Really? What does PSI stand for? Is that not a measurement of pressure? It is to us common folk.
PSI is a unit of pressure to common folk and to physics nerds as well.
Unfortunately for common folk, PSI doesn't stand for "pounds;" it stands for "pounds per square inch." Kind of like your gas guzzler doesn't get 13 miles; it gets 13 miles per gallon or 3.4 miles per liter. But if you said your car was very efficient and got 55 miles, I would tell you that your statement made no sense, not that your number was wrong.
Yes, they should be using a proper unit of energy.
Um, why energy? Assuming that the solar sail is nonrelativistic, then (energy) = 1/2 (momentum) * (velocity), which means that the energy imparted by a photon depends rather strongly on how fast you're going.
A photon is (more or less) a single thing. There are lots of them flying at the sail from the sun, and each one supplies some impulse to the sail.
Imagine you're trying to walk forward through an oncoming swarm of flies. You feel resistance -- that's the force from the flies -- but each fly is just knocking you a little bit back.
If each fly you hit pushed you back with 0.01 pounds of force, then the farther you walked, the more force you'd accumulate (because you've hit more flies), and it would get harder and harder to walk.
> Each photon of light exerts 0.0002 pounds of pressure on the 3,000-square-foot sail
C'mon people, can't you even check if what you're saying makes the slightest sense before posting it? There are two impressive errors in that sentence. First, each photon [1] applies some impulse to the sail. Impulse is what you feel pushing you back when someone punches you. It's a one-time effect and is neither a force (impulse per unit time) nor a pressure. Second, a pound might be a unit of force or of mass, depending who you ask, what you're talking about, and how pedantic you are, but it is never a unit of pressure. (If it were, you might say that the Earth's atmosphere weights 14 pounds, a statement that makes no sense at all.)
[1] For the physically inclined, there's a more subtle error, too. The impulse supplied by a photon is related to its momentum, which is a function of wavelength. So, unless something weird's happening in the sail, blue photons supply a larger impulse than red photons.
Even if you turn off instant personalization, facebook still knows every time you visit one of those partner sites. But NoScript (I leave scripts enabled globally) has a cute feature called Application Boundary Enforcer. Here's (some of) my config:
While suing Sony sounds great, it involves finding a lawyer (ideally a class action lawyer) to handle it. But here in the US, we have another mechanism: the FTC.
If enough of us file FTC complaints online, they might take note. I wrote something like the text at the bottom of this post.
The company in question is: Sony Computer Entertainment America 919 East Hillsdale Boulevard Foster City, CA 94404
---BEGIN FTC COMPLAINT---
Sony (as Sony Consumer Entertainment America, Inc.) sells, and has sold for several years, a popular device called the Playstation 3. Up until now, this device has two features of note:
1. It supports a feature called "Install Other OS." This allows users to install operating systems such as Linux on their Playstation 3, which many users use for scientific and other purposes.
2. It supports something called the PlayStation Network. This is an online network of gaming users and is critical to obtaining the full gaming experience advertised by Sony.
Yesterday, Sony announced (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/) that they were going to disable the "Install Other OS" feature on all PlayStation 3 units, even those already sold. Users can opt out of this disablement, but that will in turn disable PlayStation Network.
Sony claims that this is due to "security concerns." These security concerns are probably that Sony realized that "Install Other OS" might allow PS3 owners to bypass digital rights management restrictions. In other words, Sony is crippling an existing product to aid in preventing users from doing something that may hurt Sony's relationship with content developers. (Users attacking the Playstation 3 may or may not be legal, but that shouldn't matter here.)
I am not an expert in the relevant law, but it seems to me that a company should not be permitted to disable functionality of products already sold, especially when the reason that they disable that functionality is to prevent their users from doing something.
There a "fix" that should help a lot: have browsers cache all certificates that they've accepted. Then, whenever a site *changes* its certificate, give a bit fat warning and optionally send the new certificate to some repository of questionable certificates.
If that repository starts to see bogus certificates signed by a CA, revoke that CA's root certificate.
To really make it work, HTTPS should have a mechanism to indicate that a certificate may not be changed until such-and-such a time, and there should be a way to (later, when using a different internet connection) tell a website what certificates you've seen that claim to identify it. That way the web site operator can go after bad CAs itself.
But most people who use images expect to look at them eventually. And most image files are meant to be viewed at gamma 2.2. (Printer drivers will at least approximately emulate a gamma of 2.2, and LCDs emulate it intentionally.) If you view the image at some other gamma, you don't see quite what was intended.
