The data in the phonebook is delivered from the people to the phone company for the express purpose of publishing it. And the published data is published for the express purpose of using it to contact that person. All required to complete the transactions for which the person gave the copy of their data.
Published facts cannot be copyrighted. But private facts should be. The sole exception should be whistleblowing, when someone exposes a private fact that the public has a compelling interest in knowing.
Personal data delivered to a specific party to complete a specific transaction, or to be retained by them to complete other transactions with them or with some other party, should be protected by copyright. The person gives a limited copyright to the party receiving the data. Unauthorized copying beyond that granted copyright should be prosecuted.
Not exploited by a government we create to protect our right to be secure in our "papers and personal effects".
Is anyone working on micromachines (MEMS) that set vast arrays of very tiny storage discs into very tiny radio transmitters, each disc transceiving on its own very narrow frequency band? A 1cm^2 chip, perhaps stacked a dozen (or more) layers thick, delivering a couple hundred million discs per layer, each holding something like 32bits per microdisc and a GB per layer, streaming something like 2-200Tbps per layer, seek time 10ns, consuming a few centiwatts per layer.
Or skip the radio and just max out a multimode fiber throughput. Parallelizing data transfer should leave stored data transferrable entirely in under 250ms.
Translating your speech thoughts into speech by this machine requires implanting electrodes in your brain, wearing a large device stuck to your scalp, and then actually speaking (though this only reads your brain). If you do all that, the government can read your thoughts. Though the could read those speech thoughts with a microphone for a lot cheaper, and without your helping by going through all that surgery.
The study is led by Frank Guenther of the Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems and the Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at Boston University, as well as the Division of Health Science and Technology at Harvard University-Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research team includes collaborators from Neural Signals, Inc., in Duluth, Georgia; StatsANC LLC in Buenos Aires, Argentina; the Georgia Tech Research Institute in Marietta, Georgia; the Gwinnett Medical Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia; and Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia.
Not only does this device give people the power to send words directly to machines without physically speaking (or typing, our mousing). It was developed at the endpoints of the BAMA, the Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis. Even the Buenos Aires corp gives the distribution a gibsonian unexpectedly exotic twist.
"Needn't speak out loud, miss... Subvocal's the way."
Because he's an inventor himself (lately of the Fusion 3D camera), and depends on cutting edge tech in his field. Of which he's extremely successful in exploiting, whether your taste agrees with his product or not. He also travels widely in the world using tech he either brings, finds there, or puts together there (or has put together from what he finds). Plus he sees tech not directly involved in his work affecting people around the world, as he has for many years, as it's changed and changed them dramatically. He's got quite a bit of experience of tech, its benefits and problems.
Besides, he's an artist, a storyteller. Even a limited amount of insight goes a long way when it's being told to many millions of people around the world.
Cameron's movies are one way our world's tech societies and its general population communicate among each other.
Larger sectors means more empty space at the end of the last sector of a file. Lots of files means lots of wasted space. Modern OS'es, especially Windows, have many more, smaller files than in past versions, and the trend continues upwards.
So larger sectors means more space bought on a drive that isn't used. Which means more drives bought.
I can see how drive manufacturers would like that.
We have to change both our technology, and how we use it, to threaten us less. Since we change our technology to change how we use it, and use it differently as it changes, that process is natural. We need to emphasize those changes, starting with what's wrong with our tech and the way we use it.
Just because a story criticizes something doesn't mean the teller wants to destroy it. In order to change something for the better, we need to criticize it. And if we just attack the criticism, we'll never get change.
Cameron knows better than most what's wrong with our technology and the way we use it. His dependence on technology makes it quite clear that he doesn't want to eliminate it. He's not "anti-technology", he's anti the things he says are bad, which is not technology itself. Really what he's anti is the ways people use technology to treat each other badly. Which is not about technology, but about people.
Interesting that the blast hit the Earth from an angle at which nearly all Earth's humans were blocked by the mass of our planet. "Near Tahiti" is approximately the center of the least populated hemisphere on Earth.
A given point on the Earth's surface faces one half the universe at any time, with the other half blocked by the Earth behind it (actually the unblocked part is a little bigger than the blocked part because the Earth's surface curves back into the blocked part). It's a given point on the surface, most of which points (except for the poles) travel in a circle around the Earth's axis, and with the Earth in an ellipse around the Sun, that I'm talking about.
