Most FPGAs don't even allow reconfig at the transistor/diode granularity. They just allow interconnecting gates, and buses and other basic logic/math/data units.
But that's what "rewiring devices" calls for. Different circuit paths. Dynamically reconfiguring matter into different electrical components is impressive, but not very necessary. Especially in digital circuits, which can simulate any circuit.
If this rewiring nanomaterial had a library of selectable elements with which to dynamically compose electrical (or optical;) devices, it would really push the envelope of "reconfigurable circuits" to the nth degree.
While this scale of reconfigurable HW is very interesting, especially in the open-ended future, the basic feature of "devices rewiring themselves" doesn't require nanotech. FPGA does that right now. And size or speed aren't a problems (though lower power and cost would be a big win). The problem with FPGA is programming (and debugging) techniques for their inherent parallelism that's so different from most human speech, writing or problem solving. Nanotech's greater density and more exotic topologies just make those problems harder.
I have an Android 4G phone. Once I've got my wired LAN protected to the Internet through my remote proxy, I can work on getting my Android traffic encrypted, too.
Protecting voice calls over the mobile network will have to wait until VOIP goes SSL/TCP/IP, both over the mobile network and from my remote proxy to the PSTN.
TOR doesn't encrypt all of my traffic to my own remote proxy server. It relies on TOR to ignore my content and drop my address info. But maybe it's OK when I don't have my own remote proxy server, or don't want to (pay to) route traffic in and out of the remote server.
The remote server is not at an ISP. It's at a server farm. The TOS at that site does not allow them to snoop on the traffic. That kind of TOS is one of the requirements of a server farm for a serious user.
When everyone is doing it we'll have to band together to run through anonymizer proxies that aggregate our traffic before reconnecting it to endpoints. And by that time most if not all of the endpoint servers will have to support HTTPS, for end-to-end anonymized encryption.
Yes it should be banned by law. Until it is (when rights trump telco monopoly money), I want to protect myself.
The remote server is not at an ISP. It's at a server farm. The TOS at that site does not allow them to snoop on the traffic. That kind of TOS is one of the requirements of a server farm for a serious user.
When everyone is doing it we'll have to band together to run through anonymizer proxies that aggregate our traffic before reconnecting it to endpoints. And by that time most if not all of the endpoint servers will have to support HTTPS, for end-to-end anonymized encryption.
What do I install on my remote server to make my DD-WRT router send all my traffic encrypted to a remote proxy that resends it after it's past my local ISP? All traffic, all protocols, even re-encrypting SSL, ssh and other encrypted traffic.
Protecting ourselves from this relentless snooping should be an apt-get away.
Can we get right now the LibreOffice components to run in Android apps we write?
Embed Writer features like the text editing pane and file format import/export, and Calc features like Excel format formula calculation and at least.XLSX import/export.
I read that summary twice before I realize they weren't talking about coin-op video arcades. When they were common, I was a kid, and though they used real world currency (quarters), it wasn't my money - so they were "free-to-play".
And everything the summary said was true about those old arcade machines. I'm sure it was true about the mechanical arcade machines before that - if you could get the coins from someone else.
For parents, it's never been "free-to-play". Except maybe when the games are played in just trees in a backyard.
In the actual cultures of most of the world, especially in those that have widespread Internet access, the actual effect of being seen naked in images is to reduce that person to nothing more than a sexual object. There are very rare exceptions, but "porno = bimbo" (male or female) is the rule. That is the reality. Maybe it is derived from the puritan roots (in many cultures, not all Anglo Saxon) of much of our culture's conditioning. But wherever it comes from, it is very real.
When people's privacy has been invaded that way, their discovery does indeed typically come with a reaction of "horror", as in "this is horrible". They realize that their reputation has been damaged, they react with horror. They realize that they are no longer in control of intimacy with themself, and react with horror. For some people that leads to anger, but for many it does not; it depends on how the individual reacts to humiliation. If someone here is projecting, it is you on that point.
You might be beyond the reach of that dynamic. If so, you are very rare. However, unless you've actually been the subject of involuntary pornography, you can make only a completely speculative argument about yourself. These reactions are not rational. And since the subject here is small children, the defense in rationality is totally overwhelmed by the emotional.
It's pretty bizarre for you to contrast "well adjusted people" with "abuse victims", when we're talking about abuse victims. Well adjusted people get abused, and react like... abuse victims.
