The powder didn't fully ignite, the miniature camera flew about 30 feet into the air -- apparently too fast to transmit images back to the 5.8Ghz wireless receiver they were using -- and their parachute partially incinerated.
So clearly it has a parachute. Why don't you read before you complain about how you think it should work?
Funny how that means those pensions could buy packaged junk mortgages, which S&P rated AAA, but not US treasuries. Saying US treasuries are unsafe is pointless, since the US is still the worlds reserve currency... If US bonds become worthless then so does basically everything else. So it's pointless to downgrade them; while they may not be as safe as they used to be, the valuation of everything else depends on them (ie nothing is safe).
I've had a similar experience, at Stanford (and in Germany) in Elegtromagnetics, Computational Neuroscience & Computer vision departments (Heh I guess I get around). Avid programmers are rarer, mostly only people interested in theory are left. This depends in large part on the interests of the head Prof. in the group of course.
Right. I'm pretty sure this course is for non-cs majors. I went to Stanford, and I promise that no serious CS major is taking this course anyways. They will already have had 2-3 years of programming in HS.
Why would you post something so well written as AC? You clearly point out the great fallacy of modern capitalism; that maximizing short-term profits allocates resources in the most efficient way. People have been told for so long that the free market finds the most efficient way to allocate resources that they fail to see how going after short term gains results in massive waste in the economy.
the reward for engineers is a "job well done" rather than maximizing profits
It really bothers me that maximizing profits is the goal of publicly traded corporations. With privately owned companies it can be a combination of healthy profits and a job-well-done. With public companies things have become so short sighted; it's all about each shareholder "getting theirs".
You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.
Obviously bank fraud is illegal, regardless of who's computer it is committed on. If I let you use my computer, and don't give you instructions on what you're not allowed to do, I can't sue you because you installed a piece of software (unless that software does something illegal). There is nothing illegal about taking pictures of people in a public place.
As has been stated several times already, when you open up your private property to the public and allow anyone to come in and shop, it becomes (legally) a public place.
It actually depends. I believe in most countries it is okay as long as the person isn't clearly the subject of the picture. So if you take a picture of the base of the Eiffel tower with people walking underneath it, you can publish it. On the other hand if you take a picture of somebody sitting on a bench in front of the Eiffel tower, you need to obtain their permission.
I also believe that in many jurisdictions they differentiate between displaying as a work of art and publishing something commercially for financial gain.
I think the better question is how did this guy install software which accesses peripheral hardware (the webcam) without admin rights? I thought OSX was supposed to be so secure...
The only thing here that is possibly illegal is that he installed software when he wasn't explicitly authorized to... Of course, he wasn't explicitly prohibited from installing software either, and since the computers are there for public use with no conditions on how they can be used, I don't really see how Apple has any case against him.
Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store
That's what I was wondering about too... I've been inside Apple Stores MANY times, and I've never seen anything which tells you that certain actions aren't allowed on their computers. You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.
In a public place, yes, it is innocent. The issue isn't whether it was a crime to take the pictures (it isn't), it is whether it was a crime to install software on the Apple Store's computers. That's why he was taken in by the Secret service, he's being charged with violating 18 USC section 1030 "The computer fraud and abuse act".
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how such a layer could ever be produced unless the temperature never goes back above -78. Even if it is there temporarily as the temp. drops below -78, once the temp rises again that layer will disappear.
You'd need a pretty big antenna to transmit/receive reliably in the 50-70Mhz range. Not to mention that's really not enough bandwidth to set up a mesh network, unless you don't mind your network crawling along. lt's a neat idea, and would make a nice hobby project, but in terms of practical use, not so much.
Well, no, I see the difference. I was merely pointing out that if you can steal source code, then it is someone's property. If source code can be someone's property, then software patents do indeed have some merit. I mean, let's say some company had an amazing algorithm, and someone left the company, went to China, and created an imitation of it. The only recourse then would be to claim that they stole a "patented idea"...
So you're saying that downloading of anything copyrighted shouldn't be allowed then? Or are you really just saying that you should be allowed to define what property is?
Indeed. Except that there are reasons for trying to build computers that can run computations faster. There's no reason to give ARM the money to make a million core computer when you can't show that it would accomplish anything. If he could make something interesting running at 1/10000th the speed of a "real-time brain", I'd be interested in perhaps increasing that speed by a couple of orders of magnitude. Saying "Let's spend government money on a million ARM processors so we can build something that might do something interesting" is just silly.
Oh, please. I have no love for the Chinese government, but even I know that this is in no way unique to them.
For as long as there has been property, there have been thieves. The U.S. stole much of its industrial-revolution era technology from the U.K. Europe stole many of the ideas that brought about the renaissance from the Arabs. The Arabs stole much of this engineering knowledge from the Byzantine Romans. They in turn stole from anyone they could lay their blood covered hands on. That's how it works. How can people on Slashdot bitch about software patents, and then complain about Chinese theft of software?
They're ideas, goddamnit. They spread. That's why they're beautiful.
If an algorithm can be split between 50,000 cores, I see no reason why the distance between the cores makes any difference. Sure, it will be slower, but a core is a core, whether it's in Boston or Bangkok.
I agree that the idea is somewhat silly, but I think it's more like "trying to simulate a computer by building a 5 million transistor FPGA". The connections between the cores isn't hardwired, it's configurable... so you could indeed make a "brain" out of it. The real problem is that there's no point in building such a massive system to simulate a brain in real-time. Simulate it in 1/1000th time using a much less expensive system first. If THAT works, maybe we can talk.