How is an egg with only 23 of the 46 chromosomes that make a human, plus a mitochondrion, equivalent to a human? It doesn't even have all the genetic info required to be a human. And it certainly isn't an independent organism by any definition, even if eating and nurture by other organisms conflicts with your definition of independence.
The blast lasted 200ms. During that time, half the Earth was facing away, shielded by not just atmosphere, but the rock of the solid Earth. Which direction relative to the Earth (latitude, longitude) did the blast come in from, and hit directly (except for atmosphere, and a bit of satellite shadow)?
On a related subject, which direction does our Solar System "point" at? When it's the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, what angle on our solar orbit are we making with a line directly to the galactic core? What angle that day with the a tangent to our galactic orbit? Where are we looking at, anyway?
In this cell/microbe zoom, it looks like bacteria are generally smaller than human cells, but not 1%. Viruses are much smaller, though. But they're not "cells".
The human body has some 10 trillion human cells--but 10 times that number of microbial cells.
That supposed total of 110 trillion cells overall weigh about 150 pounds. Are the microbial cells really something like 1% the weight on average of a human cell? 100 trillion microbial cells seems hard to believe.
I'm not sure a device that doesn't support SD's DRM will be able to access DRM'ed data stored on an SD card. If the DRM is any good, it will remain scrambled unless a device supports its DRM. Of course, a device could support the DRM and unscramble it, but perhaps allow anyone to consume the data without authorization. It's all secret, so it's hard to guess.
They're basically MMC cards with embedded DRM HW. I don't know why their makers and vendors would be wasting resources on the DRM if it weren't fairly reliable. Though the whole DRM universe is bizarro world, and there's no guessing what's "logical" to those operating in it.
Is the crack for SD Flash cards available and current? Because "SD" stands for "Secure Digital". The storage end of the digital chain has DRM in its hardware. It's only a matter of time before it gets used to control us, now that it's everywhere. And it's only a matter of time before it's cracked, if it's not already. But if it's not, there will be some time where our actual rights are suspended. And rights delayed are rights denied.
Actually, Microsoft has Silverlight and the CLR, with whatever managed language you want to program them in. With "the" Microsoft platform now a highly fragmented collection of often incompatible OSes and unpredictable app installs, they need a "cross platform platform" just to manage their own stuff. That's probably a reason Microsoft interfered with the development of open tech that would serve that purpose, crossing platforms beyond even Microsoft products.
But "document browser" is a contrived definition. Indeed, "browser" is totally archaic, as there isn't even a strict distinction from searching anymore, let alone the kind of activity that gopher made people think of when they called it a "browser", as if the links were just a way to get to end documents. There's no reason the networked app framework can't display documents with their DOM, or geographic models with their own structural and GUI semantics, or sports simulations or whatever. They all have a lot of app framework in common, especially a live network for distributed events and data.
Really a browser that's used to scroll and link through 2D documents with embedded media objects and forms is just one app. That's not 100%, or even probably 50% different from, say, a spreadsheet linked in its cells to remote databases. Or from an email client, or from a roadmap explorer and router. That's why those kinds of apps work OK in a browser, even if they're programmed in the DOM and are structured like documents. The old categories aren't useful anymore, because we don't need to keep different apps separated.
Indeed, we're almost getting free of apps themselves as "what we're doing", now that mobile "phones" are smart enough to immerse us in a highly varied multimedia environment. Networked data objects with live, even streaming links to remote sources and coordinating logic need just utilities to access each other and the means by which they interact with people. Which is indeed what a "Web OS" is, though a "computer OS" is still necessary for the Web OS to run on, just as the computer OS needs a BIOS to run on, and the BIOS needs microcode, interrupts and motherboard/chipset/bus signaling interfaces to run on.
The Web is a higher layer operating environment composed of apps. Practically all of the operations in that layer do some basic things in common. The presentation layers above that which actually interact with people are different, and even fall into some distinct but broad categories, whose boundaries aren't just fuzzy, but need to be bridged in integrated packages for people to use. That is what a "Net app framework" would be like, for practically everything close to the humans - and corresponding frameworks for the rest that's close to the computers, depending on which layer it's operating in.