This is real. This is several children being used by a pervert in sexual ways, which will of course hurt them. A pervert who holds one of the highest positions of trust and social power, who hurts them with it in some of the most intimate ways.
The fact that I have to explain and defend the explanation of that in detail shows the low tide of empathy in our society. Which is where the people like these priests are operating, hurting children. Who grow up to be adults who tend to have damaged empathy themselves, who then hurt more children.
These people need help. They need material defense from these abusers, not lying bishops who continue to protect and enable them to hurt more children. They need psychological support and recovery, not stigma of being "abuse victims" as if that's their fault.
And people who are more interested in the possibility that the damage they suffer is irrelevant because it comes from some ancient religious hangups need to get better, too. The puny empathy at work in that point of view is sickness.
I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien. Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.
I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.
Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not. And in this case it's abundantly clear that you cannot grasp even the most fundamental point, the human value of basic bodily privacy and the harm when it is forcibly destroyed. Or, if you can but won't admit it, there's even less point seeing your responses.
Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.
In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured. Whether humans are "too" emotional, or whether it's emotions at work, is immaterial. Whatever is at work, the actual effect in the real world from naked pictures of a person being published, however old that person in the picture, is to devalue them. Typically by defining them as a sexual object, to the exclusion of other value or just as a person rather than an object. People will treat you differently - to your face, and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect. Like when people talk badly about you when you're not there.
The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to 1: have your range of human emotions severely truncated; and/or 2: accept the damage without expecting better for yourself. In the real world, actual humans in this situation usually have both, and each of the two contributes to the other.
People with a real life already know this. We don't have to have it explained to us in detail to recognize that there's harm, even if we haven't thought through the mechanical psychological causes, specific practice of the effects, or any details. Well adjusted people simply recoil in horror intuitively from the idea that someone would publish naked pictures of them. Healthy people have a sense of privacy. That is why I said "everyone knows".
You evidently don't know, or won't admit it. You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy. You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything. The human vulnerability to feeling harm also comes with the sensitivity to feeling safe, feeling valued and feeling all kinds of other things. If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help. And if you don't, that lack of empathy makes you more of a risk of hurting other people through carelessness, or lack of inhibition to cruelty.
Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them. Let's see if they say it's just inconvenient.
Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm. Adults have the choice of whether to do themselves that harm, perhaps in exchange for something like money, fame, or satisfying some masochism. Children are harmed more, because it defines them more than it defines more fully formed adults. And children cannot consent, so the harm is worse.
Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.
The degree to which Slashdotters live in purely theoretical social worlds is shocking. Even actual child porn doesn't connect to some basic instinct. Maybe these nerds are nerds because of some early childhood sexual trauma that leaves them unable to relate to typical human integrity.
It's a church computer. The technician has the employer's permission to look at it.
The employer is bound under a settlement from three years ago to report evidence of child sexual abuse. Because 47 people sued this church for it, and the church agreed to those terms (+ $11M in payouts, about $20K per abused child).
The technician probably knows about the settlement agreement, because it's probably the kind of news a church contractor notices in a Missouri newspaper about the church. Or perhaps was even trained to look, in the proper response by the church to its obligations under the settlement (not to mention moral obligations).
The bishop of the church broke their agreement for 6 months, running a church where this priest continued to have access to children who trusted him. During which time the priest took more sexually exploitave pictures of at least one other child.
The actual acts, obligations and wrongdoing here are very clear. The ability of people to find the sex abusers and their protectors in the church to be the victims is the most bizarre aspect of the entire story.
This bishop settled a lawsuit just a few years ago that was brought by 47 people who were raped by his church, paying them $11 million. And agreeing that he would report to the police any more child rapist priests he found out about.
Then he found out about the pictures a priest took of a child naked from the waist down. For the next 6 months this bishop allowed that priest to sleep over in homes of church members with children, who trusted the church. Allowed him to run various church services with children where he was alone with them and in charge. Eventually, after violating his settlement agreement for a long time, the priest sexually exploited at least one other child the church let him have control over.
Yes, that's the way it works. The Roman Catholic church harbors child rapists which it has protected for years, decades - generations, centuries. Even during the current wave of exposures the church continues to protect them, even as the rapists cost the church $millions. And as they continue to harm children.
This isn't just some daycare or country club. This is the Catholic Church, here operated by a Midwest bishop already bound to report because of the harm it already caused to dozens of children.
