Pretty soon those things are going to be cheap enough that they can attach them to every car, and send out speeding tickets based on the recordings. You'll pick up half a dozen of them every time you wash your car... left their by your boss, insurance company, police, three grocery stores, your doctor, and two nosy neighbors. And they could all track your car by eye if they *wanted to*, so what's the difference?
This sounds like the kind of interpretation Hamilton was talking about when he wrote: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
TO be secure in your affects means you have ownership of them. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with an argument that tracking somebodies car is actually taking something from them or searching for something on them.
So that's a "Yes", then.
I suppose you're also going to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard.
Or that the 1st only applies to accredited journalists.
Even without a warrant I've said it before... The Fourth doesn't cover spying.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So you are arguing a specific meaning of the word "secure"? This sounds like the kind of interpretation Hamilton was talking about when he wrote: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
Right now you need a court order to get this kind of creepy access to data from Google. It's time to turn this around and let everyone have access to he latest cyberstalking technology.
I think we should allow dolphins to compete with swimmers and elephants compete with weight lifters.
So long as they can fill out the application forms without coaching, why not?
I recall a story from the '50s about a mermaid enrolled in a swimming contest. The opposing team tried to pit a seal against her, but were foiled when the mermaid's coach dumped a bowl of goldfish in the pool to distract it.
OP didn't say **everyone** chooses the mac because they "follow the pack".
Actually, OP said that his wife didn't want it because it wasn't a Mac.
The followup to that was a claim that his wife was prejudiced.
I pointed out that his wife probably *had* experience with windows, so it wasn't simply prejudice.
The followup to that claimed that graphic artists tended to follow the pack. While that's trivially true (most people tend to follow the pack) it's not a particularly meaningful response except for the implication that this is the reason the OP's wife prefers the Mac.
So my response, in context is pointing out (a) that Windows fanbois (Microserfs?) are following the pack too, and (b) you don't have to be a "pack-following" graphic artist to prefer the Mac, and (3) solicit some reasons why he thought the Mac didn't have advantages for a graphic artist (after all, the pack may be right).
tell me 5 design decisions in their architecture that OSX made which windows and linux didnt and which then resulted in OSX superiority
The advantage of OS X over Linux isn't architectural, since both Darwin and Linux are UNIX implementations, it's the fact that there's actually a viable market for (and therefore an ample supply of) end-user applications for OS X. There are a number of application-level differences between OS X and other UNIX GUI frameworks and desktops that make me prefer OS X, but there's no reason these could not be more widely adopted on other free UNIX platforms (though unfortunately the frameworks that are most popular are increasingly copying Windows). If I thought you were actually interested I could go into more detail... but I suspect it would be wasted.
The advantages of UNIX over Windows? I'd be here all day, and, again, I don't think you're actually interested.
I gather the idea is that the singularity is the point at which the rate of change is so great that it's almost "vertical", and I'm not sure this would look that way even to proto-humans.
If the rate of change is so flat that it's not perceptible over a single lifespan, which is implied by the comment that it took 2 million years to get from the hand axe to cooking, then everything else has happened in 150 millennia. From that point, what's happened in the past 150 centuries might mostly be comprehensible, but what's happened over the past 150 decades would look pretty close to vertical... and the past 150 years is definitely post-singularity for them.
The singularity isn't an event, and there isn't just one event horizon... think about falling into a black hole: once you pass the event horizon you don't stop there, you keep falling, and there's always another event horizon just ahead of you. Technology is like that: it's a process, and from a distant enough viewpoint we are already on the far side of an event horizon.
This ultimately causes the web server's visitors to, depending on their client, be sent one of many different forms of malware from the referred pages. Similar to phishing, this attack takes advantage of the website visitor's trust in the site they are visiting. Instead of phishing for information, however, malware is sent to the client, which the client has a higher likelihood of accepting being from a trusted site.
If this means that the browser allows malware to actually be installed without user intervention (which is implied by 'the client trusts the site') that implies that this is taking advantage of Microsoft's "Security Zones" trust model. Which should mean that this exploit is only applicable to Internet Explorer.
I think we just passed the 11th anniversary of Microsoft creating this flawed security model. Would it be too much to ask that Microsoft finally backed down and gave up on the idea that it's possible to build this kind of exception into a sandbox without unconditionally and irreparably compromising basic security?
The singularity model (some say fantasy, some say theory, call it what you will) is basically that once technology can be used to improve intelligence you get a feedback loop that leads to a society and environment that is literally incomprehensible to the people on the low side of the singularity. This is usually proposed in terms of *designing* brains that are smarter than the ones that designed them, but there's no reason to rule out less fantastic advances as part of the same process.
I think this qualifies as a singularity, from the point of view of the pre-humans.
They also think there's actually a difference in what you can do with them pertaining to their respective fields.
Are you a "CS Geek" or a "Graphic Artist"?
If the latter, why do you think there isn't a difference in what you can do under Windows or OS X pertaining to your field?
If the former, how do you know, and do you think there is a difference in what you can do under Windows or OS X pertaining to your field, why or why not?
