If you call it a virus, then you have to deal with it yourself. Microsoft has repeatedly shown an inability to handle such things. If you call it terrorism, it's the government's responsibility.
No, Microsoft can't transfer all responsibility to the government simply by pushing to get viruses classed as terrorism. Theft is a crime, and the government is responsible for enforcing laws that forbid it, but that hasn't stopped companies and individuals from employing security guards, locks, car alarms, etc. Think about it; suppose you're putting some of your stuff in storage. There's a convenient storage place nearby, but you know they have a history of breakins. Are you going to be reassured that theft is illegal, and the government is responsible to find and punish the criminals, or are you going to look for some place with better security measures?
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
There are plenty of reasons to think that a computer face recognition system would help. Suppose there are 10,000 individuals who are on the FBI's list of suspected terrorists. Who's going to have a better chance of remembering and successfully comparing all those faces - a security guard or a face recognition system? I know who I've got my money on.
Of course, we shouldn't be locking people up based exclusively on a positive match, just like we would double-check when a human guard claimed to have found a match. However, a face recognition system can act in concert with human security details, helping to bring attention to likely problems.
Is there potential for such systems to be abused? Yes. Can they be circumvented with some effort? Yes. Are they a good additional line of defense even if they're not a panacea? Yes. We've already seen how poor security can be abused. I'll take my chances with seeing good security abused.
Enter a tall, thin chap in a black cloak and bearing a huge white feather, who sets about banishing you to the IPT.
For those of you who don't have children, the IPT reference is to the Island of Perpetual Tickling. To understand it, you need to watch VeggieTales. They're great! The particular reference is to Esther.
Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, I still don't have service restored. Here's a copy of an email I sent to help@microsoft.com this morning. I haven't had a reply yet.
Dear Sir or Madam:
The article here (http://messenger.msn.com/support/helphome.asp) proclaims that MSN Messenger service has been restored "to all our worldwide customers." The article is dated today, July 10, at 2:45 a.m. PDT. As of 9:15 a.m. CST, I am still unable to log in. The error message I'm getting is the same as it has been for the past week. I've included a screenshot below, and copied the text of the dialog below in case the image doesn't come through.
[MSN Messenger Service]
Signing in to MSN Messenger Service failed because the service is not responding. The service is not available or you may not be connected to the Internet.
[Retry] [Cancel]
I am definitely connected to the Internet (I found the article, didn't I?), and nothing in my configuration has changed since the problems with MSN Messenger service began. I'm pretty confident that the problem is on your end.
I am a software developer, and Microsoft's ability to deliver consistent service will have a strong bearing on my willingness to adopt Hailstorm technologies into my future software projects. My faith is growing weaker by the minute. The clock is ticking.
Sincerely,
Dan Jagnow
Senior Developer
Wireless Verticals, Inc.
Write and call. I am not a Georgia resident, so my voice may not have much weight. But I would encourage Slashdot readers who are Georgia residents to write to your state elected officials.
The state of Georgia is prosecuting this guy, and the state can drop its case at any time. Your elected state officials are very sensitive to public opinion, and it's not like they have a lot to gain by seeing this poor fellow "brought to justice," so they may be perfectly willing to admit a mistake and walk away with minimal PR damage.
Don't be rude, and make sure you double-check the facts first, but it might not hurt to suggest that some investigative reporter at a local television station might find the story interesting.
Caveats:
IANAL
IANAGR (I am not a Georgia resident)
All I know about this story is what I've read on Slashdot. The state of Georgia might have some very interesting additional detail to add, so don't crucify them without asking for an explanation first. This is especially true since the story seems to be based purely on David McOwen's rendition.
I "foresaw" a videogame system that would let the kid play on the TV at the same time the parents were watching the TV. The kid would control a little game character who could run around in the foreground -- and make karate moves and stuff, so that the kid could punch and kick the actors in the TV show that the parents were watching, in real time. And whenever a kick "connected" with an actor, the machine would display a "biff" or "pow." Of course, the actors wouldn't show any reaction, but the kid would be having fun.