Another way of looking at it is that most standard image formats are stored with a nonlinear representation, and people who do math should realize that. For an untagged image, gamma=2.2 is a good bet. gamma=1.0 is a terrible bet.
Of course, if we really want our software to do a good job, then that software should be aware that specifying colors like #FF0000 isn't a good idea -- they look very different on different screens. What the user probably meant to do was specify a particular color, which means that the numbers need to be marked with a color space. (For a great demo, get an HP LP2475w or some other good wide-gamut display, don't install a profile, and look at anyone's photo album. Everyone looks freakishly red-faced.)
As far as I'm concerned, the student did a few things right but two things wrong. First, the good:
1. He thought about security. We should all do this. 2. He told the university when he found a flaw.
But he did two things wrong:
1. He installed a keylogger. Maybe this is just my moral code, but the right way to hack is to find a real vulnerability. Taking advantage of the physical insecurity of the university machines to install a keylogger is not cool. Besides, *of course* they're vulnerable to that. Similarly, if they use magnetic strips, grabbing other people's cards and cloning them is possible. Maybe they should use secure smartcards, but there's no need to clone a magstripe just to prove it possible.
2. He email 37 students in addition to the administration. Did he email them a list of passwords, too?
For comparison, I hacked my (top-tier CS) university's systems back in the day. Specifically, I found a vulnerability in the network authentication system that everyone knew existed in theory but thought was essentially unexploitable in practice and used it to read my roommate's email. But I got my roommate's permission first, and I took the exploit description and sample code directly to the IT people. I didn't disclose it to the rest of the world immediately, or, in fact, at all.
Not surprisingly, the IT department was happy, they fixed the problem, and they even wrote me a check as a thank you. But I bet they would've been pissed off if I'd emailed 37 people a detailed description before they had a chance to fix the problem.
The lesson: if you want to do some unsolicited white-hat hacking, don't be a dick about it.
The site says the surfaces are "physically identical." I call BS. They are identical only in the sense that they have (assuming this is a faithful rendering of something) the same irradiance per unit solid angle hitting the viewer's eye. They are, in fact, physically different surfaces -- look at the top left corner of each piece, which are facing roughly the same directions and so are similarly lit. The top face is dark and lit more brightly, and the bottom face is light and lit dimly, and a robot that observes notices this (like humans do) is pretty impressive.
Demo 15 (the one in the article) is a bit more legitimate, but it's hard to tell whether the left disc is redder or is just lit with red light.
Re:realistic receiver connectivity and bandwidth
on
Rerouting the Networks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not at all. This idea is cooler than it sounds in the article.
Rather than using the silly parity schemes as mentioned in the article, you'd use a long code (i.e. a code that could extend beyond a single transmission). Then, if you lose part of the transmission, you could request enough additional symbols to reconstruct the message. Any decent (i.e. maximum distance separable) erasure code has the property that the amount of data you need does not exceed the size of the message, even if you lose a subset of it that is unknown to the sender. These codes exist -- Reed-Solomon is an example. (As a stupid analogy, you could send a bunch of data by mailing a wad of RAID-6 hard drives (although you'd use a code that could survive more than two erasures) using different carriers, and then, when some get lost, you just mail more of the RAID array.)
I imagine that the current research is on even better codes that wouldn't require as much feedback to work well.
(Note: I am not a network coding theorist, but I have some knowledge of information theory and non-network coding.)
I played with a Sharp 3D laptop last summer (http://www.sharp3d.com/), and it was cool but it caused a lot of eyestrain, not to mention halving the usable resolution. This sounds like almost the same technology, and I imagine it won't be any easier on the eyes.
Really? Last I heard, quantum computers were not known to be able to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time, and, in the absence of cryptographic breakthroughs, breaking symmetric ciphers ought to be difficult NP problems. Grover's algorithm might help, but only enough to reduce the rate of exponential growth a bit (i.e. 256-bit encryption will stuff be effectively unbreakable by any technology, unless BQP >= NP).
That being said, quantum computers can easily break RSA, ElGamal, and related schemes (using Shor's algorithm, for example). But this quantum encryption thing, absent any details, doesn't look like it's trying to do assymetric encryption.
First, the HDCP CA gives a lot of keys to each company, I think. So you'd only need one crooked company.
