The bully with a sword can still serve a purpose. He'll pay the law enforcement, for a start - and without that, anyone could just smash a window to your house while you are out and walk off with all your posessions.
One of the arguments in favor of the estate tax is that it helps prevent the formation of family financial empires - vast collections of wealth passed down from parent to child to grandchild. Such things arn't good for society. Plus it raises the issue of fairness, if some people are born into certain wealth without any need to earn it.
It's correctly called the estate tax. It's critics often call it a death tax. Supporters sometimes refer to it as the Paris Hilton tax.
I agree with you on the search box, but feel obliged to point out that abomination was introduced in Vista, not Seven. The thing I really miss about it is the ability to search within files. Windows XP I could easily search for, say, *.txt containing the string 'Chat log backup 2009' - something I do need to do, as I use text files to list which of my many hard drives things are stored on. Under Vista or Seven, that's completly impossible without using a third-party search utility.
I keep seeing people praising the many virtues of OpenDNS on various blogs and forums relating to this subject. Their praise is so unrestrained, I suspect now that OpenDNS is running some soft of astroturfing campaign. Or perhaps just one one very active supporter patroling the same sites as me.
Not this comment though. His history is too diverse - this one looke genuine.
I see very little practical use for controlling worms. Now, get me a vertebrate, a good-sized one... can you get it light enough to mount on a bird? That would be useful. Birds have a lot of lift in them.
I can see why C. Elegans was used. I know of that worm. It's been mapped: Every neuron teased apart, and it's connections to the others documented.
Both directions lead to disaster. The real problem is that the dominent economic system right now is based on employment creating production creating employment in feedback system. It works, and it works very well, under the current circumstances - but it could easily collapse if circumstances changed.
Let's say, hypothetically, that a new series of robots was introduced that could do all the low-skilled jobs. Fast-food server, shelf-stocker, cleaner, window cleaner, routine building maintainance. That's good - lower costs for businesses means lower prices for customers (Let's assume enough competition, anyway). Except that unemployment has just gone up, a lot - and, while companies are now able to produce cheaper goods, the market of people able to afford them has suddenly shrunk. Costs must be cut, more people laid off. The positive feedback that has lead to centuries of economic growth and the vast wealth we take for granted today easily turns into a cycle of self-destruction, as unemployment causes a drop in consumption and in turn further worsens unemployment.
Long term, some form of economic reform might be required. Perhaps something as simple as a basic income, to ensure that even the vast legions of unemployed are able to eat. At most, it might take real socialism of some form, with government taking over one market sector at a time as they collapse.
You could do it easier if you dropped the 'stay out of the way of humans' part. Just put them on a timer. They awaken at around three in the morning, spend two hours doing their cleaning, then return to their docking stations by five. The workers never see them, except perhaps the night security staff who can be told to stay out of the way.
Almost a good idea. But the printing money part isn't: Inflation would be unavoidable, and if you tied the income to inflation it would rapidly form a feedback loop. A basic income can be done, but the money has to be conserved. That means taxation.
There will be a lot of political opposition ("Socialism! Redistribution!"), but if technology does continue to allow more work to be done by less people it may be the only way to avoid starvation and riots.
I've seen some people argue that, in the eventual future, this will cause an unrecoverable economic collapse. The robots will take so many jobs that there arn't enough employed people to spend the money to keep even the robot-using companies operational. A problem that's only been avoided so far by hugely increasing consumption - but people can only consume so much, espicially with the move towards intellectual property industries where the cost of production is fixed regardless of the number of people consuming. I'm no economist, so I don't know how likely this is, but it does sound plausible given sufficiently advanced and low-cost robots.
The argument usually goes on to argue for some form of techno-socialism or other alternative economic system - not on the grounds that these would be good systems, but that if the current model is doomed at least the shift away from it can be done in a slow and organised manner.
People: We demand fair treatment!
Corporations: Then we won't do business with you.
People: Fine! We don't need you.
Corporations:...
People: I miss facebook. And my mobile phone won't work. And I want to see the next episode of House.
Corporations: Sign the agreement.
People: Oh... you win.
Remember that laws are usually not written by people with a technological background. This is why there have been cases of people facing criminal hacking charges for things like guessing a default password of 'password'.
