You can just have couple of pilots remotely take control of the plane in very extreme situations.
Wouldn't that conceivably allow someone to hijack a plane without even boarding it? Just how do you secure that?
Planes could have flown themselves for years now, the main reason the overpaid passengers are there is to make the rest of the passengers feel warm and cozy.
My understanding is that these planes get their inputs from Satellite and ground based stations. Just to imagine one nightmare scenario, a solar flare knocks out the GPS satellites, and knocks out the power on the ground. Better shielding protects the aircraft from the flare. By some estimates, you have 60,000 people in the air at any time. I'd personally rather have the "Overpaid passenger" there than a computer attendant. Not saying the current solution is perfect by any means, but I don't share your enthusiasm to remove humans from the equation. Especially to save 10% on the cost of a ticket.
The way I see it, there are three possible masters for the controls: the people in the plane, the people on the ground, and the computer. The computer should be the least trusted, and easy to override for all of the reasons mentioned in all of the other comments below. It's simply too easy to screw up the computer, and it's driven by inputs that are unreliable. I've seen figures of 60,000 people in the air at any one time, and that's got to be growing. So what happens when the GPS satellites get hit with a solar flare? What happens if they are ever targeted/blocked/spoofed? Lightning strikes to the computer?
It should be easy to establish that a heartbeat somewhere should have the control of the plane. Leaving the choice of inside or outside of the plane. If you introduce the override outside of the plane, now you don't even have to be inside of the airplane to hijack it. (Isn't this what the 9/11 conspiracy sites allege?)
Someone somewhere has to have the master control that no one can override. Either the guy in the plane, or the guy on the ground. Either of them could be hijacked. Personally, I trust the person in the plane. Sounds like they are fixing a problem that doesn't really need to be fixed, and introducing a rather larger security hole.
The new civil liberties director would be a hard-living, foul-mouth, drug-addicted, woman-grabbing, ass-slapping, hyperactive pervert driving the biggest, meanest gas-guzzling straight-line Cadillac he could find from the car lot nearest to his last traffic accident.
But then us Californians would have to find a new Governor. Sorry, that should be "Kuh-lee-for-nee-anns".
Censorship, n : The act, process, or practice of censoring.
Censoring, v : To examine and expurgate.
I typed "define: Censorship" into my Google, and since you took your favorite definition, I'll take mine. =)
"Censorship is the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression, largely in regard to secretive matters. Sanitization (cleaning or decontamination) and whitewashing (from whitewash) are almost interchangeable terms that refer to particular acts or campaigns of censorship or omission which seek to "clean up" the portrayal of particular issues and facts which are already known, but which may conflict with a presented point of view."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
So, to solve this, do a find and replace on my post to change every occurrence of "Censor[ing,ship]" to "Effective censor[ing,ship]". In the end, it's frivolous semantics. I mean, doesn't it have the same net effect of actual bonafide censorship?
Nowhere in this idea is any material given the inalienable right to be commercially successful. The material can still be made. I know it seems like I'm being nit picky here, but that's just because I want people to realize they are fighting on the wrong front.
This isn't about what will be successful, it's about what will be denied the chance to be successful. Material that doesn't pass their filter is denied the chance to be successful, and thus, won't be made or will be watered down. And they know it. Can they still make it, sure. Hell, I can make popsicles made of mayonnaise but no one is going to buy them. Okay, maybe the dutch will. But if you make a law saying mayonnaise products are evil, and I could possibly incur losses for my store by even stocking them, they would have even less of a chance. Are you banning them? No.
Hillary's plan is meant to fail. It's real goal is to garner public and peer support for her presidential run. That's it.
Couldn't agree more. Pushing towards the middle worked pretty well for Bill. Get some controversy now... years before anything matters, when no one that disagrees with you will remember. Then as the time to election comes up, you can talk about how you tried to institute a ratings system in your speech to the red states.
The same thing will happen with games. Rock and Roll was once the tool of the devil, so much that churches boycotted radio stations and stores that sold or played it. Well, Rock and Roll has now mutated into so many aggressive offshoots I don't know where to start. I do know that it isn't gone or being censored.
Not to mention the "Jungle Rhythms" of the black music! It was corrupting! Alan Freed and the Payola 'Scandal'. And Jazz before that. And the religious ban on dancing among many Protestants in the nineteenth century. Hell, in the past just hanging around barber shops made you a bad person. Same old story.
If you really want to nip this in the bud, we need to get a credible lobbyist group together who are willing to force one point home, most video games are NOT for kids. Most movies, TV shows, and Music isn't either. This is a matter of correcting the PR and getting the public perception to align itself more correctly with the truth of the matter.