About your other idea: From the paper referenced in the article, it looks like the device sends a hash of the sum over the wire. So you'd have to invert a hash on each try (which may still be doable -- the input space isn't all that huge). But the attacker can cleverly choose a basis for the KSV space, thereby recovering the target's private key in exactly 40 tries. This attack would probably take a week or two on computation, so it wouldn't be all that great on its own. But... an attacker could run this attack 40-50 times and use the results to run the attack in the article, breaking the entire system. No broken devices required. Eenteresting.
This would presumably work by catalyzing the oxidation (i.e. removal of electrons from) of organic molecules at or very near the surface. In other words, it will kill cells and decolorize componds that are on the surface where there's plenty of light.
This won't hurt your fingers for two reasons. First, the surface cells are already dead. Second, it probably won't even work when a large opaque object (your finger) is blocking the light.
It's been well-known among language researchers that both speech recognition and parsing/comprehension are much easier when applied to a small problem domain. SRI in Palo Alto and CSLI at Stanford, for example, have a number of very impressive speech recognition packages that understand, for example, medicine-related sentences. The dashboard controls just sound like a logical progression of this to faster computers and an even smaller problem domain. They're cool nonetheless.
The translation, on the other hand, sounds damned impressive. For unrestricted content, especially with an untrained voice (I imagine that IBM isn't individually training to each Al Jazeera talking head), 70% recognition sounds quite good. 70% accuracy post-translation ought to be quite a bit better than what's currently out there. The description of MASTOR, however, is useless -- it could easily describe anything that isn't word-for-word translation.
This one also gives the fundamental theorem of (vector) calculus, as well as much of complex analysis (where the manifold in question is a piece of the complex plane containing some poles).
While this is all well and good, MS probably won't like it too much (duh). We might start seeing more "system restore" type distributions with new PC's to make it harder to resell, and the whole Whistler copy protection might make this a moot point (although the German court might then rule that MS has to reenable copy-protected installs, and then they might refuse -- ugh).
I wonder if I can sell all my old MSDN copies of Windows now? I must have at least 20:) Imagine that: subscribe to MSDN and _make_ money by reselling all those CD's. Probably won't happen.
First, I'm inclined to agree with the article. There are many cases of OOP that is seriously overdone. I'll use COM as an example. What was MS thinking when they made DirectX a COM object? It would be faster and easier if it was a normal API! But there are many good uses for the COM abstraction. It allows implementation reuse and dynamic binding to objects. Yes, this could also be done without COM or OOP, but it makes it more straightforward. Many of my programs use OOP for some parts and straight procedural code for other parts. Sometimes I use OOP-like structures in my program but without classes. It depends on the project.
What I don't like is the way the article is written. It lists things that it debunks, but then makes vague claims as to why they are bad. It even compares OOP to communism (!). If the article gave real-world examples, I would like it. But it simply criticizes blind faith in OOP while requiring blind faith in the article. This is not a good way to make an argument.
It seems that some replys missed some pretty awful stuff in there. While a lot of this is standard broadband stuff, some of it is outrageous. There's some pretty dumb language in there, and there are some scary violations of privacy. Also, the entire tone of the ToS seems like they don't look out for their customers. Here's a summary of a couple bad items (trimmed to avoid writing a 10-page essay):
10.16 You grant to Sprint or any appointed subcontractors an irrevocable license to enter into or onto your Premises during normal business hours, Monday through Saturday, in order to install, repair, replace or remove Equipment. This license will survive termination or cancellation of this Agreement and will run with the land and inure to the parties' successors and assigns.
This alone is enough to keep me from signing up. This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of every customer by any measure.
7.7 Sprint has no obligation to monitor the Services. You agree that Sprint has the right to monitor the Services electronically from time to time, and you consent to Sprint's access, use and disclosure of any information as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or other governmental request, to operate the Services properly, to improve the Services, or to protect itself or its customers. Sprint reserves the right to refuse or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, that in its sole discretion are unacceptable, undesirable, or in violation of this Agreement.
The "other governmental request" is scary (where'd the 4th amendment go?)
7.1.1 [You agree to] restrict or inhibit any other user from using the Internet;
What? Your friends can't use it?
7.1.20 [You agree not to] engage in any commercial or business activities using a residential account without prior express written consent from Sprint;
Apparently you can't work from home if that work involves internet access.
7.1.13... "denial of service" attacks (port scans,...
If their network is so outdated that nmap could crash it (they seem to think it is a DoS attack) then they deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? What does PSI stand for? Is that not a measurement of pressure? It is to us common folk.
PSI is a unit of pressure to common folk and to physics nerds as well.