Are you sure this is the current version, and it hasn't been amended since? It seems very limited to limit the law to systems with password authentication. If it matters, dialup and most ADSL systems (At least those using PPPoE) do use passwords for authentication. Cable internet (DOCSIS) doesn't, but rather authenticates the modem hardware.
Much of this 'accessing a private system in a way that is forbidden by it's owner' is of a very trivial nature. Employes sneaking a few minutes break at work to check a website while they wait for an email, that manner of thing. The problem is that so long as it's possible for these trivial issues to be considered a serious offense of any form, there is the temptation for system operators to overreact - perhaps to make an example of someone, or settle a grudge.
I recall the MS EULA specifically prevents any liability. It's near the bit that forbids the use of general-purpose Windows licences in the operation of nuclear facilities or other places there there is potential for epic fail. Maybe robots will have an EULA too, with a similar clause.
Forget safe. What's the worst that could happen? The creation of a mosquito-born parasite that kills millions of people every year? That's already the starting point, so it can't really get worse.
China has nukes. The US has nukes. Any war would continue only so long as both sides believe they have a good chance of winning without the need to resort to such desperate measures. As soon as one or the other had a decisive advantage, the opposing side would feel nuclear force to be the only way to protect their own existance.
I just entered 'palin residential address' into google. The second hit not only gives her address, but an overhead photo showing exactly where to find it.
Celebrity brings money. Money brings lawyers. Michael Jackson is a good example - he had multible children testify that he molested them, and he actually admitted to sleeping with them in his bed (Though denied anything sexual) and giving them alcohol. Can you imagine anyone of normal funding and status possibly getting away with that? And he almost mocked the court throughout the trial too, making it into a media circus. Yet he managed, through the power of super-lawyers who had the skill to endlessly cross-question witnesses until the children remembered a few tiny details differently and use that to call their testimony into question.
Slashdot Mirror
The bully with a sword can still serve a purpose. He'll pay the law enforcement, for a start - and without that, anyone could just smash a window to your house while you are out and walk off with all your posessions.
One of the arguments in favor of the estate tax is that it helps prevent the formation of family financial empires - vast collections of wealth passed down from parent to child to grandchild. Such things arn't good for society. Plus it raises the issue of fairness, if some people are born into certain wealth without any need to earn it.
It's correctly called the estate tax. It's critics often call it a death tax. Supporters sometimes refer to it as the Paris Hilton tax.
Platinum is also the vital catalyst in fuel cells. If those ever really take off, it might be getting expensive. Well, more so than it is now.
And soon will be renting access to their proxy server or VPN to other students at school
I agree with you on the search box, but feel obliged to point out that abomination was introduced in Vista, not Seven. The thing I really miss about it is the ability to search within files. Windows XP I could easily search for, say, *.txt containing the string 'Chat log backup 2009' - something I do need to do, as I use text files to list which of my many hard drives things are stored on. Under Vista or Seven, that's completly impossible without using a third-party search utility.
And I'm sure the 10e-8% of the internet that allows you to look at is very educational. /s
If you use a whitelist, you're basically asking the user to find a way around it.
I keep seeing people praising the many virtues of OpenDNS on various blogs and forums relating to this subject. Their praise is so unrestrained, I suspect now that OpenDNS is running some soft of astroturfing campaign. Or perhaps just one one very active supporter patroling the same sites as me.
Not this comment though. His history is too diverse - this one looke genuine.
That sounds like it could work.
I see very little practical use for controlling worms. Now, get me a vertebrate, a good-sized one... can you get it light enough to mount on a bird? That would be useful. Birds have a lot of lift in them.
I can see why C. Elegans was used. I know of that worm. It's been mapped: Every neuron teased apart, and it's connections to the others documented.
Both directions lead to disaster. The real problem is that the dominent economic system right now is based on employment creating production creating employment in feedback system. It works, and it works very well, under the current circumstances - but it could easily collapse if circumstances changed.
Let's say, hypothetically, that a new series of robots was introduced that could do all the low-skilled jobs. Fast-food server, shelf-stocker, cleaner, window cleaner, routine building maintainance. That's good - lower costs for businesses means lower prices for customers (Let's assume enough competition, anyway). Except that unemployment has just gone up, a lot - and, while companies are now able to produce cheaper goods, the market of people able to afford them has suddenly shrunk. Costs must be cut, more people laid off. The positive feedback that has lead to centuries of economic growth and the vast wealth we take for granted today easily turns into a cycle of self-destruction, as unemployment causes a drop in consumption and in turn further worsens unemployment.
