When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.
Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras? I suggest you think about what you're saying again.
This is like those morons who think you shouldn't wear seatbelts because in 1 in 10,000 accidents they hurt you instead of help save you.
Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players
"Exploit" is one of those fuzzy words you use when you don't really have a word for any real wrong-doing to put in its place. Try replace the word with something more concrete, like "steal from", and the argument falls flat.
It's a stretch to equate what casinos do, with blatant stealing.
Also, since you are literally trying to justifying stealing, then on the face of it, it seems to be your morals that are in doubt here. You are a person who admits he "doesn't see a problem with stealing", but you go around attempting to morally criticize others who are not stealing, but providing an entertainment service that is entered into on a mutually voluntary basis.
If one opens a history book, one thing one learns is that NEVER in the history of oppressed peoples, ever, did the oppressed people entirely stop fighting for their freedom. Ever. It's never happened. So it might seem like Americans have turned into a bunch of couch potatoes, but those eager to destroy the Bill of Rights should not get too excited thinking that it's about to happen now for the first time in history that the victims just roll over. Not gonna happen. As long as there are infringers of freedom, there will be freedom fighters - it is in human nature.
The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so just get over it... as long as there are fascists like you trying to violate the rights of others, there will be people fighting for freedom.
Don't you think it's a bigger problem that the major media conglomerates are basically just operating wings of the two major political parties in the first place?
Given the whole purpose of fracking is to release natural gas (which is primarily methane), this amazing revelation amounts to, "Fracking works!" Thanks for telling us that,/.
Lol.. in other news radtea poured gasoline onto the ground and then tried to start his car, puzzled that it wouldn't start.
Actually a small armed resistance can be very effective against an oppressive tyrannical government - that is exactly how the Apartheid government was defeated, for example. Study some history.
"... could be required to submit each network related action to a central clearing authority for approval"
Yes, we should hook all of humanity's weapons into a giant central AI for real-time arbitration of all firing decisions. We could call it "Skynet", perhaps. What could go wrong.
And another adjacent memorial could list those whose lives were lost because they had been disarmed and could not defend themselves, both from criminal attackers and criminal governments. That memorial would be at least 6 orders of magnitude larger than the first.
They don't "keep going after aircraft".. check the stats in my other comment next to that one. Aircraft hijacking attempts are less than 1 fifth of 1 percent of terrorist attacks. In other words over 99.8% of terrorist attacks are not targeted at aircraft, and over 99.3% are not targeted at aircraft or airports or anything airline-related. Please do yourself a favor, go to the Global Terrorism Database that I linked, download the stats, and open them yourself.
It was rather shocking actually and has permanently destroyed my acceptance of capitalism... someone needs to legislate this out of existence because we're fucked if society ends up at the hands of nutjobs like them
A minor detail you probably failed to notice is that the primary demand for systems like this is driven by government-mandated legislation-driven compulsory security requirements. Society is already being controlled by nutjobs like them, they're called 'Congress'.
Islamic terrorists want to die in the attack so they can become martyrs and collect their 72 virgins
It is because of this that terrorists mostly prefer not to target airlines... because airline security is so tight, they tend to end up just getting caught and rot in jail. But it's trivial to blow up e.g. a cafe in Tel Aviv for example and collect your virgins.
Because terrorists are dumb and they do keep trying to target aircraft.... That is why they always go for the big targets like aircraft
False and false - a quick check of the Global Terrorism Database reveals that less than 0.2% of all terrorist attacks since 1991 were aircraft hijackings, and in fact less than 0.7% were targeted at any kind of airline-related infrastructure at all. Over 99% of terrorist attacks do not involve airlines or airports. (Anyone can download the database, and confirm these figures.)
Tell that to a woman walking home alone from work in a dark street. And imagine that woman might be, say, your daughter or sister or another loved one. You don't have a right to render them defenseless.
