That's true, and if you don't make a stand now, then you may not have the opportunity to do so later. A few years ago my boss wanted to turn on that feature on my company cell phone. He said it was just to allow it to be tracked in case I lost it, and I think he was honest about it, too. However, I think that sort of thing is unacceptable and explained that to him. He tried to argue that it was after all company equipment (true enough) so I proposed just leaving it at my desk when I'd leave the office. After that he dropped the plan.
This didn't cost me anything, it didn't even create bad feeling between us. However, if we all cave in to every stupid idea our employers come up with, we have only ourselves to blame for the results. Sure, it's not worth becoming jobless over something like that, but in all likelyhood it's not worth it to your employer to press the issue, either.
There is probably something to that. However, does anyone believe what that recruiter said? It's no problem finding an IT job just as long as you are white? I don't think that describes the current IT market in any way, shape or form.
I think when blaming modern car design for traffic deaths, we should consider the statistical trends. Traffic deaths rates have been on the decline for decades. 1994 there were 15.64 deaths per 100000 in the US, 2004 it has been 14.52 per 100000. Why is this? Is it because:
drivers are getting better?
people drive less?
all the technology the industry is putting into cars is making driving saver, and people's driving habits do not cancel that out?
Actually, we know that statistically point 2 does not apply, and point 1 doesn't seem very likely. We all know that some drivers drive more recklessly because of the saftey features their cars offer. That's certainly something which deserves attention - educating people on the limits of their cars can probably help to increase saftey. However modern automobile design is quite apparently on the right track - it saves thousands of lives every year.
It's referred to as a "tax", because often MS pressures the hardware vendor to enter a deal where they pay MS per machine, not per OS shipped. It's an anti-competitive practice, because it precludes other OS vendors from selling below the price for Windows. It wouldn't be a problem if a hardware vendor just wanted to ship each machine with Windows for some reason.
I do however agree that cars should include toggle switches for these functions.
Probably not, I think. For every driver making the right decision when to turn them off, there'd be 10 turning them off at the wrong time and colliding with other cars due to that. Chances are, that on average the designers of the car know better than the average driver. Even if you personally would make the right decision, it's still safer for you when the average driver does not have the possibility to make that decision.
Just imagine, you're driving down the highway at 110km/h and there's someone 3cm behind you
I have to admit, while I'm designing automotive microcontrollers these days, I haven't kept up with this system from Mercedes. However, AFAIK: the system wouldn't allow him to do that - once the car gets close to the car in front, it would apply the brakes somewhat. You can set the distance, but it won't allow you to set a distance which is bound to be unsafe. If you want to drive at that distance, you would have to turn the system off.
Ok, just a little history here: the economies which are big today have all operated protectionism to get where they are now. There is no proof that fully opening your markets to the outside world allows a small economy to grow big - it has never been done. China does great running a very protectionist economy, right now.
As for marketable skills - fact is that the wealth gap is growing. I'm doing fine financially, but most people do not. Following current trends, in the future there will be more people doing badly, not less.
You say (paraphrased) "there is no way around it". That's unprovable as you should know. Over the last thousands of years, many distinct economies have worked fine, there is no particular reason to believe that unrestrained globalization and corporatism are the only option. Why should the only protectionism that works, consist of work visas, non-competes and patent laws?
Regarding Al-Qaeda training - correct, the group as such was not supported by the US, however many of it's senior members were, and it seems sensible to look at this problem, and investigate how somthing similar could be avoided in the future.
Regarding increased risk of terrorist attacks - you are leaving out the attacks which did happen. London subway, Madrid trains, Bali and the insurgency in Iraq. Right now it's easier to attack Americans in Iraq than to do so in the US. However there is no reason to believe that this will stay the same once US troops withdraw. So while there is no proof that the attack on Iraq has made Americans less save (and you are correct, there can't be proof for that) there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence for that returning in caskets to the US.