That has never happened in the 15+ years since I foresaw this. It still might, I guess.
I now understand why cool, truly innovative games are so rare.
Scientists have just discovered a previously extinct tree in Mauritius.
Wow, it was previously extinct? Did it spontaneously re-evolve from a related species? Or maybe the science of Jurassic Park isn't as far off as we thought...
(Note to moderators: This should be classed as Funny, not Insightful.)
I can't believe this comment got modded up to +5 when the comment it is replying to explains the issue so clearly. "the Software" (with a capital 'S') refers to Microsoft's Mobile Internet Toolkit. At no point does the quoted text refer to software created with the Software; again, note the capital 'S'. All they are saying is that they don't want the code they wrote being redistributed contrary to their wishes. That seems quite reasonable to me.
When I saw the above post, which indicates that this story is stripped almost verbatim from the manual, my first reaction was "wow, Slashdot, what an impressive piece of investigative journalism; you read the manual!"
After taking a few moments to contemplate this, though, it occurred to me that this really might be a newsworthy item. It's entirely possible that this is the first time that someone not employed by Phoenix actually read the manual and understood the implications. How many of us have read the entire manual for even a fraction of the hardware and software we own?
It's a trivial observation that we're drowning in information, but this is just one more case study that shows how easy it is to be unaware of what's going on behind the scenes.
This story was posted "from the take-aim-at-foot,-fire dept." I'd like to know why.
This is a commercial company. They need to make more money than they spend on product development. How are they shooting themselves in the foot by cutting their losses?
I have no idea how the courts and nations involved will end up resolving these questions, but here's how I think they should resolve it...
There are typically two parties involved in a commercial transaction on the Web: the buyer and the seller. I think each party ought to be subject to the laws of their native country. If the U.S. wants to make it illegal to gamble online, so be it - there won't be any gambling sites hosted in the U.S. If France wants to disallow the sale of Nazi memorabilia, so be it - French citzens purchasing Nazi memorabilia will be subject to fines.
Of course, this approach doesn't address multiple-party transactions, and it doesn't recognize "carrier" parties - the owner of an Internet backbone that routes some of the bits that enable the transaction or a credit card issuer that authorizes the transaction. Those are tougher to deal with because they can't really be held accountable for probing the exact nature of the transactions they are enabling.
The only other alternative I see is an internation treaty describing universal rules for Internet usage, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Thank you for that wonderful post. Others will now be able to see you Winvocates for what you really are. Angry, rude, and full of hate. A dying breed, proponents of the last of the proprietary operating systems.
Um, be that as it may, the article that this post is about may not have been angry or full of hate, but it was certainly rude and juvenile. It refers to Microsoft employees as "droids" and "bulldogs". It's pretty rough on a guy who was just asking the Linux advocates to comply with the exhibitor contract, as another poster has pointed out.
Less venom, please. More substance. There are zealots enough in both camps.
It's nice to see that somebody who doesn't approve of pornography got modded up. It makes me sad that so many people consider sex between two (+/-) random people to be the natural, "right" way for things to be.
Somehow, I don't think the authors of the first amendment had porn on their short list of forms of expression that needed protection.
Let me first say that I haven't read the book, so this is a commentary on ideas expressed in the review, not necessarily a critique of Raskin's work.
I can't imagine a computer without applications. Just the system and content? I don't think so. The idea that I'm somehow going to work on letters, play Quake, order a book, write an application, and do some Web research -- treating all of these things as "content" -- smacks of the ludicrous.
Now it is possible to imagine devices with which this is possible. If you've got a little Web browsing terminal that does nothing but Web browsing, then consistency is no problem. But then we're not talking about "real" computers anymore, with all their power and flexibility. The interface has to adapt to what you're trying to do if it's going to be usable, and that sure sounds like "applications" to me.