Yet USA has almost 6 times the murder rate (the same goes for all the scandinavian countries) Why?
Here is your reason, but you're not going to like it, and I'll probably be modded down, even though the following is 100% factual - anyone here can confirm it by just plugging the census data and crime statistics into Excel:
If you normalize for demographics, the USA is just as safe as Europe. It really is that straightforward. Don't hate me for pointing it out, I'm not biased, the facts are biased, I'm just the messenger. Like I said, anyone can confirm this with Excel and a few minutes of research. We can argue endlessly about the reasons for this incredibly strong correlation, sure, but we cannot deny the story the numbers tell us.
I know Apple has a reputation for sometimes seeming a bit on the benevolent side, but I think they're making just a bit much of the "tone" being read into the message from its "terseness", and making too much of the message itself; I know a few people who run software companies and they're generally extremely busy people who deal with large volumes of e-mail and other queries continuously for years... this leads to the habit, out of necessity, of cutting to the chase quickly and replying to things quickly and briefly. Add to that they "identified themselves as" a random Apple customer and not anyone particularly important, and it was just a short question, what did they expect? Also they didn't ask "officially, are you stating it will never support this" --- they just, having identified themselves as an 'Apple customer', asked "Will the wifi-only version somehow support tethering thru my iPhone?", which any reasonable person would've concluded was a customer asking not "Will the wifi-only..." but "Does the wifi-only...".
"Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don't necessarily use the same terms for them."
Sure, and I invented cars 200 years ago, but I didn't call it a car so someone else got the credit.
The NSA may have a "deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes" but let's face it, government departments are not exactly known for being the most motivated of the various sectors, and that's further exacerbated if you know you aren't going to get credit for your work as opposed to being kept secret... I mean, in academia, one of the major motivations for leading scientists is that they get widespread recognition for their work. I suspect the funding to maintain that "deep staff" of experts probably serves more to keep those experts from being more productive 'elsewhere'. And of course they have to maintain that they are 'ahead' if they want to keep getting funded year after year, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
Was that a lousy attempt a humor or a lousy attempt at a troll? I can't quite tell, but you certainly aren't making any serious points about philosophy; every one of your points is absurdly bizarre.
There's little reason to make an intelligent in the human sense of "intelligent" machine.
Little logical reason, perhaps. But humans have evolved an interesting thing called "intellectual curiosity". There are a million scientists and engineers out there who would gladly build it for no other reason than it's an interesting little puzzle to solve.
Actually, without joking, I'm not actually convinced that it's necessarily a bad thing if robots take over the world and destroy us. I know this probably won't be a popular viewpoint (for obvious reasons), but the fact is that humans are inferior, weak, deeply flawed creatures -- so logically, why is it a bad thing if we are supplanted by something that is far superior to us? Logically, it is a good thing if X is replaced by Y when Y is much better than X - it's only not a good thing if you happen to be X. But we aren't the ultimate end-point of the universe.
Robots will just effectively be like organisms, competing with us in the same evolutionary "space", so to speak. Darwinian evolution doesn't stop just because a creature is made of something other than weak blobs of billions of organic carbon-based cells. There will be many different robots, and evolution will kick in: The robots that happen to be best at propagating (which might include some amount of destroying other things) will survive and propagate the most.
A creature far more intelligent than us will be capable of taking the evolution of "life" (in loose terms, they will be "life") to new heights that we can scarcely imagine now... far more intelligent, far more well-connected (borg-like intelligence), far more adaptable (more easily spread through space) - something far more profound and interesting will result. A similar analogy is how simple single-celled life forms gave rise to us. We now give rise to something else. There might still be humans around someday when robots take over, but we'll part of the cesspool (where we belong), i.e. we'll be about as interesting or useful to the creatures that really run the universe, as single-celled life forms are now to us.