Because I've been "CS Geek" for longer than either Microsoft or Apple have been around, and (at this time) given a choice between any Thinkpad running Windows or a comparably priced (but far less powerful) Macbook or Macbook Pro running OS X, I would need a retail copy of generic OS X that I could install on the Thinkpad before I'd pick it.
The bottom line is that, right now, unless you've got really outrageous requirements, software is far more important than hardware, and OS X has too many advantages over Windows or Linux for me to consider anything that can't run OS X for my personal laptop. And don't you dare suggest that it's because I'm "following the pack": I spent 20 years as a network administrator for 150-400 Windows users, I miss my old Thinkpad's nice hardware and I'm pretty routinely modded down by Mac Fanbois for daring to suggest that Mac hardware is mediocre...
So, you want to know something, if you REALLY think that anyone who considers Mac OS X an essential requirement is just following the pack (any pack)... you're the one who's got a closed mind.
Quote, counterquote: "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby." Not a business. Note the emphasized word here: "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments". That doesn't mean there was a zoning violation, it means there there may have been one (regardless of what Mrs Wilderman says... if there aren't specific regulations being broken there's no violation). Unless Mass. laws are excessively strict, if they suspect one they're supposed to investigate, give him a notice to that effect, give him time for remediation, and then if he doesn't cooperate they get a warrant to go in and act.
This has nothing to do with whether "zoning bylaws are useless" or not, and everything to do with procedures either being deeply broken or not being followed.
And it's got nothing to do with propane explosions, either:
None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty soon those things are going to be cheap enough that they can attach them to every car, and send out speeding tickets based on the recordings. You'll pick up half a dozen of them every time you wash your car... left their by your boss, insurance company, police, three grocery stores, your doctor, and two nosy neighbors. And they could all track your car by eye if they *wanted to*, so what's the difference?
It doesn't mention radio waves, electricity, or motor vehicles either.
So that's a "Yes", then.
I suppose you're also going to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard.
Or that the 1st only applies to accredited journalists.
God only knows what you make of the 9th.
He's never going to live that one down.
I would like to say that I think my human tiger hybrid would eat up the competition in 'any' event
Big cats are fundamentally lazy and laid back. A tiger purrs like a freight train rolling by.
It's the mid-sized predators you really need to worry about. Let me get my wolverine coded up and we'll see some action.
Even without a warrant I've said it before... The Fourth doesn't cover spying.
So you are arguing a specific meaning of the word "secure"? This sounds like the kind of interpretation Hamilton was talking about when he wrote: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
That's the Transparent Society solution, for sure.
Googling around, it seems most of these things just store GPS location data and are recovered later and played back.
Plus, doesn't it become "theft of services" the minute they hook it up to my car's electrical system?
If it takes 3 seconds to install it's almost certainly battery powered.
If they have a warrant
They're doing it without a warrant.
Right now you need a court order to get this kind of creepy access to data from Google. It's time to turn this around and let everyone have access to he latest cyberstalking technology.
I hope you speak for the IOC
My (current instar) human host body doesn't even speak for itself.
I think we should allow dolphins to compete with swimmers and elephants compete with weight lifters.
So long as they can fill out the application forms without coaching, why not?
I recall a story from the '50s about a mermaid enrolled in a swimming contest. The opposing team tried to pit a seal against her, but were foiled when the mermaid's coach dumped a bowl of goldfish in the pool to distract it.
Manager: "Please don't talk about your hobbies publicly."
Miyamoto: "OK"
Co-worker: "What was that about?"
Miyamoto: "They don't want me talking about my hobbies."
Co-worker: "They won't let Miyamoto talk about his hobbies."
[several layers of 'the telephone game' later]
"Miyamoto banned from talking about hobbies."
How long until we have the first rat-brained cruise missile?
Skinner found that pigeons work better for controlling munitions.
Black holes aren't rocket science.
Well, OK, I guess they are.
But they're not brain surgery.
Except in a crude kind of sense.
I saw "Episode IV" when it was brand new, on my first visit to the United States, and that's the clearest memory I have of those two weeks in Hawaii.
This is the first I'd heard that there was a new movie.
It's a damn shame that the story arc has turned out to be a ballistic trajectory.
OP didn't say **everyone** chooses the mac because they "follow the pack".
Actually, OP said that his wife didn't want it because it wasn't a Mac.
The followup to that was a claim that his wife was prejudiced.
I pointed out that his wife probably *had* experience with windows, so it wasn't simply prejudice.
The followup to that claimed that graphic artists tended to follow the pack. While that's trivially true (most people tend to follow the pack) it's not a particularly meaningful response except for the implication that this is the reason the OP's wife prefers the Mac.