This is where I majorly disagree. I think the blame for little johnny seeing a movie that gives him nightmares lies directly on the parents. It's not my job to make the world safe for anyone's kid. I already pay more for cable so he doesn't hear any words or, god forbid, see a boob. I already pay more in taxes, since every parent that spawns another trogladite pays less. It's not my job to say what is and isn't right for anyone else or their kids, conversely, it's not their right either. It's not like GTA3 has pictures of bunnies and unicorns on the cover. This is not deceptively sneaking into a kids head. The parents let it in by not being involved in their life enough to know what they will allow, and to a larger extent, they don't trust their kids enough to make their own decisions....alright, that's enough ranting for me. I can dream, can't I?
Self regulating content is not the same as outside regulation. If the Beasties wanted to stay true to their work, they wouldn't have changed a thing. The instant it affected their MONEY is when they made changes. This is not artistic integrity, and doesn't draw an ounce of sympathy from me.
While I agree with not having much sympathy, I have to think that if that if that first album wasn't on the shelf at the local k-mart, I might not have heard it. The PMRC and religious right had mailing campaigns to make sure that chains like Sam Goody and Tower records knew that if they carried stickered artists within reach of their kids, their constituents would boycott the stores. They wrote owners of malls and told them that if they didn't kick out those stores that didn't give in (Especially the smaller, non-chain stores.) they would boycott the whole mall. This is not a small mailing list either. That was the censorship, and without the fear of outside regulation, the Beasties wouldn't have had to self-regulate. (Also, I bet it affected their distribution to a higher degree than their money, since I doubt they were making a lot of money from record sales on a debut.)
If you make a MARKETING decision that compromises your content for more sales, than so be it. But please don't try to confuse the issue with censorship, because it's not the same.
In the case of games or music, I would think ALL marketing decisions have the goal of more sales. It's different in games because marketing doesn't compromise your content, because marketing determines your content in the first place. GTA3 wasn't made because there were some guys that liked to make games about killing others and stealing cars, GTA3 was made because there is a significant portion of sick fucks out there (Myself included) that like the idea of having a game where you can beat a hooker to death with a giant dildo.
This is exactly the beauty of how this censorship works. By classifying your product with a rating outside of the major distribution channels because of its content, major distribution channels don't sell your stuff, your sales are marginalized. Semantics aside, yes, it is censorship because someone is determining what's acceptable content, and allowing only product that they deem 'appropriate' to be successful.
Putting a little sticker on your work means shit. Everything has a little sticker on it, no one cares. When Tipper pulled this it was kinda new, but after a little while no one paid attention to it anymore. In fact, it became a marketing tool on it's own.
I'm glad it failed too! If they would have won the case against Dead Kennedys for "Distributing harmful material to minors" (A painting by H.R. Geiger on the CD jacket considered obscene.) maybe things would have gone further. If there wasn't such a big fight over the issue and so much resistance from big artists in the music industry, what would have stopped them? But for a while there, that sticker did mean shit and it definitely affected more than a few artists then. Just because that sticker doesn't mean anything now doesn't mean it wasn't scary as all hell then.
Now, if this starts to regulate content - I'm fighting tooth and nail.
Well, if this plays out anything like the Tipper stickers did, it will regulate content. She used the same defense... that this is to help parents make informed choices for their kids. What it actually did was keep records with tipper stickers from selling, and in a lot of cases, thrown out of stores. Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.
The question isn't weather the new ratings system that they try to install works for the parents, if the games that don't meet the best selling standard can't be found on the shelf at wal-mart, the game manufacturers won't bother making it.
Nahh... this is just something that she can yell about later about how she supported it, not that it'll ever get passed. Just like Bush and the amendment banning gay marriage. They will never really try and do it, they just talk about it a lot at the right time so that the red state homophobes will think that they're on "their side".
This is all just Clinton's push to look like she's in the middle. I doubt she'll take it as far as Tipper did with her censorship campaign. It's gonna be great to see where Bill fits in all of this.
Personally, I'd pick a name at random out of the phone book and take my chances rather than the fuck-ups that are currently running the show.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce conference on intellectual property crime that the laws were needed because piracy is getting easier, the money it generates finds its way to other illegal activities -- including terrorism -- and the nation's economy depends on the copyright-enabled industries.
The difference is that Sony doesn't support --Terrorism!!!--- like copyright infringment obviously does.
Seriously, is anybody still falling for this shit?