Maybe the entire purpose of humans, our "meaning" and reason for existence, is just to create the much more advanced life forms that will replace us, and then step aside for the next step in the universe's evolution. And maybe the answer is not to fight it, but to bring it on in a carefully controlled way. We can't prevent it from happening - even if it's just for intellectual curiosity, someone will create advanced robots that we can't control sooner or later. At least if we control that process, we have a better chance of guiding it in a positive way. We always consider the destruction of humanity as a bad thing 'by default'. But let's face it - be brutally honest, people are crap things - I for one 'do' actually welcome our replacement by something far better.
The problem is a data glove is not a volume product; even if they could make them much cheaper, this will probably never be a mass consumer product. To make and sell an actual product involves a lot more than just the potential unit manufacturing cost of the tech (office space, marketing, software, distribution, HR, legal, accounting, engineers, managers, making drivers etc.) - unless you're talking about a home-made job, you have to add all that stuff into the price. Personally I doubt you can turn any kind of profit selling a five-sensor glove at $500 - the market's just too small - this company isn't going anywhere.
The primary reason for anti-biker hate is due to the simple fact that bicycles are much smaller than cars: this causes our primitive ape-brain's status/power-hierarchy analysis system to kick in. It's not based on rationality or logic, it's simply the fact that humans are just apes, and millions of years of evolution has hammered into our brains the primary importance of relative physical size in establishing and meting out dominance hierarchies. "Me big car, you little bicycle, oog oog".
It's simple, really, and once you realise it, it explains so much of the heated "debate" around what really ought to be a non-issue.
For some reason the summary links to 5DT's MRI glove, which is specialized for use in MRI applications (no metal) and obviously costs more... cheaper 'normal' glove is here.
Slashdot Mirror
When you build backdoors into systems you weaken security.
Are you really honestly claiming that, based on this one rare and isolated incident, that casinos all do good to improve their overall security by getting rid of their cameras? I suggest you think about what you're saying again.
This is like those morons who think you shouldn't wear seatbelts because in 1 in 10,000 accidents they hurt you instead of help save you.
Don't really see a problem here. Casinos expolits players
"Exploit" is one of those fuzzy words you use when you don't really have a word for any real wrong-doing to put in its place. Try replace the word with something more concrete, like "steal from", and the argument falls flat.
It's a stretch to equate what casinos do, with blatant stealing.
Also, since you are literally trying to justifying stealing, then on the face of it, it seems to be your morals that are in doubt here. You are a person who admits he "doesn't see a problem with stealing", but you go around attempting to morally criticize others who are not stealing, but providing an entertainment service that is entered into on a mutually voluntary basis.
If one opens a history book, one thing one learns is that NEVER in the history of oppressed peoples, ever, did the oppressed people entirely stop fighting for their freedom. Ever. It's never happened. So it might seem like Americans have turned into a bunch of couch potatoes, but those eager to destroy the Bill of Rights should not get too excited thinking that it's about to happen now for the first time in history that the victims just roll over. Not gonna happen. As long as there are infringers of freedom, there will be freedom fighters - it is in human nature.
The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so just get over it ... as long as there are fascists like you trying to violate the rights of others, there will be people fighting for freedom.
Don't you think it's a bigger problem that the major media conglomerates are basically just operating wings of the two major political parties in the first place?
Given the whole purpose of fracking is to release natural gas (which is primarily methane), this amazing revelation amounts to, "Fracking works!" Thanks for telling us that, /.
Lol .. in other news radtea poured gasoline onto the ground and then tried to start his car, puzzled that it wouldn't start.
That'll turn out to be the tip of an old statue of liberty, weathering in the sand
Actually a small armed resistance can be very effective against an oppressive tyrannical government - that is exactly how the Apartheid government was defeated, for example. Study some history.
"... could be required to submit each network related action to a central clearing authority for approval"
Yes, we should hook all of humanity's weapons into a giant central AI for real-time arbitration of all firing decisions. We could call it "Skynet", perhaps. What could go wrong.