I've got a Ryobi that I use for yard work. I own a weed whacker attachment and an edger attachment, and there are more to buy. Does it confuse me when I change attachments? Do I suddenly forget how to use it? No! I pick the right tool for the task at hand. You don't want to try weed whacking with an edger or vice-versa. Computers need applications so the interface will match the task.
Simplicity? Consistency? Less knowledge about guts of the system required? Those are great ideas. But think it through before giving up on applications. We need 'em.
One way to satisfy all sides might be for companies to offer free voluntary testing for genetic predispositions that may affect someone's fitness for that line of work. Then everybody really does win. No one's privacy is invaded, the company doesn't have to shell out lots of money to support someone who isn't making them any profits, and the worker avoids unnecessary health risks.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you, it just means you get to say whatever you want.
Well said. I found JonKatz's comments to be a bit too idealistic:
The truth is that people who increasingly turn to filtering programs (including ready-made portal sites) become accustomed to censoring ideas they think they may not like. But they can't ever really be sure, since they have no idea what they're not seeing, or how the person or ideas they are blocking might have evolved.
It's true that someone's views and ideas may have evolved, that they may have new arguments that are worth considering. But who has the time to read even a fraction of the information that is available on the Web? You have to play the odds. If you hear something useful and informative from a site or a person, keep an eye out for them in the future; you're likely to get more. If you encounter something particularly offensive or simple-minded, don't go back for more. You're likely to get more of the same.
Moderation and preferences are a necessary evil. They're imperfect filters that help you get to the information and ideas that you think will be of value.
I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of your statement that the theory of evolution is the best way to "make verifiable predictions about events." This is absolutely true and very well-documented if you are talking about natural selection. However, evolution requires much more substantial changes, to the point of speciation - a division into multiple species that can't interbreed. There are no documented cases of this happening in recorded history.
In fairness, I have seen a lot of bad creation science. I am a Christian, and I have great respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible relative to other works of the time. However, I don't read the early chapters of Genesis literally. I think that there is a very strong case for the traditional scientific view that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years, not thousands.
That being said, there are a number of tough problems with the theory of evolution that any good mathematician or biologist will tell you about. The oft-cited Darwin on Trial is actually a fairly balanced read on that subject. I personally believe that there are a number of ways that evolutionary theory may be salvaged, but like the current state of textbook physics, the current theory doesn't account for all the evidence well.
As in "I am Lex Luthor and I can destroy Metropolis unless you dye your hair blue"?
A ridiculous example, but yes. In this fallen world, military power brings leverage. Would I rather see ethical behavior prevail, or see diplomatic solutions succeed? Absolutely. But when hope in peaceful alternatives fails, economic sanctions and military force are the remaining options. Military power gives leverage; then it's a question of how you use it. I'm not arguing that any particular nation would use that power well, only that it should, and that it has to have the power before it can choose how to use it.
A nation that want to secure a good and peaceful tomorrow had best be investing a bit less in economical development, democracy, human rights and the environment both at home and abroad.
Investing in military technologies may not do much for the environment, but such investments can support economic development, democracy, and human rights. In an ideal world, military power would be unnecessary. In case you haven't looked around recently, this is not an ideal world.
So you'd just twiddle your thumbs while an invading army ravages your homeland? Or you'd have simply watched Hitler send the Jews to the ovens?
I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible provides the highest moral standard for behavior. But even in the Bible, God called his people to go to war. When you consider the history of God's relationship with his people Israel, it becomes clear that "Thou shalt not kill" should be rendered "Thout shalt not murder." They have very different meanings. There is such a thing as a morally justified military action.
Slashdot Mirror
If you call it a virus, then you have to deal with it yourself. Microsoft has repeatedly shown an inability to handle such things. If you call it terrorism, it's the government's responsibility.