Why are you more upset about the church officials having to abide by the consequences of their previous bad acts than you are about their bad acts?
I know I'm talking about kinda the reverse of this story.
But is there a way to run all of Android in a browser? With apps embedded in it. So all of the apps I have installed on my Android phone I can also install on my (or someone else's) server. I'd just hit my webpage with Android and its apps embedded in the page, and use the same apps. I'd use apps that all save their state to a DB on my server (or through my server to a cloud). I could flip between phone and other machines at will.
I could use "my phone" anywhere, even when there's only wired networking (eg. inside big buildings) or where I had better/cheaper bandwidth, or a better keyboard/screen, or my battery was low. I couldn't use the phone to talk over the PSTN, but even that limit will eventually go away (Google voice, etc).
Android is a largish Java program in bytecode running on a Dalvik JVM, that was originally written in Java source and compiled to target Dalvik. Browsers have a JVM (Sun or other) that Android might be recompiled to target running on. The hard part is getting Android's hardware abstraction to map to the browser's hardware abstraction. But is it doable? Is it already done?
Getting busted by the IRS isn't in their shareholders' interests. It's at the top of the list of what shareholders elect directors to fire executives for. And even the corporate limited liability doesn't protect execs from tax crimes they committed "as the corporation".
Slashdot Mirror
Most FPGAs don't even allow reconfig at the transistor/diode granularity. They just allow interconnecting gates, and buses and other basic logic/math/data units.
But that's what "rewiring devices" calls for. Different circuit paths. Dynamically reconfiguring matter into different electrical components is impressive, but not very necessary. Especially in digital circuits, which can simulate any circuit.
If this rewiring nanomaterial had a library of selectable elements with which to dynamically compose electrical (or optical ;) devices, it would really push the envelope of "reconfigurable circuits" to the nth degree.
While this scale of reconfigurable HW is very interesting, especially in the open-ended future, the basic feature of "devices rewiring themselves" doesn't require nanotech. FPGA does that right now. And size or speed aren't a problems (though lower power and cost would be a big win). The problem with FPGA is programming (and debugging) techniques for their inherent parallelism that's so different from most human speech, writing or problem solving. Nanotech's greater density and more exotic topologies just make those problems harder.
How do we know those weren't spaceships?
Which of those hundreds of packages does what I asked?
I have an Android 4G phone. Once I've got my wired LAN protected to the Internet through my remote proxy, I can work on getting my Android traffic encrypted, too.
Protecting voice calls over the mobile network will have to wait until VOIP goes SSL/TCP/IP, both over the mobile network and from my remote proxy to the PSTN.
TOR doesn't encrypt all of my traffic to my own remote proxy server. It relies on TOR to ignore my content and drop my address info. But maybe it's OK when I don't have my own remote proxy server, or don't want to (pay to) route traffic in and out of the remote server.
The remote server is not at an ISP. It's at a server farm. The TOS at that site does not allow them to snoop on the traffic. That kind of TOS is one of the requirements of a server farm for a serious user.
When everyone is doing it we'll have to band together to run through anonymizer proxies that aggregate our traffic before reconnecting it to endpoints. And by that time most if not all of the endpoint servers will have to support HTTPS, for end-to-end anonymized encryption.
Yes it should be banned by law. Until it is (when rights trump telco monopoly money), I want to protect myself.
The remote server is not at an ISP. It's at a server farm. The TOS at that site does not allow them to snoop on the traffic. That kind of TOS is one of the requirements of a server farm for a serious user.
When everyone is doing it we'll have to band together to run through anonymizer proxies that aggregate our traffic before reconnecting it to endpoints. And by that time most if not all of the endpoint servers will have to support HTTPS, for end-to-end anonymized encryption.
What do I install on my remote server to make my DD-WRT router send all my traffic encrypted to a remote proxy that resends it after it's past my local ISP? All traffic, all protocols, even re-encrypting SSL, ssh and other encrypted traffic.
Protecting ourselves from this relentless snooping should be an apt-get away.
Can we get right now the LibreOffice components to run in Android apps we write?
Embed Writer features like the text editing pane and file format import/export, and Calc features like Excel format formula calculation and at least .XLSX import/export.
I read that summary twice before I realize they weren't talking about coin-op video arcades. When they were common, I was a kid, and though they used real world currency (quarters), it wasn't my money - so they were "free-to-play".
