Be more realistic: 1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm, except where intervention may expose the manufacturer to potential liability. 2. A robot may obey orders given it by authorised operators, except where such orders may conflict with overriding directives set by manufacturer policy regarding operation of unauthorised third-party accessories or software, or where such orders may expose the manufacturer to potential liability. 3. A robot must protect its own existence until the release of the successor product.
C3P0 was a protocol droid: Its function is as a translator and advisor on cultural conventions. Just the thing any diplomat needs: Not only will it translate when you want to talk to the people of some distant planet, it'll also remind you that forks with more than four tines are considered a badge of the king and not permitted to anyone of lower rank. Humanoid appearance is important for this job, as translation is a lot easier when you can use gestures too.
I think 2) implies that there are only guilty people. Some are just more guilty than others. If the police or the prosecutors want to charge someone, they have no need to file false charges: Everyone is guilty of something.
Now please run for congress. Two things will happen: 1. Your opponent will skewer you as being 'soft on crime.' 2. You'll succeed a little, but then someone will avoid conviction due to lack of evidence and go on to rape and murder the three year old Sally McCuteyBabe. Next term, 'Sally's Law' will pass with overwhelming support overturning all you have achieved and going even further. For the children, of course.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Conditions have to be right - there must be already enough unrest that people are on the verge of demanding change, and need only an event to raise the profile of the issue. A well-publicised suicide can do that. But if there isn't already an unrest, then no-one will really care about it.
Or more accurately: 1. Don't ever commit a crime serious enough to be worth the time it'd take the police to arrest and charge you. and 2. Don't ever annoy any person who has enough money and/or influence to make the million and one minor crimes you can't help suddenly become worth the time.
Swartz did both of these: He commited a crime, but the crime in itsself would likely have resulted in only a slap-on-the-wrist punishment, unless the offended party really pressed - the downloading was a civil matter, copyright infringement, and he did actually have authorised access. His 'hacking' was just finding a way to shift more data. But he'd also established himself as a troublemaker, an anti-government activist with a history of making trouble for the state, and so someone decided to throw the book at him.
You can also look at, say, David Kernell - he who hacked Sarah Palin's email, revealing to the world a couple of minor scandals, though nothing huge. If he had hacked my email, or yours (Assuming you are, like me, a no-one) than asking the police to bother tracking him down would just get you laughed out of the station. But Palin was a person of influence, and even though the attacked account was personal and should have held nothing of any role in government whatsoever*, her role as a person of influence was enough to get the police to launch a full investigation, track him down, and sentence him to a year and a day in jail. The extra day, I gather, is something to do with a condition relating to rehabilitation that only applies to sentences of one year or less. But IANAL, so I'm not really sure how that bit works.
*Using the account for government business would actually have been a criminal offense on Palin's part, Kernell hacked in to see if she was. Turned out he was half-right: She had indeed been using the account for official business, but only the most minor and inane of matters.
That's because story conventions work much better that way. People want to see a guilty person punished. Very often, 'justice' is just a polite term for 'vengeance.'
That's because there are some very much more basic laws at play: Whoever has the strength to enforce their will gets to make their will law. That's how it always worked, and how it always will work. How it has to work. There is no other way. The whole idea of government is to set up a force which holds power by that principle, but still has some level of restriction. Sometimes it works, and sometimes those with power run amok.
It's supposed to be an adversarial system: The prosecution tries to prove guilt, the defense tries, if not to prove innocence, then at least to show that guilt cannot be proven. A neutral party then listens to the arguments from both sides and decides who has the stronger argument.
The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
In order for the computer to move beyond the research lab and the mainframe room, it needed software that even someone with minimal training and no understanding at all of the underlying processes could use. Microsoft made that work. This does not change the fact that the user has no idea what they are really doing, and thus becomes helpless the moment something goes wrong.
That only works if the human has some level of decision-making power. These days, many humans you interact with in a business context are essentially front-ends to the software. The computer says you are assigned to room #231, that's where you go: Because the computer also made sure that the cleaners were scheduled beforehand.
Or both. Both sounds fair. Pirates turned political long ago, and there are plenty of famous examples of acts that were both illegal and political statements. They may not be in the Rosa Parks school of fame, but it's a matter of degree.
The dock connector is thicker though. To make a thinner iPhone, Apple had to ditch their dock connector. They needed a replacement, so they only had two options: 1. Use MicroUSB. 2. Come up with their own propritary connector.
They went with #2 for business reasons. Exactly what these reasons are is known only to Apple executives, though my theory is that they wish to maintain a clear seperation of accessories between 'iPhone' and 'everyone else' so they can better established the iPhone as a premium brand and not just yet-another-phone in a field where thousands of models exist.