No, Microsoft can't transfer all responsibility to the government simply by pushing to get viruses classed as terrorism. Theft is a crime, and the government is responsible for enforcing laws that forbid it, but that hasn't stopped companies and individuals from employing security guards, locks, car alarms, etc. Think about it; suppose you're putting some of your stuff in storage. There's a convenient storage place nearby, but you know they have a history of breakins. Are you going to be reassured that theft is illegal, and the government is responsible to find and punish the criminals, or are you going to look for some place with better security measures?
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
There are plenty of reasons to think that a computer face recognition system would help. Suppose there are 10,000 individuals who are on the FBI's list of suspected terrorists. Who's going to have a better chance of remembering and successfully comparing all those faces - a security guard or a face recognition system? I know who I've got my money on.
Of course, we shouldn't be locking people up based exclusively on a positive match, just like we would double-check when a human guard claimed to have found a match. However, a face recognition system can act in concert with human security details, helping to bring attention to likely problems.
Is there potential for such systems to be abused? Yes. Can they be circumvented with some effort? Yes. Are they a good additional line of defense even if they're not a panacea? Yes. We've already seen how poor security can be abused. I'll take my chances with seeing good security abused.
Enter a tall, thin chap in a black cloak and bearing a huge white feather, who sets about banishing you to the IPT.
For those of you who don't have children, the IPT reference is to the Island of Perpetual Tickling. To understand it, you need to watch VeggieTales. They're great! The particular reference is to
Esther.
Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, I still don't have service restored. Here's a copy of an email I sent to help@microsoft.com this morning. I haven't had a reply yet.
Dear Sir or Madam:
The article here (http://messenger.msn.com/support/helphome.asp) proclaims that MSN Messenger service has been restored "to all our worldwide customers." The article is dated today, July 10, at 2:45 a.m. PDT. As of 9:15 a.m. CST, I am still unable to log in. The error message I'm getting is the same as it has been for the past week. I've included a screenshot below, and copied the text of the dialog below in case the image doesn't come through.
[MSN Messenger Service]
Signing in to MSN Messenger Service failed because the service is not responding. The service is not available or you may not be connected to the Internet.
[Retry] [Cancel]
I am definitely connected to the Internet (I found the article, didn't I?), and nothing in my configuration has changed since the problems with MSN Messenger service began. I'm pretty confident that the problem is on your end.
I am a software developer, and Microsoft's ability to deliver consistent service will have a strong bearing on my willingness to adopt Hailstorm technologies into my future software projects. My faith is growing weaker by the minute. The clock is ticking.
Sincerely,
Dan Jagnow
Senior Developer
Wireless Verticals, Inc.
Write and call. I am not a Georgia resident, so my voice may not have much weight. But I would encourage Slashdot readers who are Georgia residents to write to your state elected officials.
The state of Georgia is prosecuting this guy, and the state can drop its case at any time. Your elected state officials are very sensitive to public opinion, and it's not like they have a lot to gain by seeing this poor fellow "brought to justice," so they may be perfectly willing to admit a mistake and walk away with minimal PR damage.
Don't be rude, and make sure you double-check the facts first, but it might not hurt to suggest that some investigative reporter at a local television station might find the story interesting.
Caveats:
From the interview with Sloper:
I "foresaw" a videogame system that would let the kid play on the TV at the same time the parents were watching the TV. The kid would control a little game character who could run around in the foreground -- and make karate moves and stuff, so that the kid could punch and kick the actors in the TV show that the parents were watching, in real time. And whenever a kick "connected" with an actor, the machine would display a "biff" or "pow." Of course, the actors wouldn't show any reaction, but the kid would be having fun.
That has never happened in the 15+ years since I foresaw this. It still might, I guess.
I now understand why cool, truly innovative games are so rare.
Gadgets which let you control everything in a room from light bulbs (which have assigned URL's )to smart kitchen-tops to a wireless enabled car.
How long until it becomes passé for hackers to make visitors to their home feel like they're in the Twilight Zone?
