if the communication is not corroborated by radar. It could still provide useful information, such as warning of a sudden slow-down 1/2 mile in advance so the car can slowly brake instead of slamming on the brakes when it comes within radar range. With that limitation, such hacks would only be able to inconvenience people (causing temporary slowdowns / traffic jams) but not anything life-threatening. And in the vast majority of cases, it would make things run more smoothly.
But any public networked system will have this kind of vulnerability. The only way to avoid it is to have them completely off the network, BSG style. Just so long as they aren't auto-updating software (ala "I, Robot"), I think we'll be okay.