Slashdot Mirror
The powder didn't fully ignite, the miniature camera flew about 30 feet into the air -- apparently too fast to transmit images back to the 5.8Ghz wireless receiver they were using -- and their parachute partially incinerated.
So clearly it has a parachute. Why don't you read before you complain about how you think it should work?
Funny how that means those pensions could buy packaged junk mortgages, which S&P rated AAA, but not US treasuries. Saying US treasuries are unsafe is pointless, since the US is still the worlds reserve currency... If US bonds become worthless then so does basically everything else. So it's pointless to downgrade them; while they may not be as safe as they used to be, the valuation of everything else depends on them (ie nothing is safe).
I've had a similar experience, at Stanford (and in Germany) in Elegtromagnetics, Computational Neuroscience & Computer vision departments (Heh I guess I get around). Avid programmers are rarer, mostly only people interested in theory are left. This depends in large part on the interests of the head Prof. in the group of course.
Right. I'm pretty sure this course is for non-cs majors. I went to Stanford, and I promise that no serious CS major is taking this course anyways. They will already have had 2-3 years of programming in HS.
You want to cut the minimum wage? Seriously? I'm sure we'll all be happy once we are working in fiscally sound sweat shops...
Why would you post something so well written as AC? You clearly point out the great fallacy of modern capitalism; that maximizing short-term profits allocates resources in the most efficient way. People have been told for so long that the free market finds the most efficient way to allocate resources that they fail to see how going after short term gains results in massive waste in the economy.
the reward for engineers is a "job well done" rather than maximizing profits
It really bothers me that maximizing profits is the goal of publicly traded corporations. With privately owned companies it can be a combination of healthy profits and a job-well-done. With public companies things have become so short sighted; it's all about each shareholder "getting theirs".
You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.
Obviously bank fraud is illegal, regardless of who's computer it is committed on. If I let you use my computer, and don't give you instructions on what you're not allowed to do, I can't sue you because you installed a piece of software (unless that software does something illegal). There is nothing illegal about taking pictures of people in a public place.
As has been stated several times already, when you open up your private property to the public and allow anyone to come in and shop, it becomes (legally) a public place.
By walking around in public you automatically give your consent to let people take pictures of you and publish them wherever they want.
I also believe that in many jurisdictions they differentiate between displaying as a work of art and publishing something commercially for financial gain.
I think the better question is how did this guy install software which accesses peripheral hardware (the webcam) without admin rights? I thought OSX was supposed to be so secure...
The only thing here that is possibly illegal is that he installed software when he wasn't explicitly authorized to... Of course, he wasn't explicitly prohibited from installing software either, and since the computers are there for public use with no conditions on how they can be used, I don't really see how Apple has any case against him.
Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store
That's what I was wondering about too... I've been inside Apple Stores MANY times, and I've never seen anything which tells you that certain actions aren't allowed on their computers. You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.
In a public place, yes, it is innocent. The issue isn't whether it was a crime to take the pictures (it isn't), it is whether it was a crime to install software on the Apple Store's computers. That's why he was taken in by the Secret service, he's being charged with violating 18 USC section 1030 "The computer fraud and abuse act".
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how such a layer could ever be produced unless the temperature never goes back above -78. Even if it is there temporarily as the temp. drops below -78, once the temp rises again that layer will disappear.
I don't live in the States anymore, but it worked pretty well for my parents. They certainly get a much better looking picture, and like 15 channels.
You'd need a pretty big antenna to transmit/receive reliably in the 50-70Mhz range. Not to mention that's really not enough bandwidth to set up a mesh network, unless you don't mind your network crawling along. lt's a neat idea, and would make a nice hobby project, but in terms of practical use, not so much.
Well, no, I see the difference. I was merely pointing out that if you can steal source code, then it is someone's property. If source code can be someone's property, then software patents do indeed have some merit. I mean, let's say some company had an amazing algorithm, and someone left the company, went to China, and created an imitation of it. The only recourse then would be to claim that they stole a "patented idea"...
So you're saying that downloading of anything copyrighted shouldn't be allowed then? Or are you really just saying that you should be allowed to define what property is?
Indeed. Except that there are reasons for trying to build computers that can run computations faster. There's no reason to give ARM the money to make a million core computer when you can't show that it would accomplish anything. If he could make something interesting running at 1/10000th the speed of a "real-time brain", I'd be interested in perhaps increasing that speed by a couple of orders of magnitude. Saying "Let's spend government money on a million ARM processors so we can build something that might do something interesting" is just silly.
That's exactly what they did less than a century ago. Not very progressive, are we?
For as long as there has been property, there have been thieves. The U.S. stole much of its industrial-revolution era technology from the U.K. Europe stole many of the ideas that brought about the renaissance from the Arabs. The Arabs stole much of this engineering knowledge from the Byzantine Romans. They in turn stole from anyone they could lay their blood covered hands on. That's how it works. How can people on Slashdot bitch about software patents, and then complain about Chinese theft of software?
They're ideas, goddamnit. They spread. That's why they're beautiful.
If an algorithm can be split between 50,000 cores, I see no reason why the distance between the cores makes any difference. Sure, it will be slower, but a core is a core, whether it's in Boston or Bangkok.
I agree that the idea is somewhat silly, but I think it's more like "trying to simulate a computer by building a 5 million transistor FPGA". The connections between the cores isn't hardwired, it's configurable... so you could indeed make a "brain" out of it. The real problem is that there's no point in building such a massive system to simulate a brain in real-time. Simulate it in 1/1000th time using a much less expensive system first. If THAT works, maybe we can talk.