Scientists have just discovered a previously extinct tree in Mauritius.
Wow, it was previously extinct? Did it spontaneously re-evolve from a related species? Or maybe the science of Jurassic Park isn't as far off as we thought...
(Note to moderators: This should be classed as Funny, not Insightful.)
I can't believe this comment got modded up to +5 when the comment it is replying to explains the issue so clearly. "the Software" (with a capital 'S') refers to Microsoft's Mobile Internet Toolkit. At no point does the quoted text refer to software created with the Software; again, note the capital 'S'. All they are saying is that they don't want the code they wrote being redistributed contrary to their wishes. That seems quite reasonable to me.
In summary, yes, this story is a troll.
Only on Slashdot...
When I saw the above post, which indicates that this story is stripped almost verbatim from the manual, my first reaction was "wow, Slashdot, what an impressive piece of investigative journalism; you read the manual!"
After taking a few moments to contemplate this, though, it occurred to me that this really might be a newsworthy item. It's entirely possible that this is the first time that someone not employed by Phoenix actually read the manual and understood the implications. How many of us have read the entire manual for even a fraction of the hardware and software we own?
It's a trivial observation that we're drowning in information, but this is just one more case study that shows how easy it is to be unaware of what's going on behind the scenes.
I'm trying to imagine a Beowulf cluster of these, but I'm not sure where they'd all go...
This story was posted "from the take-aim-at-foot,-fire dept." I'd like to know why.
This is a commercial company. They need to make more money than they spend on product development. How are they shooting themselves in the foot by cutting their losses?
I have no idea how the courts and nations involved will end up resolving these questions, but here's how I think they should resolve it...
There are typically two parties involved in a commercial transaction on the Web: the buyer and the seller. I think each party ought to be subject to the laws of their native country. If the U.S. wants to make it illegal to gamble online, so be it - there won't be any gambling sites hosted in the U.S. If France wants to disallow the sale of Nazi memorabilia, so be it - French citzens purchasing Nazi memorabilia will be subject to fines.
Of course, this approach doesn't address multiple-party transactions, and it doesn't recognize "carrier" parties - the owner of an Internet backbone that routes some of the bits that enable the transaction or a credit card issuer that authorizes the transaction. Those are tougher to deal with because they can't really be held accountable for probing the exact nature of the transactions they are enabling.
The only other alternative I see is an internation treaty describing universal rules for Internet usage, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Grammar Nazi, where are you when we need you?
Thank you for that wonderful post. Others will now be able to see you Winvocates for what you really are. Angry, rude, and full of hate. A dying breed, proponents of the last of the proprietary operating systems.
Um, be that as it may, the article that this post is about may not have been angry or full of hate, but it was certainly rude and juvenile. It refers to Microsoft employees as "droids" and "bulldogs". It's pretty rough on a guy who was just asking the Linux advocates to comply with the exhibitor contract, as another poster has pointed out.
Less venom, please. More substance. There are zealots enough in both camps.
So you either work in an open source shop or a Windows shop, eh? I'll have to notify my employer. We're violating the rules.
It's nice to see that somebody who doesn't approve of pornography got modded up. It makes me sad that so many people consider sex between two (+/-) random people to be the natural, "right" way for things to be.
Somehow, I don't think the authors of the first amendment had porn on their short list of forms of expression that needed protection.
Let me first say that I haven't read the book, so this is a commentary on ideas expressed in the review, not necessarily a critique of Raskin's work.
I can't imagine a computer without applications. Just the system and content? I don't think so. The idea that I'm somehow going to work on letters, play Quake, order a book, write an application, and do some Web research -- treating all of these things as "content" -- smacks of the ludicrous.
Now it is possible to imagine devices with which this is possible. If you've got a little Web browsing terminal that does nothing but Web browsing, then consistency is no problem. But then we're not talking about "real" computers anymore, with all their power and flexibility. The interface has to adapt to what you're trying to do if it's going to be usable, and that sure sounds like "applications" to me.