So my response, in context is pointing out (a) that Windows fanbois (Microserfs?) are following the pack too, and (b) you don't have to be a "pack-following" graphic artist to prefer the Mac, and (3) solicit some reasons why he thought the Mac didn't have advantages for a graphic artist (after all, the pack may be right).
tell me 5 design decisions in their architecture that OSX made which windows and linux didnt and which then resulted in OSX superiority
The advantage of OS X over Linux isn't architectural, since both Darwin and Linux are UNIX implementations, it's the fact that there's actually a viable market for (and therefore an ample supply of) end-user applications for OS X. There are a number of application-level differences between OS X and other UNIX GUI frameworks and desktops that make me prefer OS X, but there's no reason these could not be more widely adopted on other free UNIX platforms (though unfortunately the frameworks that are most popular are increasingly copying Windows). If I thought you were actually interested I could go into more detail... but I suspect it would be wasted.
The advantages of UNIX over Windows? I'd be here all day, and, again, I don't think you're actually interested.
The time frame of the phenomenon is narrowing. It's getting to the point where the observers that would find it extraordinary are still alive.
150 millennia
150 centuries
150 decades
150 years
150 months
150 days
150 hours
150 minutes
150 seconds
"The hours came to minutes, the minutes to seconds. And now each second was as long as all the time before." -- Vernor Vinge, A Fire Upon the Deep.
I gather the idea is that the singularity is the point at which the rate of change is so great that it's almost "vertical", and I'm not sure this would look that way even to proto-humans.
If the rate of change is so flat that it's not perceptible over a single lifespan, which is implied by the comment that it took 2 million years to get from the hand axe to cooking, then everything else has happened in 150 millennia. From that point, what's happened in the past 150 centuries might mostly be comprehensible, but what's happened over the past 150 decades would look pretty close to vertical... and the past 150 years is definitely post-singularity for them.
The singularity isn't an event, and there isn't just one event horizon... think about falling into a black hole: once you pass the event horizon you don't stop there, you keep falling, and there's always another event horizon just ahead of you. Technology is like that: it's a process, and from a distant enough viewpoint we are already on the far side of an event horizon.
From TFA:
If this means that the browser allows malware to actually be installed without user intervention (which is implied by 'the client trusts the site') that implies that this is taking advantage of Microsoft's "Security Zones" trust model. Which should mean that this exploit is only applicable to Internet Explorer.
I think we just passed the 11th anniversary of Microsoft creating this flawed security model. Would it be too much to ask that Microsoft finally backed down and gave up on the idea that it's possible to build this kind of exception into a sandbox without unconditionally and irreparably compromising basic security?
The singularity model (some say fantasy, some say theory, call it what you will) is basically that once technology can be used to improve intelligence you get a feedback loop that leads to a society and environment that is literally incomprehensible to the people on the low side of the singularity. This is usually proposed in terms of *designing* brains that are smarter than the ones that designed them, but there's no reason to rule out less fantastic advances as part of the same process.
I think this qualifies as a singularity, from the point of view of the pre-humans.
on pure compute my Mac Pro was cheaper than the dell equivelent at the time.
That's why the qualification in "Macs are rarely comparable even at the beginning of a product cycle, except perhaps at the very high end." :)
They also think there's actually a difference in what you can do with them pertaining to their respective fields.
Are you a "CS Geek" or a "Graphic Artist"?
If the latter, why do you think there isn't a difference in what you can do under Windows or OS X pertaining to your field?
If the former, how do you know, and do you think there is a difference in what you can do under Windows or OS X pertaining to your field, why or why not?
Because I've been "CS Geek" for longer than either Microsoft or Apple have been around, and (at this time) given a choice between any Thinkpad running Windows or a comparably priced (but far less powerful) Macbook or Macbook Pro running OS X, I would need a retail copy of generic OS X that I could install on the Thinkpad before I'd pick it.
The bottom line is that, right now, unless you've got really outrageous requirements, software is far more important than hardware, and OS X has too many advantages over Windows or Linux for me to consider anything that can't run OS X for my personal laptop. And don't you dare suggest that it's because I'm "following the pack": I spent 20 years as a network administrator for 150-400 Windows users, I miss my old Thinkpad's nice hardware and I'm pretty routinely modded down by Mac Fanbois for daring to suggest that Mac hardware is mediocre...
So, you want to know something, if you REALLY think that anyone who considers Mac OS X an essential requirement is just following the pack (any pack)... you're the one who's got a closed mind.
Quote, counterquote: "This is Mr. Deeb's hobby." Not a business. Note the emphasized word here: "Mr. Deeb's home lab likely violated the regulations of many state and local departments". That doesn't mean there was a zoning violation, it means there there may have been one (regardless of what Mrs Wilderman says... if there aren't specific regulations being broken there's no violation). Unless Mass. laws are excessively strict, if they suspect one they're supposed to investigate, give him a notice to that effect, give him time for remediation, and then if he doesn't cooperate they get a warrant to go in and act.
This has nothing to do with whether "zoning bylaws are useless" or not, and everything to do with procedures either being deeply broken or not being followed.
And it's got nothing to do with propane explosions, either:
None of the materials found at 81 Fremont St. posed a radiological or biological risk, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. No mercury or poison was found. Some of the compounds are potentially explosive, but no more dangerous than typical household cleaning products.