And everything the summary said was true about those old arcade machines. I'm sure it was true about the mechanical arcade machines before that - if you could get the coins from someone else.
For parents, it's never been "free-to-play". Except maybe when the games are played in just trees in a backyard.
In the actual cultures of most of the world, especially in those that have widespread Internet access, the actual effect of being seen naked in images is to reduce that person to nothing more than a sexual object. There are very rare exceptions, but "porno = bimbo" (male or female) is the rule. That is the reality. Maybe it is derived from the puritan roots (in many cultures, not all Anglo Saxon) of much of our culture's conditioning. But wherever it comes from, it is very real.
When people's privacy has been invaded that way, their discovery does indeed typically come with a reaction of "horror", as in "this is horrible". They realize that their reputation has been damaged, they react with horror. They realize that they are no longer in control of intimacy with themself, and react with horror. For some people that leads to anger, but for many it does not; it depends on how the individual reacts to humiliation. If someone here is projecting, it is you on that point.
You might be beyond the reach of that dynamic. If so, you are very rare. However, unless you've actually been the subject of involuntary pornography, you can make only a completely speculative argument about yourself. These reactions are not rational. And since the subject here is small children, the defense in rationality is totally overwhelmed by the emotional.
It's pretty bizarre for you to contrast "well adjusted people" with "abuse victims", when we're talking about abuse victims. Well adjusted people get abused, and react like... abuse victims.
This is real. This is several children being used by a pervert in sexual ways, which will of course hurt them. A pervert who holds one of the highest positions of trust and social power, who hurts them with it in some of the most intimate ways.
The fact that I have to explain and defend the explanation of that in detail shows the low tide of empathy in our society. Which is where the people like these priests are operating, hurting children. Who grow up to be adults who tend to have damaged empathy themselves, who then hurt more children.
These people need help. They need material defense from these abusers, not lying bishops who continue to protect and enable them to hurt more children. They need psychological support and recovery, not stigma of being "abuse victims" as if that's their fault.
And people who are more interested in the possibility that the damage they suffer is irrelevant because it comes from some ancient religious hangups need to get better, too. The puny empathy at work in that point of view is sickness.
I'm done arguing with people like you to whom compassion and empathy are alien. Or with people like you who think that it's arrogant to know when one is right because of overwhelming experience underpinning the facts and logic.
I've also found arguing with solipsists to be the most boring waste of time. In the end, you have to believe that something can be known by shared experience. If you don't, there's no way for you to know that my argument, and I, am not simply a hallucination beggaring your own self doubts.
Of course I can be wrong. In this case I am not. And in this case it's abundantly clear that you cannot grasp even the most fundamental point, the human value of basic bodily privacy and the harm when it is forcibly destroyed. Or, if you can but won't admit it, there's even less point seeing your responses.
Goodbye.
Your argument is like saying the harm from punching someone in the face comes from the face being in the way of the fist, not from the fist hitting the face.
In actual reality, the harm does come from people's reactions to the image, which will be to devalue the person pictured. Whether humans are "too" emotional, or whether it's emotions at work, is immaterial. Whatever is at work, the actual effect in the real world from naked pictures of a person being published, however old that person in the picture, is to devalue them. Typically by defining them as a sexual object, to the exclusion of other value or just as a person rather than an object. People will treat you differently - to your face, and in where you can't tell but it still has an effect. Like when people talk badly about you when you're not there.
The only way to be so desensitized that you don't care is to 1: have your range of human emotions severely truncated; and/or 2: accept the damage without expecting better for yourself. In the real world, actual humans in this situation usually have both, and each of the two contributes to the other.
People with a real life already know this. We don't have to have it explained to us in detail to recognize that there's harm, even if we haven't thought through the mechanical psychological causes, specific practice of the effects, or any details. Well adjusted people simply recoil in horror intuitively from the idea that someone would publish naked pictures of them. Healthy people have a sense of privacy. That is why I said "everyone knows".
You evidently don't know, or won't admit it. You should see a psychologist, or someone else who can help you develop some empathy. You'll feel better, even if now you think you can't and shouldn't feel anything. The human vulnerability to feeling harm also comes with the sensitivity to feeling safe, feeling valued and feeling all kinds of other things. If you can't relate to what I'm saying even after I explain it clearly so there's no confusion, you have a lack of empathy so deep that you could benefit from psychological help. And if you don't, that lack of empathy makes you more of a risk of hurting other people through carelessness, or lack of inhibition to cruelty.