Regarding military dominance - well some of the architects of the current war have been advocating US imperialism quite fervently (e.g. Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century
Also, when describing US policy of the past - please don't leave out the times the US brought down democratic governments and supported terrorism.
i thought the whole idea is that the contrast between rich and poor areas of the world should level out, that this is progress
Well as long as you say areas, I think that might work. However what about the gap between the rich and the poor people? If a company can replace an employee with a cheaper one, the gap between the rich and the poor widens.
AFAIK this is entirely consistent with the long-term trend - there is an ever growing gap between rich and poor. I don't really have the impression globalisation is providing what it's supposed to provide.
What's commonly refered to as "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. What you describe has absolutely nothing to do with the common usage of the term.
The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will
Actually, calling someone "rabid arrogant freaks" sounds pretty arrogant to me. Opponents of ID, of course, usually make no claims to the effect you describe. The main objection is that ID is not a scientific theory, and if it's not science it shouldn't be taught in a science class. There is no problem with anyone teaching ID in a church, or indeed with someone working on a scientific theory which would incorporate some of the ideas of ID.
his was a quick, clever and visible way for RMS to get his point about Software Freedom across to the masses.
Which would be what? That freedom of press matters less than freedom of software?
This was a quick, clever and visible way for RMS to get his point about Software Freedom across to the masses.
It's always hard to say whether these techniques work - it's possible they do, for some people. However we also know, that they cause at least a few others to think less of him and his ideas. (See posts above for examples.)
Me too, but I don't disregard it in favor of the things I'd like to be true. I've observed every example I've given there. You can try to put even more restrictions on your users, but they'll find a way around those, too.
The problem there is - when users are forced to change their passwords regularly, they find it hard to memorize them. So they usally select one of these methods:
choose passwords which are easier to remember (and thus easier to crack)
change passwords in a trivial way, e.g. adding the number of the month, just incrementing the last number etc
keep notes of the password - e.g. under the keyboard, or even on a post-it stuck to the monitor frame
change the password, then change it right back to the original
My gut-feeling is that overall security goes down due to this.
If adults wished to "opt in" to access the material then of course that would be their right, and they would have to apply for their right of access.
They can opt-in by getting internet access. Nobody ever claimed that the internet was a place for children. If they think they can setup a network that is safe for children, why don't they initiate such a network instead of trying to turn the whole world into a Kindergarden?
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The internet is an adult space, always has been. If you don't want your children to enter an adult space, you are not forced to give them internet access. If we regulate every public space so that all are save for children, we'll have none left for adults. Can't we keep something for adults?
Where is the benefit of locking up someone like Ellison?
The benefit could be that lots of other productive people would not have their money stolen by him, and maybe be able to use it to found new businesses, drive technology or retire in comfort after a lifetime of hard work.
without copyright we wouldn't need the GPL, because all software, even "closed-source," would be Free.
Well, this only works as long as someone somehow manages to get their hands on the code. In your example it happens to work with Windows 2000, but not e.g. for Word and plenty of other software which you can only see in binary form. Without copyright protection companies like MS would take even more care not to let their source get out, and at any given time only a small subset of their software would actually be "free".
Similarly while it would be legal to make copies of their software, they would still be able to put code in to check registration etc. The same software methods they are using now to prevent illegal copying would be usable to prevent legal copying.
I don't get that part about viruses either - unless you use outlook to read news, or something similarly absurd like that?
On the other hand, while the web doesn't offer defences against spammers, many webforums do. The reason I mostly post here instead of usenet, has a lot to do with the moderation system here.
No, but I think we should evaluate the problem and assign resources appropriately. If there is a huge problem with birds getting killed by
wind turbines, then it's worth putting resources on this. On the other hand, if the problem is minor then the resources might be better spent to make turbines more economically viable which would potentially allow to shut down conventional power plants and thus reduce pollution. Which among other effects, would of course also benefit birds.
There is always a risk of killing an industry by suffocating it with regulations, so we need to be careful to evaluate whether the benefits of a regulation outweighs it's negative effects.