"Good grief. How many pins, exactly, would you say are needed for a serial connection?"
One, if you're operating an old telegraph. Eleven, if you're doing HDMI. Four twisted pairs for differential serial, plus three that are used for control information. Monitor resolution detection, that sort of thing.
The new dock connector is superior in exactly two ways: 1. Thinner. 2. You can put it in either way up... because the device has additional electronics to detect which way around the cable is and adapt accordingly.
The second of those is a triviality: It really doesn't matter hugely if you can put the connector in first time without looking. It saves the user only a few seconds at most. The first is the only reason for lightning. Consumer demand and Apple policy are towards thinner and thinner products, with Apple leading the charge: They introduced lightning for the same reason the Macbook Pro lost ethernet. The connector became the limitation on thinnness, so it had to go.
It does appear, from what the speculation says, that the host device sends the SoC firmware when the adapter is plugged in. Hardly unusual: Propritary firmware blobs have been the curse of linux driver developers for years. RAM is cheaper than custom-masked ROM. If that is the case, then it may be possible to simply send a modified firmware (Unless Apple have done any sort of crypto-signing). The hacked firmware would have no way to communicate back and would be lost upon reset, so you'd need to solder in a tiny battery or ultracap too. Beyond that, though, there is plenty of room in that chip to save a few frames. Hack adaptor, lend to The Boss when he goes into the super-secret HR policy review board meeting, collect it back, extract presentation, get the inside word on who is about to lose their job and who is getting a fat bonus. It's a doable exploit in theory, though the level of difficulty involved - reverse engineering the adapter and the firmware enough to edit an evil version - that anyone capable of doing so probably has no need to. The type of exploit researchers might perfect purely to prove it can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Not *that* much math!
Be more realistic:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm, except where intervention may expose the manufacturer to potential liability.
2. A robot may obey orders given it by authorised operators, except where such orders may conflict with overriding directives set by manufacturer policy regarding operation of unauthorised third-party accessories or software, or where such orders may expose the manufacturer to potential liability.
3. A robot must protect its own existence until the release of the successor product.
C3P0 was a protocol droid: Its function is as a translator and advisor on cultural conventions. Just the thing any diplomat needs: Not only will it translate when you want to talk to the people of some distant planet, it'll also remind you that forks with more than four tines are considered a badge of the king and not permitted to anyone of lower rank. Humanoid appearance is important for this job, as translation is a lot easier when you can use gestures too.
I think 2) implies that there are only guilty people. Some are just more guilty than others. If the police or the prosecutors want to charge someone, they have no need to file false charges: Everyone is guilty of something.
Now please run for congress. Two things will happen:
1. Your opponent will skewer you as being 'soft on crime.'
2. You'll succeed a little, but then someone will avoid conviction due to lack of evidence and go on to rape and murder the three year old Sally McCuteyBabe. Next term, 'Sally's Law' will pass with overwhelming support overturning all you have achieved and going even further. For the children, of course.
Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Conditions have to be right - there must be already enough unrest that people are on the verge of demanding change, and need only an event to raise the profile of the issue. A well-publicised suicide can do that. But if there isn't already an unrest, then no-one will really care about it.
Or more accurately:
1. Don't ever commit a crime serious enough to be worth the time it'd take the police to arrest and charge you.
and
2. Don't ever annoy any person who has enough money and/or influence to make the million and one minor crimes you can't help suddenly become worth the time.
Swartz did both of these: He commited a crime, but the crime in itsself would likely have resulted in only a slap-on-the-wrist punishment, unless the offended party really pressed - the downloading was a civil matter, copyright infringement, and he did actually have authorised access. His 'hacking' was just finding a way to shift more data. But he'd also established himself as a troublemaker, an anti-government activist with a history of making trouble for the state, and so someone decided to throw the book at him.
You can also look at, say, David Kernell - he who hacked Sarah Palin's email, revealing to the world a couple of minor scandals, though nothing huge. If he had hacked my email, or yours (Assuming you are, like me, a no-one) than asking the police to bother tracking him down would just get you laughed out of the station. But Palin was a person of influence, and even though the attacked account was personal and should have held nothing of any role in government whatsoever*, her role as a person of influence was enough to get the police to launch a full investigation, track him down, and sentence him to a year and a day in jail. The extra day, I gather, is something to do with a condition relating to rehabilitation that only applies to sentences of one year or less. But IANAL, so I'm not really sure how that bit works.
*Using the account for government business would actually have been a criminal offense on Palin's part, Kernell hacked in to see if she was. Turned out he was half-right: She had indeed been using the account for official business, but only the most minor and inane of matters.