(Decades later, this entity would be spun off and renamed "Lucent Technologies.")
And, in the future it will simply be known as "Bangalore" or "India"
Re:Look at the other side of the coin
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
OT and IANAL, but I don't belive that this would be abused because if they did discover something illegal in their search under their belief that a crime was in progress, it could be thrown out if the crime in progress was anything but genuine. (Too much Law & Order reruns.)
Wouldn't it be better to read the article, no matter what the viewpoint is, and apply a bit of scientific method to it? Rather than dismiss it out of hand because of who owns what and what he wrote previously? How would you like it if after making an effort to be fair, and did the experiments to see where performance or user experieince differs in the two packages, only to have it posted on slashdot and dismissed on the spot because 'Slashdot is biased towards the OSS community, so they probably lied.'?
It's the same thing as if you are on the left and you see something on FOX News, you can dismiss it with no further thought and you might be correct to do so. A lot of things have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at best or frequent lies by omission on that channel. But I would think that true "critical thinking" would be figuring that out for yourself, or at least watching it and confirming or denying the group opinion for yourself.
It would be a shame to overlook something that may need to be addressed just because it came from a source that you don't like. If Open Office really is that slow, it's a valid mitigating factor in not using it. If it's misleading, find out why. But I think it's just as foolish to ignore something because you don't like who told you it, much less, to expect everyone else to ignore it too.
First of all, you know how much those old people like to vote? I was looking forward to retiring and running a condo association when I get to be 60. Those old curmodgeons are never gonna die now! This is gonna suck.
And do you have any IDEA how fucked social security is if this is true?
Have you ever seen someone that is 100 years old? Now imagine that's only 10% done. Look at the skin on your elbow with your arm straight out... and imagine a bag of that with eyes.
On the plus side, my grandparents always did give the best gifts.
This is a poorly designed structure. That's a bad idea no matter what the OS or license is. If that was an open source structure that was designed this poorly and not a windows one, it should have be replaced or upgraded. The fact that it was windows is irrelevant.
Not spending any money on your IT infrastructure is a poor decision, regardless of the OS. No open source solution will solve that. It takes money to keep good people and keep any system running correctly. Arguements aside of what's cheaper, better, faster, whatever.
This sounds like half of the story. Either there was a good reason he had no budget, or it was just saving money in a stupid way. But I don't care how much you like any OS. Anyone who would haphazardly switch any OS in an enterprise class system, without even obtaining permission, is simply dangerous and undeserving of a budget. The problems mentioned at the end of the article are a great indication of why it's a bad idea to do it without planning. The problem he should have solved is working at a company that doesn't want to support IT.
This has to be one of the poorest examples of a good use of open source software. Do you really want to cater to a company that will be that cheap? Whats that budget going to look like next year?
Use persuasion, coercion, shame, and whatever else. It will eventually stigmatize the members to be openly called RIAA members.
Sounds like the same stuff that Scientology does against their enemies. Pretty effective. I'd think that it would just make them more anonymous, or they'd spin it to legitimize their stance. I think a better idea is to fight industry with industry. Make sure you support the hell out of XM and Sirius if they fight the good fight against the RIAA. They have very expensive lawyers with extemely thin watches to do the bashing for you.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I'm writing this reply on a stolen computer, is it still my comment?
Wouldn't that conceivably allow someone to hijack a plane without even boarding it? Just how do you secure that?
Planes could have flown themselves for years now, the main reason the overpaid passengers are there is to make the rest of the passengers feel warm and cozy.
My understanding is that these planes get their inputs from Satellite and ground based stations. Just to imagine one nightmare scenario, a solar flare knocks out the GPS satellites, and knocks out the power on the ground. Better shielding protects the aircraft from the flare. By some estimates, you have 60,000 people in the air at any time. I'd personally rather have the "Overpaid passenger" there than a computer attendant. Not saying the current solution is perfect by any means, but I don't share your enthusiasm to remove humans from the equation. Especially to save 10% on the cost of a ticket.
It should be easy to establish that a heartbeat somewhere should have the control of the plane. Leaving the choice of inside or outside of the plane. If you introduce the override outside of the plane, now you don't even have to be inside of the airplane to hijack it. (Isn't this what the 9/11 conspiracy sites allege?)
Someone somewhere has to have the master control that no one can override. Either the guy in the plane, or the guy on the ground. Either of them could be hijacked. Personally, I trust the person in the plane. Sounds like they are fixing a problem that doesn't really need to be fixed, and introducing a rather larger security hole.
But then us Californians would have to find a new Governor. Sorry, that should be "Kuh-lee-for-nee-anns".