Long term, some form of economic reform might be required. Perhaps something as simple as a basic income, to ensure that even the vast legions of unemployed are able to eat. At most, it might take real socialism of some form, with government taking over one market sector at a time as they collapse.
You could do it easier if you dropped the 'stay out of the way of humans' part. Just put them on a timer. They awaken at around three in the morning, spend two hours doing their cleaning, then return to their docking stations by five. The workers never see them, except perhaps the night security staff who can be told to stay out of the way.
Almost a good idea. But the printing money part isn't: Inflation would be unavoidable, and if you tied the income to inflation it would rapidly form a feedback loop. A basic income can be done, but the money has to be conserved. That means taxation.
There will be a lot of political opposition ("Socialism! Redistribution!"), but if technology does continue to allow more work to be done by less people it may be the only way to avoid starvation and riots.
I've seen some people argue that, in the eventual future, this will cause an unrecoverable economic collapse. The robots will take so many jobs that there arn't enough employed people to spend the money to keep even the robot-using companies operational. A problem that's only been avoided so far by hugely increasing consumption - but people can only consume so much, espicially with the move towards intellectual property industries where the cost of production is fixed regardless of the number of people consuming. I'm no economist, so I don't know how likely this is, but it does sound plausible given sufficiently advanced and low-cost robots.
The argument usually goes on to argue for some form of techno-socialism or other alternative economic system - not on the grounds that these would be good systems, but that if the current model is doomed at least the shift away from it can be done in a slow and organised manner.
People: We demand fair treatment! ...
Corporations: Then we won't do business with you.
People: Fine! We don't need you.
Corporations:
People: I miss facebook. And my mobile phone won't work. And I want to see the next episode of House.
Corporations: Sign the agreement.
People: Oh... you win.
Remember that laws are usually not written by people with a technological background. This is why there have been cases of people facing criminal hacking charges for things like guessing a default password of 'password'.
Are you sure this is the current version, and it hasn't been amended since? It seems very limited to limit the law to systems with password authentication. If it matters, dialup and most ADSL systems (At least those using PPPoE) do use passwords for authentication. Cable internet (DOCSIS) doesn't, but rather authenticates the modem hardware.
Much of this 'accessing a private system in a way that is forbidden by it's owner' is of a very trivial nature. Employes sneaking a few minutes break at work to check a website while they wait for an email, that manner of thing. The problem is that so long as it's possible for these trivial issues to be considered a serious offense of any form, there is the temptation for system operators to overreact - perhaps to make an example of someone, or settle a grudge.
Credit travels upwards, blame travels downwards. That's the way it works.
- Pointy-Haired Boss.
I recall the MS EULA specifically prevents any liability. It's near the bit that forbids the use of general-purpose Windows licences in the operation of nuclear facilities or other places there there is potential for epic fail. Maybe robots will have an EULA too, with a similar clause.
Forget safe. What's the worst that could happen? The creation of a mosquito-born parasite that kills millions of people every year? That's already the starting point, so it can't really get worse.
It's only illegal if you get caught.
China has nukes. The US has nukes. Any war would continue only so long as both sides believe they have a good chance of winning without the need to resort to such desperate measures. As soon as one or the other had a decisive advantage, the opposing side would feel nuclear force to be the only way to protect their own existance.
Everyone has broken a law. I'm sure you too. Ever dropped a crisp packet in the street?
I just entered 'palin residential address' into google. The second hit not only gives her address, but an overhead photo showing exactly where to find it.
http://alaskareport.com/news109/x71361_sarah_palins_home_address.htm
So anyone who wants to harass Palin in person doesn't need compromised emails. There she is. Go for it.
Though for someone of her prominence, I imagine there is a razor-wire fence, alarm system and a few guards to stop that happening.
Celebrity brings money. Money brings lawyers. Michael Jackson is a good example - he had multible children testify that he molested them, and he actually admitted to sleeping with them in his bed (Though denied anything sexual) and giving them alcohol. Can you imagine anyone of normal funding and status possibly getting away with that? And he almost mocked the court throughout the trial too, making it into a media circus. Yet he managed, through the power of super-lawyers who had the skill to endlessly cross-question witnesses until the children remembered a few tiny details differently and use that to call their testimony into question.