Unfortunately for common folk, PSI doesn't stand for "pounds;" it stands for "pounds per square inch." Kind of like your gas guzzler doesn't get 13 miles; it gets 13 miles per gallon or 3.4 miles per liter. But if you said your car was very efficient and got 55 miles, I would tell you that your statement made no sense, not that your number was wrong.
Yes, they should be using a proper unit of energy.
Um, why energy? Assuming that the solar sail is nonrelativistic, then (energy) = 1/2 (momentum) * (velocity), which means that the energy imparted by a photon depends rather strongly on how fast you're going.
A photon is (more or less) a single thing. There are lots of them flying at the sail from the sun, and each one supplies some impulse to the sail.
Imagine you're trying to walk forward through an oncoming swarm of flies. You feel resistance -- that's the force from the flies -- but each fly is just knocking you a little bit back.
If each fly you hit pushed you back with 0.01 pounds of force, then the farther you walked, the more force you'd accumulate (because you've hit more flies), and it would get harder and harder to walk.
> Each photon of light exerts 0.0002 pounds of pressure on the 3,000-square-foot sail
C'mon people, can't you even check if what you're saying makes the slightest sense before posting it? There are two impressive errors in that sentence. First, each photon [1] applies some impulse to the sail. Impulse is what you feel pushing you back when someone punches you. It's a one-time effect and is neither a force (impulse per unit time) nor a pressure. Second, a pound might be a unit of force or of mass, depending who you ask, what you're talking about, and how pedantic you are, but it is never a unit of pressure. (If it were, you might say that the Earth's atmosphere weights 14 pounds, a statement that makes no sense at all.)
[1] For the physically inclined, there's a more subtle error, too. The impulse supplied by a photon is related to its momentum, which is a function of wavelength. So, unless something weird's happening in the sail, blue photons supply a larger impulse than red photons.
Even if you turn off instant personalization, facebook still knows every time you visit one of those partner sites. But NoScript (I leave scripts enabled globally) has a cute feature called Application Boundary Enforcer. Here's (some of) my config:
Site .facebook.com .facebook.com
Accept from
Deny
Site .fbcdn.net .facebook.com .fbcdn.net
Accept from
Accept from
Deny
Enjoy!
While suing Sony sounds great, it involves finding a lawyer (ideally a class action lawyer) to handle it. But here in the US, we have another mechanism: the FTC.
If enough of us file FTC complaints online, they might take note. I wrote something like the text at the bottom of this post.
The company in question is:
Sony Computer Entertainment America
919 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
---BEGIN FTC COMPLAINT---
Sony (as Sony Consumer Entertainment America, Inc.) sells, and has sold for several years, a popular device called the Playstation 3. Up until now, this device has two features of note:
1. It supports a feature called "Install Other OS." This allows users to install operating systems such as Linux on their Playstation 3, which many users use for scientific and other purposes.
2. It supports something called the PlayStation Network. This is an online network of gaming users and is critical to obtaining the full gaming experience advertised by Sony.
Yesterday, Sony announced (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/03/28/ps3-firmware-v3-21-update/) that they were going to disable the "Install Other OS" feature on all PlayStation 3 units, even those already sold. Users can opt out of this disablement, but that will in turn disable PlayStation Network.
Sony claims that this is due to "security concerns." These security concerns are probably that Sony realized that "Install Other OS" might allow PS3 owners to bypass digital rights management restrictions. In other words, Sony is crippling an existing product to aid in preventing users from doing something that may hurt Sony's relationship with content developers. (Users attacking the Playstation 3 may or may not be legal, but that shouldn't matter here.)
I am not an expert in the relevant law, but it seems to me that a company should not be permitted to disable functionality of products already sold, especially when the reason that they disable that functionality is to prevent their users from doing something.
There a "fix" that should help a lot: have browsers cache all certificates that they've accepted. Then, whenever a site *changes* its certificate, give a bit fat warning and optionally send the new certificate to some repository of questionable certificates.
If that repository starts to see bogus certificates signed by a CA, revoke that CA's root certificate.
To really make it work, HTTPS should have a mechanism to indicate that a certificate may not be changed until such-and-such a time, and there should be a way to (later, when using a different internet connection) tell a website what certificates you've seen that claim to identify it. That way the web site operator can go after bad CAs itself.
But most people who use images expect to look at them eventually. And most image files are meant to be viewed at gamma 2.2. (Printer drivers will at least approximately emulate a gamma of 2.2, and LCDs emulate it intentionally.) If you view the image at some other gamma, you don't see quite what was intended.