We can do this. It is indeed just a matter of altering our perceptions a little, to leave behind the rudimentary preconceptions we got here through. Even a little bit of "false pretenses" that lets the "Web OS" become the distinct system that is the focus of development for what people actually use, not what we (somewhat arbitrarily, but usefully nevertheless) say is the rest of the operating environment (PC OS, router OS, database engine, rendering engines, etc) that enables that use.
We're making this thing up as we go along. There's no reason we can't also make up the categories, morph them into one another, as those boundaries are adapted to make it easier to develop and use what works best.
I've been developing SW for 30 years, browser apps for 15. We do each of what you describe for both browser apps and standalone apps. That's not the distinction, even if browser apps are usually more of the ad hoc style than the engineering, and standalones a little more of the opposite.
I don't see why it's still taking so long for "developing browser applications" to become indistinguishable from "developing applications". The browser is just an application framework that includes a network API, rendering API, and an API to its other functions. Since the browser became the overwhelmingly primary app framework for PC development, there have been several generations of UI frameworks that have come and gone, each of which had the opportunity to be both fully functional per OS platform and with the same API across platforms.
We should just be writing applications, any of which can use a cross-platform UI API and reach the network with HTTP and other protocols using a cross-platform API. Phones have so many different OSes, GUI layers and network protocols that they should be the first to unify into a single platform. Since Java promised that but failed to deliver many years ago, we should have something else by now that does do it.
Because most parts of the factories are not obsolete. Saab has plenty of robots. But making cars, whether gas or electric, also needs lots of labor. You can't create that overnight, not if it's going to run smoothly. The need for much of what Saab's got is part of the reason electric car corps aren't scaling up so quick, and part of the reason they still cost so much, in a scale economy blocking cycle.
There might possibly be some kind of good business reason to shut down Saab rather than sell it. But it seems to me that there are several startup electric car companies that need a brand to sell cars to "normal people" who just want a more efficient vehicle that's "just a car". Companies that also need factories and workers to build lots of cars when they scale up. Saab has both. It seems that the next generation of car tech is taking just slightly too long to recycle what the dying old generation needs to cast off.
Slashdot Mirror
The data in the phonebook is delivered from the people to the phone company for the express purpose of publishing it. And the published data is published for the express purpose of using it to contact that person. All required to complete the transactions for which the person gave the copy of their data.
Published facts cannot be copyrighted. But private facts should be. The sole exception should be whistleblowing, when someone exposes a private fact that the public has a compelling interest in knowing.
Personal data delivered to a specific party to complete a specific transaction, or to be retained by them to complete other transactions with them or with some other party, should be protected by copyright. The person gives a limited copyright to the party receiving the data. Unauthorized copying beyond that granted copyright should be prosecuted.
Not exploited by a government we create to protect our right to be secure in our "papers and personal effects".
Is anyone working on micromachines (MEMS) that set vast arrays of very tiny storage discs into very tiny radio transmitters, each disc transceiving on its own very narrow frequency band? A 1cm^2 chip, perhaps stacked a dozen (or more) layers thick, delivering a couple hundred million discs per layer, each holding something like 32bits per microdisc and a GB per layer, streaming something like 2-200Tbps per layer, seek time 10ns, consuming a few centiwatts per layer.
Or skip the radio and just max out a multimode fiber throughput. Parallelizing data transfer should leave stored data transferrable entirely in under 250ms.
Translating your speech thoughts into speech by this machine requires implanting electrodes in your brain, wearing a large device stuck to your scalp, and then actually speaking (though this only reads your brain). If you do all that, the government can read your thoughts. Though the could read those speech thoughts with a microphone for a lot cheaper, and without your helping by going through all that surgery.
Not only does this device give people the power to send words directly to machines without physically speaking (or typing, our mousing). It was developed at the endpoints of the BAMA, the Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis. Even the Buenos Aires corp gives the distribution a gibsonian unexpectedly exotic twist.
"Needn't speak out loud, miss... Subvocal's the way."
Because he's an inventor himself (lately of the Fusion 3D camera), and depends on cutting edge tech in his field. Of which he's extremely successful in exploiting, whether your taste agrees with his product or not. He also travels widely in the world using tech he either brings, finds there, or puts together there (or has put together from what he finds). Plus he sees tech not directly involved in his work affecting people around the world, as he has for many years, as it's changed and changed them dramatically. He's got quite a bit of experience of tech, its benefits and problems.