Yes, because if it does them no harm, they have no reason (except inconvenience) to decline to post them. Let's see if they say it's just inconvenient.
Everyone knows that posting naked pictures of people do them harm. Adults have the choice of whether to do themselves that harm, perhaps in exchange for something like money, fame, or satisfying some masochism. Children are harmed more, because it defines them more than it defines more fully formed adults. And children cannot consent, so the harm is worse.
Every further viewer of the picture does the person some harm, even if they can't tell directly, especially after some scale of harm.
The degree to which Slashdotters live in purely theoretical social worlds is shocking. Even actual child porn doesn't connect to some basic instinct. Maybe these nerds are nerds because of some early childhood sexual trauma that leaves them unable to relate to typical human integrity.
It's a church computer. The technician has the employer's permission to look at it.
The employer is bound under a settlement from three years ago to report evidence of child sexual abuse. Because 47 people sued this church for it, and the church agreed to those terms (+ $11M in payouts, about $20K per abused child).
The technician probably knows about the settlement agreement, because it's probably the kind of news a church contractor notices in a Missouri newspaper about the church. Or perhaps was even trained to look, in the proper response by the church to its obligations under the settlement (not to mention moral obligations).
The bishop of the church broke their agreement for 6 months, running a church where this priest continued to have access to children who trusted him. During which time the priest took more sexually exploitave pictures of at least one other child.
The actual acts, obligations and wrongdoing here are very clear. The ability of people to find the sex abusers and their protectors in the church to be the victims is the most bizarre aspect of the entire story.
You "remember from somewhere"? Post a link to back it up.
Or admit that you're just making up excuses to be turned on by naked children.
Please post in reply the naked pictures of you your parents took when you were an infant. Why not? No harm, right?
And you love the child-raping church. Not entertaining. Not letting it slide.
This bishop settled a lawsuit just a few years ago that was brought by 47 people who were raped by his church, paying them $11 million. And agreeing that he would report to the police any more child rapist priests he found out about.
Then he found out about the pictures a priest took of a child naked from the waist down. For the next 6 months this bishop allowed that priest to sleep over in homes of church members with children, who trusted the church. Allowed him to run various church services with children where he was alone with them and in charge. Eventually, after violating his settlement agreement for a long time, the priest sexually exploited at least one other child the church let him have control over.
Yes, that's the way it works. The Roman Catholic church harbors child rapists which it has protected for years, decades - generations, centuries. Even during the current wave of exposures the church continues to protect them, even as the rapists cost the church $millions. And as they continue to harm children.
This isn't just some daycare or country club. This is the Catholic Church, here operated by a Midwest bishop already bound to report because of the harm it already caused to dozens of children.
Why are you more upset about the church officials having to abide by the consequences of their previous bad acts than you are about their bad acts?
You just did. An anti-intellectual study that shows how different actual studies are from just asking obnoxious questions.
I know I'm talking about kinda the reverse of this story.
But is there a way to run all of Android in a browser? With apps embedded in it. So all of the apps I have installed on my Android phone I can also install on my (or someone else's) server. I'd just hit my webpage with Android and its apps embedded in the page, and use the same apps. I'd use apps that all save their state to a DB on my server (or through my server to a cloud). I could flip between phone and other machines at will.
I could use "my phone" anywhere, even when there's only wired networking (eg. inside big buildings) or where I had better/cheaper bandwidth, or a better keyboard/screen, or my battery was low. I couldn't use the phone to talk over the PSTN, but even that limit will eventually go away (Google voice, etc).
Android is a largish Java program in bytecode running on a Dalvik JVM, that was originally written in Java source and compiled to target Dalvik. Browsers have a JVM (Sun or other) that Android might be recompiled to target running on. The hard part is getting Android's hardware abstraction to map to the browser's hardware abstraction. But is it doable? Is it already done?
Has anyone ever hacked an ARM/Android smartphone to add devices to a CPU bus? Like solder on an FPGA...
Getting busted by the IRS isn't in their shareholders' interests. It's at the top of the list of what shareholders elect directors to fire executives for. And even the corporate limited liability doesn't protect execs from tax crimes they committed "as the corporation".
$6B in just the first corporation is disappointing to you?
Existing tax laws that still prohibit laundering to evade them are just made up out of convenience?
What are you talking about? Prove you have some reference point in reality.