So what is the standby time on this thing? How often does this thing need charging?
Censoring, v : To examine and expurgate.
I typed "define: Censorship" into my Google, and since you took your favorite definition, I'll take mine. =)
"Censorship is the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression, largely in regard to secretive matters. Sanitization (cleaning or decontamination) and whitewashing (from whitewash) are almost interchangeable terms that refer to particular acts or campaigns of censorship or omission which seek to "clean up" the portrayal of particular issues and facts which are already known, but which may conflict with a presented point of view." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
So, to solve this, do a find and replace on my post to change every occurrence of "Censor[ing,ship]" to "Effective censor[ing,ship]". In the end, it's frivolous semantics. I mean, doesn't it have the same net effect of actual bonafide censorship?
Nowhere in this idea is any material given the inalienable right to be commercially successful. The material can still be made. I know it seems like I'm being nit picky here, but that's just because I want people to realize they are fighting on the wrong front.
This isn't about what will be successful, it's about what will be denied the chance to be successful. Material that doesn't pass their filter is denied the chance to be successful, and thus, won't be made or will be watered down. And they know it. Can they still make it, sure. Hell, I can make popsicles made of mayonnaise but no one is going to buy them. Okay, maybe the dutch will. But if you make a law saying mayonnaise products are evil, and I could possibly incur losses for my store by even stocking them, they would have even less of a chance. Are you banning them? No.
Hillary's plan is meant to fail. It's real goal is to garner public and peer support for her presidential run. That's it.
Couldn't agree more. Pushing towards the middle worked pretty well for Bill. Get some controversy now... years before anything matters, when no one that disagrees with you will remember. Then as the time to election comes up, you can talk about how you tried to institute a ratings system in your speech to the red states.
The same thing will happen with games. Rock and Roll was once the tool of the devil, so much that churches boycotted radio stations and stores that sold or played it. Well, Rock and Roll has now mutated into so many aggressive offshoots I don't know where to start. I do know that it isn't gone or being censored.
Not to mention the "Jungle Rhythms" of the black music! It was corrupting! Alan Freed and the Payola 'Scandal'. And Jazz before that. And the religious ban on dancing among many Protestants in the nineteenth century. Hell, in the past just hanging around barber shops made you a bad person. Same old story.
If you really want to nip this in the bud, we need to get a credible lobbyist group together who are willing to force one point home, most video games are NOT for kids. Most movies, TV shows, and Music isn't either. This is a matter of correcting the PR and getting the public perception to align itself more correctly with the truth of the matter.
This is where I majorly disagree. I think the blame for little johnny seeing a movie that gives him nightmares lies directly on the parents. It's not my job to make the world safe for anyone's kid. I already pay more for cable so he doesn't hear any words or, god forbid, see a boob. I already pay more in taxes, since every parent that spawns another trogladite pays less. It's not my job to say what is and isn't right for anyone else or their kids, conversely, it's not their right either. It's not like GTA3 has pictures of bunnies and unicorns on the cover. This is not deceptively sneaking into a kids head. The parents let it in by not being involved in their life enough to know what they will allow, and to a larger extent, they don't trust their kids enough to make their own decisions. ...alright, that's enough ranting for me. I can dream, can't I?
While I agree with not having much sympathy, I have to think that if that if that first album wasn't on the shelf at the local k-mart, I might not have heard it. The PMRC and religious right had mailing campaigns to make sure that chains like Sam Goody and Tower records knew that if they carried stickered artists within reach of their kids, their constituents would boycott the stores. They wrote owners of malls and told them that if they didn't kick out those stores that didn't give in (Especially the smaller, non-chain stores.) they would boycott the whole mall. This is not a small mailing list either. That was the censorship, and without the fear of outside regulation, the Beasties wouldn't have had to self-regulate. (Also, I bet it affected their distribution to a higher degree than their money, since I doubt they were making a lot of money from record sales on a debut.)
If you make a MARKETING decision that compromises your content for more sales, than so be it. But please don't try to confuse the issue with censorship, because it's not the same.
In the case of games or music, I would think ALL marketing decisions have the goal of more sales. It's different in games because marketing doesn't compromise your content, because marketing determines your content in the first place. GTA3 wasn't made because there were some guys that liked to make games about killing others and stealing cars, GTA3 was made because there is a significant portion of sick fucks out there (Myself included) that like the idea of having a game where you can beat a hooker to death with a giant dildo.