Besides, he's an artist, a storyteller. Even a limited amount of insight goes a long way when it's being told to many millions of people around the world.
Cameron's movies are one way our world's tech societies and its general population communicate among each other.
Larger sectors means more empty space at the end of the last sector of a file. Lots of files means lots of wasted space. Modern OS'es, especially Windows, have many more, smaller files than in past versions, and the trend continues upwards.
So larger sectors means more space bought on a drive that isn't used. Which means more drives bought.
I can see how drive manufacturers would like that.
People kill people with guns.
We have to change both our technology, and how we use it, to threaten us less. Since we change our technology to change how we use it, and use it differently as it changes, that process is natural. We need to emphasize those changes, starting with what's wrong with our tech and the way we use it.
Just because a story criticizes something doesn't mean the teller wants to destroy it. In order to change something for the better, we need to criticize it. And if we just attack the criticism, we'll never get change.
Cameron knows better than most what's wrong with our technology and the way we use it. His dependence on technology makes it quite clear that he doesn't want to eliminate it. He's not "anti-technology", he's anti the things he says are bad, which is not technology itself. Really what he's anti is the ways people use technology to treat each other badly. Which is not about technology, but about people.
We have a winner :).
Interesting that the blast hit the Earth from an angle at which nearly all Earth's humans were blocked by the mass of our planet. "Near Tahiti" is approximately the center of the least populated hemisphere on Earth.
A given point on the Earth's surface faces one half the universe at any time, with the other half blocked by the Earth behind it (actually the unblocked part is a little bigger than the blocked part because the Earth's surface curves back into the blocked part). It's a given point on the surface, most of which points (except for the poles) travel in a circle around the Earth's axis, and with the Earth in an ellipse around the Sun, that I'm talking about.
Thank you for answering none of my questions, including an answer you denoted as obvious.
When the umbilical cord is cut from the baby after birth, it's an independent organism.
I didn't say a fertilized egg is an independent organism. I merely pointed out that an unfertilized egg is not, to rebut your statement that it is.
How is an egg with only 23 of the 46 chromosomes that make a human, plus a mitochondrion, equivalent to a human? It doesn't even have all the genetic info required to be a human. And it certainly isn't an independent organism by any definition, even if eating and nurture by other organisms conflicts with your definition of independence.
The blast lasted 200ms. During that time, half the Earth was facing away, shielded by not just atmosphere, but the rock of the solid Earth. Which direction relative to the Earth (latitude, longitude) did the blast come in from, and hit directly (except for atmosphere, and a bit of satellite shadow)?
On a related subject, which direction does our Solar System "point" at? When it's the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, what angle on our solar orbit are we making with a line directly to the galactic core? What angle that day with the a tangent to our galactic orbit? Where are we looking at, anyway?
I still wasn't sure when I looked at this cell zoom demo.
In this cell/microbe zoom, it looks like bacteria are generally smaller than human cells, but not 1%. Viruses are much smaller, though. But they're not "cells".
That supposed total of 110 trillion cells overall weigh about 150 pounds. Are the microbial cells really something like 1% the weight on average of a human cell? 100 trillion microbial cells seems hard to believe.
I'm not sure a device that doesn't support SD's DRM will be able to access DRM'ed data stored on an SD card. If the DRM is any good, it will remain scrambled unless a device supports its DRM. Of course, a device could support the DRM and unscramble it, but perhaps allow anyone to consume the data without authorization. It's all secret, so it's hard to guess.
They're basically MMC cards with embedded DRM HW. I don't know why their makers and vendors would be wasting resources on the DRM if it weren't fairly reliable. Though the whole DRM universe is bizarro world, and there's no guessing what's "logical" to those operating in it.
Is the crack for SD Flash cards available and current? Because "SD" stands for "Secure Digital". The storage end of the digital chain has DRM in its hardware. It's only a matter of time before it gets used to control us, now that it's everywhere. And it's only a matter of time before it's cracked, if it's not already. But if it's not, there will be some time where our actual rights are suspended. And rights delayed are rights denied.