Another way of looking at it is that most standard image formats are stored with a nonlinear representation, and people who do math should realize that. For an untagged image, gamma=2.2 is a good bet. gamma=1.0 is a terrible bet.
Of course, if we really want our software to do a good job, then that software should be aware that specifying colors like #FF0000 isn't a good idea -- they look very different on different screens. What the user probably meant to do was specify a particular color, which means that the numbers need to be marked with a color space. (For a great demo, get an HP LP2475w or some other good wide-gamut display, don't install a profile, and look at anyone's photo album. Everyone looks freakishly red-faced.)
News flash: if someone installs a trojan on your phone, then encrypting your call is insecure.
No sh*t. Don't let people install trojans on your phone.
As far as I know, the first superconducting transistor was reported in 2006:
cond-mat/0601434
As far as I'm concerned, the student did a few things right but two things wrong. First, the good:
1. He thought about security. We should all do this.
2. He told the university when he found a flaw.
But he did two things wrong:
1. He installed a keylogger. Maybe this is just my moral code, but the right way to hack is to find a real vulnerability. Taking advantage of the physical insecurity of the university machines to install a keylogger is not cool. Besides, *of course* they're vulnerable to that. Similarly, if they use magnetic strips, grabbing other people's cards and cloning them is possible. Maybe they should use secure smartcards, but there's no need to clone a magstripe just to prove it possible.
2. He email 37 students in addition to the administration. Did he email them a list of passwords, too?
For comparison, I hacked my (top-tier CS) university's systems back in the day. Specifically, I found a vulnerability in the network authentication system that everyone knew existed in theory but thought was essentially unexploitable in practice and used it to read my roommate's email. But I got my roommate's permission first, and I took the exploit description and sample code directly to the IT people. I didn't disclose it to the rest of the world immediately, or, in fact, at all.
Not surprisingly, the IT department was happy, they fixed the problem, and they even wrote me a check as a thank you. But I bet they would've been pissed off if I'd emailed 37 people a detailed description before they had a chance to fix the problem.
The lesson: if you want to do some unsolicited white-hat hacking, don't be a dick about it.
Take a look at http://www.lottolab.org/Visual%20Demos/Demo%204.html
The site says the surfaces are "physically identical." I call BS. They are identical only in the sense that they have (assuming this is a faithful rendering of something) the same irradiance per unit solid angle hitting the viewer's eye. They are, in fact, physically different surfaces -- look at the top left corner of each piece, which are facing roughly the same directions and so are similarly lit. The top face is dark and lit more brightly, and the bottom face is light and lit dimly, and a robot that observes notices this (like humans do) is pretty impressive.
Demo 15 (the one in the article) is a bit more legitimate, but it's hard to tell whether the left disc is redder or is just lit with red light.
Not at all. This idea is cooler than it sounds in the article.
Rather than using the silly parity schemes as mentioned in the article, you'd use a long code (i.e. a code that could extend beyond a single transmission). Then, if you lose part of the transmission, you could request enough additional symbols to reconstruct the message. Any decent (i.e. maximum distance separable) erasure code has the property that the amount of data you need does not exceed the size of the message, even if you lose a subset of it that is unknown to the sender. These codes exist -- Reed-Solomon is an example. (As a stupid analogy, you could send a bunch of data by mailing a wad of RAID-6 hard drives (although you'd use a code that could survive more than two erasures) using different carriers, and then, when some get lost, you just mail more of the RAID array.)
I imagine that the current research is on even better codes that wouldn't require as much feedback to work well.
(Note: I am not a network coding theorist, but I have some knowledge of information theory and non-network coding.)
I think it's mostly because alternate columns are dark.
I played with a Sharp 3D laptop last summer (http://www.sharp3d.com/), and it was cool but it caused a lot of eyestrain, not to mention halving the usable resolution. This sounds like almost the same technology, and I imagine it won't be any easier on the eyes.
Really? Last I heard, quantum computers were not known to be able to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time, and, in the absence of cryptographic breakthroughs, breaking symmetric ciphers ought to be difficult NP problems. Grover's algorithm might help, but only enough to reduce the rate of exponential growth a bit (i.e. 256-bit encryption will stuff be effectively unbreakable by any technology, unless BQP >= NP).
That being said, quantum computers can easily break RSA, ElGamal, and related schemes (using Shor's algorithm, for example). But this quantum encryption thing, absent any details, doesn't look like it's trying to do assymetric encryption.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing for more info.