I don't really understand why tech companies prohibit camera phones. All the design data I have access to could easily be sent out via the net in seconds. To try and photograph it would take me days. I haven't seen a ban on USB sticks, CDROMs or mp3 players (which attach to USB ports either). So really, what's the point?
Sorry, but it really does no such thing. I don't have access to the full article in Nature, but according to the linked article all this chip (and that's a conventional electronic chip btw) does, is slow down light passing through it.
In order to make "chips" using light you need to solve at least the following problems:
create a way to switch using light signals (the research discussed in the article might help there, but other optical transistors are available, too)
develop a method to manufacture optical switches commercially in large-scale integration
reach similar switching speed as currently availables transistors
reach integration densities similar to current transistor densities
There is no guarantee that transmitting with photons necessarily generates less heat than transmitting with electrons. Energy is needed to generate light signals (touch a light bulb for reference), without knowing the manufacturing technology there can be no valid assumptions regarding the amount of heat it would generate nor the amount of power it would consume.
wouldn't they have noticed that the sun just happened to always occupy that position?
It wouldn't - if the reference point is earth, the position of the sun changes in relation to it. Nevertheless, the theory that the earth is orbiting the sun was also discussed by the ancient Greeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would it occur to you that *that* is the choice to make? Out of the billions of alternatives, why chose those two?
This didn't cost me anything, it didn't even create bad feeling between us. However, if we all cave in to every stupid idea our employers come up with, we have only ourselves to blame for the results. Sure, it's not worth becoming jobless over something like that, but in all likelyhood it's not worth it to your employer to press the issue, either.
There is probably something to that. However, does anyone believe what that recruiter said? It's no problem finding an IT job just as long as you are white? I don't think that describes the current IT market in any way, shape or form.
Actually, we know that statistically point 2 does not apply, and point 1 doesn't seem very likely. We all know that some drivers drive more recklessly because of the saftey features their cars offer. That's certainly something which deserves attention - educating people on the limits of their cars can probably help to increase saftey. However modern automobile design is quite apparently on the right track - it saves thousands of lives every year.
It's referred to as a "tax", because often MS pressures the hardware vendor to enter a deal where they pay MS per machine, not per OS shipped. It's an anti-competitive practice, because it precludes other OS vendors from selling below the price for Windows. It wouldn't be a problem if a hardware vendor just wanted to ship each machine with Windows for some reason.
Probably not, I think. For every driver making the right decision when to turn them off, there'd be 10 turning them off at the wrong time and colliding with other cars due to that. Chances are, that on average the designers of the car know better than the average driver. Even if you personally would make the right decision, it's still safer for you when the average driver does not have the possibility to make that decision.
I have to admit, while I'm designing automotive microcontrollers these days, I haven't kept up with this system from Mercedes. However, AFAIK: the system wouldn't allow him to do that - once the car gets close to the car in front, it would apply the brakes somewhat. You can set the distance, but it won't allow you to set a distance which is bound to be unsafe. If you want to drive at that distance, you would have to turn the system off.
As for marketable skills - fact is that the wealth gap is growing. I'm doing fine financially, but most people do not. Following current trends, in the future there will be more people doing badly, not less.
You say (paraphrased) "there is no way around it". That's unprovable as you should know. Over the last thousands of years, many distinct economies have worked fine, there is no particular reason to believe that unrestrained globalization and corporatism are the only option. Why should the only protectionism that works, consist of work visas, non-competes and patent laws?
Regarding increased risk of terrorist attacks - you are leaving out the attacks which did happen. London subway, Madrid trains, Bali and the insurgency in Iraq. Right now it's easier to attack Americans in Iraq than to do so in the US. However there is no reason to believe that this will stay the same once US troops withdraw. So while there is no proof that the attack on Iraq has made Americans less save (and you are correct, there can't be proof for that) there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence for that returning in caskets to the US.
Regarding military dominance - well some of the architects of the current war have been advocating US imperialism quite fervently (e.g. Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A merican_Century
Also, when describing US policy of the past - please don't leave out the times the US brought down democratic governments and supported terrorism.