Actually, Microsoft has Silverlight and the CLR, with whatever managed language you want to program them in. With "the" Microsoft platform now a highly fragmented collection of often incompatible OSes and unpredictable app installs, they need a "cross platform platform" just to manage their own stuff. That's probably a reason Microsoft interfered with the development of open tech that would serve that purpose, crossing platforms beyond even Microsoft products.
But "document browser" is a contrived definition. Indeed, "browser" is totally archaic, as there isn't even a strict distinction from searching anymore, let alone the kind of activity that gopher made people think of when they called it a "browser", as if the links were just a way to get to end documents. There's no reason the networked app framework can't display documents with their DOM, or geographic models with their own structural and GUI semantics, or sports simulations or whatever. They all have a lot of app framework in common, especially a live network for distributed events and data.
Really a browser that's used to scroll and link through 2D documents with embedded media objects and forms is just one app. That's not 100%, or even probably 50% different from, say, a spreadsheet linked in its cells to remote databases. Or from an email client, or from a roadmap explorer and router. That's why those kinds of apps work OK in a browser, even if they're programmed in the DOM and are structured like documents. The old categories aren't useful anymore, because we don't need to keep different apps separated.
Indeed, we're almost getting free of apps themselves as "what we're doing", now that mobile "phones" are smart enough to immerse us in a highly varied multimedia environment. Networked data objects with live, even streaming links to remote sources and coordinating logic need just utilities to access each other and the means by which they interact with people. Which is indeed what a "Web OS" is, though a "computer OS" is still necessary for the Web OS to run on, just as the computer OS needs a BIOS to run on, and the BIOS needs microcode, interrupts and motherboard/chipset/bus signaling interfaces to run on.
The Web is a higher layer operating environment composed of apps. Practically all of the operations in that layer do some basic things in common. The presentation layers above that which actually interact with people are different, and even fall into some distinct but broad categories, whose boundaries aren't just fuzzy, but need to be bridged in integrated packages for people to use. That is what a "Net app framework" would be like, for practically everything close to the humans - and corresponding frameworks for the rest that's close to the computers, depending on which layer it's operating in.
We can do this. It is indeed just a matter of altering our perceptions a little, to leave behind the rudimentary preconceptions we got here through. Even a little bit of "false pretenses" that lets the "Web OS" become the distinct system that is the focus of development for what people actually use, not what we (somewhat arbitrarily, but usefully nevertheless) say is the rest of the operating environment (PC OS, router OS, database engine, rendering engines, etc) that enables that use.
We're making this thing up as we go along. There's no reason we can't also make up the categories, morph them into one another, as those boundaries are adapted to make it easier to develop and use what works best.
I've been developing SW for 30 years, browser apps for 15. We do each of what you describe for both browser apps and standalone apps. That's not the distinction, even if browser apps are usually more of the ad hoc style than the engineering, and standalones a little more of the opposite.
I don't see why it's still taking so long for "developing browser applications" to become indistinguishable from "developing applications". The browser is just an application framework that includes a network API, rendering API, and an API to its other functions. Since the browser became the overwhelmingly primary app framework for PC development, there have been several generations of UI frameworks that have come and gone, each of which had the opportunity to be both fully functional per OS platform and with the same API across platforms.
We should just be writing applications, any of which can use a cross-platform UI API and reach the network with HTTP and other protocols using a cross-platform API. Phones have so many different OSes, GUI layers and network protocols that they should be the first to unify into a single platform. Since Java promised that but failed to deliver many years ago, we should have something else by now that does do it.
Because most parts of the factories are not obsolete. Saab has plenty of robots. But making cars, whether gas or electric, also needs lots of labor. You can't create that overnight, not if it's going to run smoothly. The need for much of what Saab's got is part of the reason electric car corps aren't scaling up so quick, and part of the reason they still cost so much, in a scale economy blocking cycle.
There might possibly be some kind of good business reason to shut down Saab rather than sell it. But it seems to me that there are several startup electric car companies that need a brand to sell cars to "normal people" who just want a more efficient vehicle that's "just a car". Companies that also need factories and workers to build lots of cars when they scale up. Saab has both. It seems that the next generation of car tech is taking just slightly too long to recycle what the dying old generation needs to cast off.