I think you mean 2^(56-16) = a lot of attempts. Unless there's corresponding weakness in the hash.
(I didn't realize it was a hash that short. But 16 bits sounds absurd -- the hash gives the shared secret and 16 bits is way too short.)
First, the HDCP CA gives a lot of keys to each company, I think. So you'd only need one crooked company.
About your other idea: From the paper referenced in the article, it looks like the device sends a hash of the sum over the wire. So you'd have to invert a hash on each try (which may still be doable -- the input space isn't all that huge). But the attacker can cleverly choose a basis for the KSV space, thereby recovering the target's private key in exactly 40 tries. This attack would probably take a week or two on computation, so it wouldn't be all that great on its own. But... an attacker could run this attack 40-50 times and use the results to run the attack in the article, breaking the entire system. No broken devices required. Eenteresting.
This would presumably work by catalyzing the oxidation (i.e. removal of electrons from) of organic molecules at or very near the surface. In other words, it will kill cells and decolorize componds that are on the surface where there's plenty of light.
This won't hurt your fingers for two reasons. First, the surface cells are already dead. Second, it probably won't even work when a large opaque object (your finger) is blocking the light.
It's been well-known among language researchers that both speech recognition and parsing/comprehension are much easier when applied to a small problem domain. SRI in Palo Alto and CSLI at Stanford, for example, have a number of very impressive speech recognition packages that understand, for example, medicine-related sentences. The dashboard controls just sound like a logical progression of this to faster computers and an even smaller problem domain. They're cool nonetheless.
The translation, on the other hand, sounds damned impressive. For unrestricted content, especially with an untrained voice (I imagine that IBM isn't individually training to each Al Jazeera talking head), 70% recognition sounds quite good. 70% accuracy post-translation ought to be quite a bit better than what's currently out there. The description of MASTOR, however, is useless -- it could easily describe anything that isn't word-for-word translation.
What kind of Acer tablet do you have? My C300 runs my MSDN Windows install just fine, and it also runs SuSE 9.1.
You cold also give CoLinux a try.
Agreed.
:)
This one also gives the fundamental theorem of (vector) calculus, as well as much of complex analysis (where the manifold in question is a piece of the complex plane containing some poles).
Definately beats e^i*pi + 1 = 0, since it's actually useful
This is more or less the same thing reported last friday.
I wonder if I can sell all my old MSDN copies of Windows now? I must have at least 20 :) Imagine that: subscribe to MSDN and _make_ money by reselling all those CD's. Probably won't happen.
First, I'm inclined to agree with the article. There are many cases of OOP that is seriously overdone. I'll use COM as an example. What was MS thinking when they made DirectX a COM object? It would be faster and easier if it was a normal API! But there are many good uses for the COM abstraction. It allows implementation reuse and dynamic binding to objects. Yes, this could also be done without COM or OOP, but it makes it more straightforward. Many of my programs use OOP for some parts and straight procedural code for other parts. Sometimes I use OOP-like structures in my program but without classes. It depends on the project.
What I don't like is the way the article is written. It lists things that it debunks, but then makes vague claims as to why they are bad. It even compares OOP to communism (!). If the article gave real-world examples, I would like it. But it simply criticizes blind faith in OOP while requiring blind faith in the article. This is not a good way to make an argument.
10.16 You grant to Sprint or any appointed subcontractors an irrevocable license to enter into or onto your Premises during normal business hours, Monday through Saturday, in order to install, repair, replace or remove Equipment. This license will survive termination or cancellation of this Agreement and will run with the land and inure to the parties' successors and assigns.
This alone is enough to keep me from signing up. This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of every customer by any measure.
7.7 Sprint has no obligation to monitor the Services. You agree that Sprint has the right to monitor the Services electronically from time to time, and you consent to Sprint's access, use and disclosure of any information as necessary to satisfy any law, regulation or other governmental request, to operate the Services properly, to improve the Services, or to protect itself or its customers. Sprint reserves the right to refuse or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, that in its sole discretion are unacceptable, undesirable, or in violation of this Agreement.
The "other governmental request" is scary (where'd the 4th amendment go?)
7.1.1 [You agree to] restrict or inhibit any other user from using the Internet;
What? Your friends can't use it?
7.1.20 [You agree not to] engage in any commercial or business activities using a residential account without prior express written consent from Sprint;
Apparently you can't work from home if that work involves internet access.
7.1.13 ... "denial of service" attacks (port scans, ...
If their network is so outdated that nmap could crash it (they seem to think it is a DoS attack) then they deserve it.