This is exactly the beauty of how this censorship works. By classifying your product with a rating outside of the major distribution channels because of its content, major distribution channels don't sell your stuff, your sales are marginalized. Semantics aside, yes, it is censorship because someone is determining what's acceptable content, and allowing only product that they deem 'appropriate' to be successful.
Putting a little sticker on your work means shit. Everything has a little sticker on it, no one cares. When Tipper pulled this it was kinda new, but after a little while no one paid attention to it anymore. In fact, it became a marketing tool on it's own.
I'm glad it failed too! If they would have won the case against Dead Kennedys for "Distributing harmful material to minors" (A painting by H.R. Geiger on the CD jacket considered obscene.) maybe things would have gone further. If there wasn't such a big fight over the issue and so much resistance from big artists in the music industry, what would have stopped them? But for a while there, that sticker did mean shit and it definitely affected more than a few artists then. Just because that sticker doesn't mean anything now doesn't mean it wasn't scary as all hell then.
Well, if this plays out anything like the Tipper stickers did, it will regulate content. She used the same defense... that this is to help parents make informed choices for their kids. What it actually did was keep records with tipper stickers from selling, and in a lot of cases, thrown out of stores. Bands like the Beastie Boys capitulated to the threats of getting a sticker and pulled profanity from their records so that they could still get sold in the big chain stores.
The question isn't weather the new ratings system that they try to install works for the parents, if the games that don't meet the best selling standard can't be found on the shelf at wal-mart, the game manufacturers won't bother making it.
This is all just Clinton's push to look like she's in the middle. I doubt she'll take it as far as Tipper did with her censorship campaign. It's gonna be great to see where Bill fits in all of this.
Personally, I'd pick a name at random out of the phone book and take my chances rather than the fuck-ups that are currently running the show.
Which is, ironically, what people that use the pull-out method are called.
So when do they announce the massive no-bid reconstruction contracts for KBR?
The difference is that Sony doesn't support --Terrorism!!!--- like copyright infringment obviously does.
Seriously, is anybody still falling for this shit?
Twice, usually.
...now that Sony has solved the piracy problem, the cost of CDs can be reduced! Right?
5 Comments in 45 minutes? This must be some strange use of the word "Interest" that I was previously unaware of.
Might just make more sense to change their name to "India"
And, in the future it will simply be known as "Bangalore" or "India"
OT and IANAL, but I don't belive that this would be abused because if they did discover something illegal in their search under their belief that a crime was in progress, it could be thrown out if the crime in progress was anything but genuine. (Too much Law & Order reruns.)
I belive that's called a Gnab Gib
It's the same thing as if you are on the left and you see something on FOX News, you can dismiss it with no further thought and you might be correct to do so. A lot of things have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at best or frequent lies by omission on that channel. But I would think that true "critical thinking" would be figuring that out for yourself, or at least watching it and confirming or denying the group opinion for yourself.
It would be a shame to overlook something that may need to be addressed just because it came from a source that you don't like. If Open Office really is that slow, it's a valid mitigating factor in not using it. If it's misleading, find out why. But I think it's just as foolish to ignore something because you don't like who told you it, much less, to expect everyone else to ignore it too.
And do you have any IDEA how fucked social security is if this is true?
Have you ever seen someone that is 100 years old? Now imagine that's only 10% done. Look at the skin on your elbow with your arm straight out... and imagine a bag of that with eyes.
On the plus side, my grandparents always did give the best gifts.
Not spending any money on your IT infrastructure is a poor decision, regardless of the OS. No open source solution will solve that. It takes money to keep good people and keep any system running correctly. Arguements aside of what's cheaper, better, faster, whatever.
This sounds like half of the story. Either there was a good reason he had no budget, or it was just saving money in a stupid way. But I don't care how much you like any OS. Anyone who would haphazardly switch any OS in an enterprise class system, without even obtaining permission, is simply dangerous and undeserving of a budget. The problems mentioned at the end of the article are a great indication of why it's a bad idea to do it without planning. The problem he should have solved is working at a company that doesn't want to support IT.
This has to be one of the poorest examples of a good use of open source software. Do you really want to cater to a company that will be that cheap? Whats that budget going to look like next year?
...then the white house would post a parody of The Onion using their seal.
Sounds like the same stuff that Scientology does against their enemies. Pretty effective. I'd think that it would just make them more anonymous, or they'd spin it to legitimize their stance. I think a better idea is to fight industry with industry. Make sure you support the hell out of XM and Sirius if they fight the good fight against the RIAA. They have very expensive lawyers with extemely thin watches to do the bashing for you.
Stryker is off the game finally. Now if we could only get him off the airwaves here in L.A.