I've got a Ryobi that I use for yard work. I own a weed whacker attachment and an edger attachment, and there are more to buy. Does it confuse me when I change attachments? Do I suddenly forget how to use it? No! I pick the right tool for the task at hand. You don't want to try weed whacking with an edger or vice-versa. Computers need applications so the interface will match the task.
Simplicity? Consistency? Less knowledge about guts of the system required? Those are great ideas. But think it through before giving up on applications. We need 'em.
One way to satisfy all sides might be for companies to offer free voluntary testing for genetic predispositions that may affect someone's fitness for that line of work. Then everybody really does win. No one's privacy is invaded, the company doesn't have to shell out lots of money to support someone who isn't making them any profits, and the worker avoids unnecessary health risks.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you, it just means you get to say whatever you want.
Well said. I found JonKatz's comments to be a bit too idealistic:
The truth is that people who increasingly turn to filtering programs (including ready-made portal sites) become accustomed to censoring ideas they think they may not like. But they can't ever really be sure, since they have no idea what they're not seeing, or how the person or ideas they are blocking might have evolved.
It's true that someone's views and ideas may have evolved, that they may have new arguments that are worth considering. But who has the time to read even a fraction of the information that is available on the Web? You have to play the odds. If you hear something useful and informative from a site or a person, keep an eye out for them in the future; you're likely to get more. If you encounter something particularly offensive or simple-minded, don't go back for more. You're likely to get more of the same.
Moderation and preferences are a necessary evil. They're imperfect filters that help you get to the information and ideas that you think will be of value.
"We have no fuel on board, plus or minus 8 kilograms," said one NEAR scientist.
Here's hoping for minus 8 kilograms. I hear those antimatter drives get even better mileage than a Honda. ;-)
This is a book you literally will not be able to put down.
So they coat the jacket with Superglue?
I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of your statement that the theory of evolution is the best way to "make verifiable predictions about events." This is absolutely true and very well-documented if you are talking about natural selection. However, evolution requires much more substantial changes, to the point of speciation - a division into multiple species that can't interbreed. There are no documented cases of this happening in recorded history.
In fairness, I have seen a lot of bad creation science. I am a Christian, and I have great respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible relative to other works of the time. However, I don't read the early chapters of Genesis literally. I think that there is a very strong case for the traditional scientific view that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years, not thousands.
That being said, there are a number of tough problems with the theory of evolution that any good mathematician or biologist will tell you about. The oft-cited Darwin on Trial is actually a fairly balanced read on that subject. I personally believe that there are a number of ways that evolutionary theory may be salvaged, but like the current state of textbook physics, the current theory doesn't account for all the evidence well.
As in "I am Lex Luthor and I can destroy Metropolis unless you dye your hair blue"?
A ridiculous example, but yes. In this fallen world, military power brings leverage. Would I rather see ethical behavior prevail, or see diplomatic solutions succeed? Absolutely. But when hope in peaceful alternatives fails, economic sanctions and military force are the remaining options. Military power gives leverage; then it's a question of how you use it. I'm not arguing that any particular nation would use that power well, only that it should, and that it has to have the power before it can choose how to use it.
A nation that want to secure a good and peaceful tomorrow had best be investing a bit less in economical development, democracy, human rights and the environment both at home and abroad.
Investing in military technologies may not do much for the environment, but such investments can support economic development, democracy, and human rights. In an ideal world, military power would be unnecessary. In case you haven't looked around recently, this is not an ideal world.
So you'd just twiddle your thumbs while an invading army ravages your homeland? Or you'd have simply watched Hitler send the Jews to the ovens?
I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible provides the highest moral standard for behavior. But even in the Bible, God called his people to go to war. When you consider the history of God's relationship with his people Israel, it becomes clear that "Thou shalt not kill" should be rendered "Thout shalt not murder." They have very different meanings. There is such a thing as a morally justified military action.