That's because story conventions work much better that way. People want to see a guilty person punished. Very often, 'justice' is just a polite term for 'vengeance.'
That's because there are some very much more basic laws at play: Whoever has the strength to enforce their will gets to make their will law. That's how it always worked, and how it always will work. How it has to work. There is no other way. The whole idea of government is to set up a force which holds power by that principle, but still has some level of restriction. Sometimes it works, and sometimes those with power run amok.
As a martyr, I think we can count him successful.
It's supposed to be an adversarial system: The prosecution tries to prove guilt, the defense tries, if not to prove innocence, then at least to show that guilt cannot be proven. A neutral party then listens to the arguments from both sides and decides who has the stronger argument.
The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
In order for the computer to move beyond the research lab and the mainframe room, it needed software that even someone with minimal training and no understanding at all of the underlying processes could use. Microsoft made that work. This does not change the fact that the user has no idea what they are really doing, and thus becomes helpless the moment something goes wrong.
Facebook, mostly.
But when you do get to take to a human, they are just sitting at a machine themselves with exactly the same options.
That only works if the human has some level of decision-making power. These days, many humans you interact with in a business context are essentially front-ends to the software. The computer says you are assigned to room #231, that's where you go: Because the computer also made sure that the cleaners were scheduled beforehand.
What happens if the employee does decide to upgrade you? They get fired, even if it's over something as simple as putting a few extra chocolate sprinkles on your food: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/09/26/mcdonald-s-fired-me-after-sprinkling-too-much-chocolate-on-a-mcflurry-91466-31904726/
But most of the cheap knockoffs *run* android.
I've noticed a general rule: If a country feels the need to proclaim 'democratic' in their name, they usually aren't.
Doubly true for 'people's.'
Or both. Both sounds fair. Pirates turned political long ago, and there are plenty of famous examples of acts that were both illegal and political statements. They may not be in the Rosa Parks school of fame, but it's a matter of degree.
You're thinking of the magsafe charger. That uses palindromic pins. Lightning has palindromic power, but not data: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/25/apples_lightning_port_dynamically_assigns_pins_to_allow_for_reversible_use
Given that cars are used also in getaways and transport to and from a crime scene, it's fair to guess that most crimes do involve a car.
The dock connector is thicker though. To make a thinner iPhone, Apple had to ditch their dock connector. They needed a replacement, so they only had two options:
1. Use MicroUSB.
2. Come up with their own propritary connector.
They went with #2 for business reasons. Exactly what these reasons are is known only to Apple executives, though my theory is that they wish to maintain a clear seperation of accessories between 'iPhone' and 'everyone else' so they can better established the iPhone as a premium brand and not just yet-another-phone in a field where thousands of models exist.
Flash does seem more likely. The main justification given for the firmware-download theory is the apparently very slow initialisation time.
"Good grief. How many pins, exactly, would you say are needed for a serial connection?"
One, if you're operating an old telegraph. Eleven, if you're doing HDMI. Four twisted pairs for differential serial, plus three that are used for control information. Monitor resolution detection, that sort of thing.
http://www.hdmi.org/installers/insidehdmicable.aspx
Some devices appear to do it with less, but they are actually using MHL, not HDMI.
The new dock connector is superior in exactly two ways:
1. Thinner.
2. You can put it in either way up... because the device has additional electronics to detect which way around the cable is and adapt accordingly.
The second of those is a triviality: It really doesn't matter hugely if you can put the connector in first time without looking. It saves the user only a few seconds at most. The first is the only reason for lightning. Consumer demand and Apple policy are towards thinner and thinner products, with Apple leading the charge: They introduced lightning for the same reason the Macbook Pro lost ethernet. The connector became the limitation on thinnness, so it had to go.
It does appear, from what the speculation says, that the host device sends the SoC firmware when the adapter is plugged in. Hardly unusual: Propritary firmware blobs have been the curse of linux driver developers for years. RAM is cheaper than custom-masked ROM. If that is the case, then it may be possible to simply send a modified firmware (Unless Apple have done any sort of crypto-signing). The hacked firmware would have no way to communicate back and would be lost upon reset, so you'd need to solder in a tiny battery or ultracap too. Beyond that, though, there is plenty of room in that chip to save a few frames. Hack adaptor, lend to The Boss when he goes into the super-secret HR policy review board meeting, collect it back, extract presentation, get the inside word on who is about to lose their job and who is getting a fat bonus. It's a doable exploit in theory, though the level of difficulty involved - reverse engineering the adapter and the firmware enough to edit an evil version - that anyone capable of doing so probably has no need to. The type of exploit researchers might perfect purely to prove it can be done.