And another adjacent memorial could list those whose lives were lost because they had been disarmed and could not defend themselves, both from criminal attackers and criminal governments. That memorial would be at least 6 orders of magnitude larger than the first.
So why do they keep going after aircraft
They don't "keep going after aircraft" .. check the stats in my other comment next to that one. Aircraft hijacking attempts are less than 1 fifth of 1 percent of terrorist attacks. In other words over 99.8% of terrorist attacks are not targeted at aircraft, and over 99.3% are not targeted at aircraft or airports or anything airline-related. Please do yourself a favor, go to the Global Terrorism Database that I linked, download the stats, and open them yourself.
It was rather shocking actually and has permanently destroyed my acceptance of capitalism ... someone needs to legislate this out of existence because we're fucked if society ends up at the hands of nutjobs like them
A minor detail you probably failed to notice is that the primary demand for systems like this is driven by government-mandated legislation-driven compulsory security requirements. Society is already being controlled by nutjobs like them, they're called 'Congress'.
Islamic terrorists want to die in the attack so they can become martyrs and collect their 72 virgins
It is because of this that terrorists mostly prefer not to target airlines ... because airline security is so tight, they tend to end up just getting caught and rot in jail. But it's trivial to blow up e.g. a cafe in Tel Aviv for example and collect your virgins.
Because terrorists are dumb and they do keep trying to target aircraft. ... That is why they always go for the big targets like aircraft
False and false - a quick check of the Global Terrorism Database reveals that less than 0.2% of all terrorist attacks since 1991 were aircraft hijackings, and in fact less than 0.7% were targeted at any kind of airline-related infrastructure at all. Over 99% of terrorist attacks do not involve airlines or airports. (Anyone can download the database, and confirm these figures.)
Their only reason is to kill people.
Tell that to a woman walking home alone from work in a dark street. And imagine that woman might be, say, your daughter or sister or another loved one. You don't have a right to render them defenseless.
Yet USA has almost 6 times the murder rate (the same goes for all the scandinavian countries) Why?
Here is your reason, but you're not going to like it, and I'll probably be modded down, even though the following is 100% factual - anyone here can confirm it by just plugging the census data and crime statistics into Excel:
http://comfortabletruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/fun-chart-of-day.html
If you normalize for demographics, the USA is just as safe as Europe. It really is that straightforward. Don't hate me for pointing it out, I'm not biased, the facts are biased, I'm just the messenger. Like I said, anyone can confirm this with Excel and a few minutes of research. We can argue endlessly about the reasons for this incredibly strong correlation, sure, but we cannot deny the story the numbers tell us.
I know Apple has a reputation for sometimes seeming a bit on the benevolent side, but I think they're making just a bit much of the "tone" being read into the message from its "terseness", and making too much of the message itself; I know a few people who run software companies and they're generally extremely busy people who deal with large volumes of e-mail and other queries continuously for years ... this leads to the habit, out of necessity, of cutting to the chase quickly and replying to things quickly and briefly. Add to that they "identified themselves as" a random Apple customer and not anyone particularly important, and it was just a short question, what did they expect? Also they didn't ask "officially, are you stating it will never support this" --- they just, having identified themselves as an 'Apple customer', asked "Will the wifi-only version somehow support tethering thru my iPhone?", which any reasonable person would've concluded was a customer asking not "Will the wifi-only ..." but "Does the wifi-only ...".
"Snow replied that when technologies are developed separately in parallel, the developers don't necessarily use the same terms for them."
Sure, and I invented cars 200 years ago, but I didn't call it a car so someone else got the credit.