Well as long as you say areas, I think that might work. However what about the gap between the rich and the poor people? If a company can replace an employee with a cheaper one, the gap between the rich and the poor widens.
AFAIK this is entirely consistent with the long-term trend - there is an ever growing gap between rich and poor. I don't really have the impression globalisation is providing what it's supposed to provide.
Good point, if god went to all that trouble, he clearly doesn't want us to believe in him. ;-)
The people who are rabidly against the concept of intelligent design are nothing more than arrogant freaks who declare that man may be able to build evolving life in the lab but nobody else in the universe has ever been able to do so, nor ever will
Actually, calling someone "rabid arrogant freaks" sounds pretty arrogant to me. Opponents of ID, of course, usually make no claims to the effect you describe. The main objection is that ID is not a scientific theory, and if it's not science it shouldn't be taught in a science class. There is no problem with anyone teaching ID in a church, or indeed with someone working on a scientific theory which would incorporate some of the ideas of ID.
Which would be what? That freedom of press matters less than freedom of software?
This was a quick, clever and visible way for RMS to get his point about Software Freedom across to the masses.
It's always hard to say whether these techniques work - it's possible they do, for some people. However we also know, that they cause at least a few others to think less of him and his ideas. (See posts above for examples.)
Me too, but I don't disregard it in favor of the things I'd like to be true. I've observed every example I've given there. You can try to put even more restrictions on your users, but they'll find a way around those, too.
The problem there is - when users are forced to change their passwords regularly, they find it hard to memorize them. So they usally select one of these methods:
My gut-feeling is that overall security goes down due to this.
They can opt-in by getting internet access. Nobody ever claimed that the internet was a place for children. If they think they can setup a network that is safe for children, why don't they initiate such a network instead of trying to turn the whole world into a Kindergarden?
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The internet is an adult space, always has been. If you don't want your children to enter an adult space, you are not forced to give them internet access. If we regulate every public space so that all are save for children, we'll have none left for adults. Can't we keep something for adults?
The benefit could be that lots of other productive people would not have their money stolen by him, and maybe be able to use it to found new businesses, drive technology or retire in comfort after a lifetime of hard work.
Well, this only works as long as someone somehow manages to get their hands on the code. In your example it happens to work with Windows 2000, but not e.g. for Word and plenty of other software which you can only see in binary form. Without copyright protection companies like MS would take even more care not to let their source get out, and at any given time only a small subset of their software would actually be "free".
Similarly while it would be legal to make copies of their software, they would still be able to put code in to check registration etc. The same software methods they are using now to prevent illegal copying would be usable to prevent legal copying.
On the other hand, while the web doesn't offer defences against spammers, many webforums do. The reason I mostly post here instead of usenet, has a lot to do with the moderation system here.
There is always a risk of killing an industry by suffocating it with regulations, so we need to be careful to evaluate whether the benefits of a regulation outweighs it's negative effects.
I don't really understand why tech companies prohibit camera phones. All the design data I have access to could easily be sent out via the net in seconds. To try and photograph it would take me days. I haven't seen a ban on USB sticks, CDROMs or mp3 players (which attach to USB ports either). So really, what's the point?
Sorry, but it really does no such thing. I don't have access to the full article in Nature, but according to the linked article all this chip (and that's a conventional electronic chip btw) does, is slow down light passing through it.
In order to make "chips" using light you need to solve at least the following problems:
There is no guarantee that transmitting with photons necessarily generates less heat than transmitting with electrons. Energy is needed to generate light signals (touch a light bulb for reference), without knowing the manufacturing technology there can be no valid assumptions regarding the amount of heat it would generate nor the amount of power it would consume.
Looks like there are some people in the mexican government who can't be bought.
It wouldn't - if the reference point is earth, the position of the sun changes in relation to it. Nevertheless, the theory that the earth is orbiting the sun was also discussed by the ancient Greeks.