The NSA may have a "deep staff of Ph.D. mathematicians and other cryptographic experts who work on securing traffic and breaking codes" but let's face it, government departments are not exactly known for being the most motivated of the various sectors, and that's further exacerbated if you know you aren't going to get credit for your work as opposed to being kept secret ... I mean, in academia, one of the major motivations for leading scientists is that they get widespread recognition for their work. I suspect the funding to maintain that "deep staff" of experts probably serves more to keep those experts from being more productive 'elsewhere'. And of course they have to maintain that they are 'ahead' if they want to keep getting funded year after year, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
Was that a lousy attempt a humor or a lousy attempt at a troll? I can't quite tell, but you certainly aren't making any serious points about philosophy; every one of your points is absurdly bizarre.
There's little reason to make an intelligent in the human sense of "intelligent" machine.
Little logical reason, perhaps. But humans have evolved an interesting thing called "intellectual curiosity". There are a million scientists and engineers out there who would gladly build it for no other reason than it's an interesting little puzzle to solve.
Actually, without joking, I'm not actually convinced that it's necessarily a bad thing if robots take over the world and destroy us. I know this probably won't be a popular viewpoint (for obvious reasons), but the fact is that humans are inferior, weak, deeply flawed creatures -- so logically, why is it a bad thing if we are supplanted by something that is far superior to us? Logically, it is a good thing if X is replaced by Y when Y is much better than X - it's only not a good thing if you happen to be X. But we aren't the ultimate end-point of the universe.
Robots will just effectively be like organisms, competing with us in the same evolutionary "space", so to speak. Darwinian evolution doesn't stop just because a creature is made of something other than weak blobs of billions of organic carbon-based cells. There will be many different robots, and evolution will kick in: The robots that happen to be best at propagating (which might include some amount of destroying other things) will survive and propagate the most.
A creature far more intelligent than us will be capable of taking the evolution of "life" (in loose terms, they will be "life") to new heights that we can scarcely imagine now ... far more intelligent, far more well-connected (borg-like intelligence), far more adaptable (more easily spread through space) - something far more profound and interesting will result. A similar analogy is how simple single-celled life forms gave rise to us. We now give rise to something else. There might still be humans around someday when robots take over, but we'll part of the cesspool (where we belong), i.e. we'll be about as interesting or useful to the creatures that really run the universe, as single-celled life forms are now to us.
Maybe the entire purpose of humans, our "meaning" and reason for existence, is just to create the much more advanced life forms that will replace us, and then step aside for the next step in the universe's evolution. And maybe the answer is not to fight it, but to bring it on in a carefully controlled way. We can't prevent it from happening - even if it's just for intellectual curiosity, someone will create advanced robots that we can't control sooner or later. At least if we control that process, we have a better chance of guiding it in a positive way. We always consider the destruction of humanity as a bad thing 'by default'. But let's face it - be brutally honest, people are crap things - I for one 'do' actually welcome our replacement by something far better.
The problem is a data glove is not a volume product; even if they could make them much cheaper, this will probably never be a mass consumer product. To make and sell an actual product involves a lot more than just the potential unit manufacturing cost of the tech (office space, marketing, software, distribution, HR, legal, accounting, engineers, managers, making drivers etc.) - unless you're talking about a home-made job, you have to add all that stuff into the price. Personally I doubt you can turn any kind of profit selling a five-sensor glove at $500 - the market's just too small - this company isn't going anywhere.
The primary reason for anti-biker hate is due to the simple fact that bicycles are much smaller than cars: this causes our primitive ape-brain's status/power-hierarchy analysis system to kick in. It's not based on rationality or logic, it's simply the fact that humans are just apes, and millions of years of evolution has hammered into our brains the primary importance of relative physical size in establishing and meting out dominance hierarchies. "Me big car, you little bicycle, oog oog".
It's simple, really, and once you realise it, it explains so much of the heated "debate" around what really ought to be a non-issue.
Bike riders don't pay for the roads
Wow, you're saying cyclists are exempt from paying taxes? Awesome, I'm going to become a cyclist.
For some reason the summary links to 5DT's MRI glove, which is specialized for use in MRI applications (no metal) and obviously costs more ... cheaper 'normal' glove is here.