You log onto the Internet. (Ha, ha! Scratch that.) You're on the Internet, as always. All cities are wired all the time, and there's hardly a device that doesn't speak with the net. Today's cell phones are as laughable as 9600 baud modems are today. New cell phones are capable of creating 3D models and textures from items- it's the most popular way of "uploading" physical artifacts into the 3D virtual world.
You have a moment, and are interested in seeing what your friends are up to. Vinnie's browsing the web, researching some papers on post-modern something-or-other. Minipi is reading a paper for his information architecture classes. Mattis in Germany is looking at some music band sites. You can see them transparently live, even though they are all over the planet.
You go up to the music band sites and see that not just Mattis is working on it, but others are as well. You strike up a conversation with Mattis about the music. (With your voice.) The other people nearby may listen in, they may not- they may instead opt to just read the speech-to-text'ed transcript which passively rolls by in the background.
Joel wants to know how I'm doing, he goes checks it out. He sees me talking with Mattis; He's not particularly interested in the conversation, so he won't butt in or knock on the door; Instead, he just slips me an instant message letting me know he's nearby. Mattis notices my pause, and sees that I've received a note. "Oh, sorry, Mattis, something really important just came up." I talk with Joel.
Joel is working on a paper, and I see where it is, mid-writing. He's working on it with another fellow, in real-time. He needs some expertise of mine for this particular part; Something important to me, and that he knew that, and wants my input on it. I read it over, make some edits. "Hmm," his friend says, and proposes some other changes. We talk about it. We notice that there are 5 shadow people, watching as we right. Some people are very interested in Joel's thoughts; They're having a conversation about what he's writing on the permiter.
The basic idea here is that we're going to enter the "World Live Web." It turns out that it's rather useful to see and be seen. There are tremendous things that are possible by networking people, and that means live interaction. Deferring communications all the time is interesting, but has some problems, especially in terms of mass organizing. One thing we will see are regularly scheduled "time windows." It'll be a temporal hangout. Like a meeting or appointment, but not necessarily as formal.
Now, if you want to play "invisible" and be a voyeur, then fine. If you don't want people to see you while you're writing, be my guest. You can be one of "the invisible people."
But a lot of us, we're going to participate in this new world.
For example, we can envision a world where you can watch people writing blog posts as they write them. We can imagine working on documents together with others in real-time. We can imagine social networks, we can imagine shared web browsing. We can imagine going to a web page, and seeing other people who happen to be browsing the web page at the same time as well. We can imagine looking at them, seeing what their affiliations are; There are all these things. We have seen voice communication. Within 10 years, good voice synthesis will be coupled, and we'll be able to look and sound like anybody.
Now, what we haven't seen, even in our imaginations, is all this stuff working together. Integrated into one platform.
Doing this stuff piece-meal, a little bit at a time, on the edge of the network, isn't going to work. It's just not. It'd take forever. Building new standards into the existing network just takes forever. There is no design team. Nadah. Nothing.
Where we see the cool stuff happening, really, is in these large behemeouth new platform.
But are we really going to make a 3D world with live document editing, voice & synthesis, presence, infinite versioning on everything, avatars, the whole thing, yadda yadda yadda, using just AJAX? Within 10-15 years? Hell no! It takes at least at least 5 years to make a new specification pretty much standard amongst users. Even RSS aggregators have only 10% penetration amongst blog readers.
What does this mean? It means that a new platform is in the works. Whether you know it or not, a new platform is in the works. Which of the new upstarts is going to be it, remains to be seen.
Sure, sure, sure-- there will be gateways between the world of Vanilla HTML + AJAX into these new worlds.
At some point, you can make a computer render pictures of the new world, and ship them off in AJAX. You can even play Lemmings in the browser now. (Well, you could have...) But the new world is going to be built in the new world. It's not going to be built piecemeal out here in weblandia. When we use browsers to access it, it will be a window into that world, but it will not be that world.
Dr David Penney didn't use carbon dating. Carbon dating only works to roughly 60,000 years ago. Beyond that, the radioactivity of the little C-14 that remains falls can't be told from background radiation.
I don't know what technique was used to date the spider; The article only says they used the blood in the spider to do it.
A power play it is. However, a power play is legitimate.
If people want UN governance over the DNS system, they can have UN governance.
If countries fear US control of the Internte DNS, then it is acceptable for them to want to create their own system.
The US can choose to play, or not to play.
Let's suppose the other countries of the world decide on an alternative Domain Name Systems. In some countries, they require it's us. In other countries, they only require it's use within the government. Gradually, over time, people of other countries adapt to the new system.
Except us, in the US. And, those people in the US who like the other system better, and switch to using it.
A power play like this is perfectly legitimate. You can only say "power plays are wrong" if you think that the structure of power now is irrevocably, and forevermore, perfect, and should never change.
In this case, I think it is wise of other countries to seek independent of the US control of the DNS system. Would you not agree?
I question the irrelevance you cast on hand-counts. Your conclusion does not follow. If it takes 6 days to count, rather than 3, well, that's fine by me.
As for overseers: I think I explicitely said that anybody could oversee.
Computers are great at following rules. The problem is, it's so incredibly easy to give them bad rules.
You still haven't answered any of my complaints: Anyone who has access to the computer before compile-time, can make it replace the output objects and executables.
If you don't think big money is going into thwarting the system, think again.
You can't replace trust with expedience, no matter how great the expedience. Not in a Democracy.
Will the voter notice? I don't think so. If I were hacking the election machine, I would make the paper ballot match whatever the voter put it.
As for the paper tally, I don't think there will be one. If there were any in the previous elections, I am not at all aware of them. The reason people want to do electronic voting, is so that they don't have to perform a paper tally.
Is it far fetched? "As if someone is going to be able to insert code into the GCC compiler?" No, I'm afraid it is not far fetched. Just think about the amount of money that goes into election campaigns. A mere $1,000,000 is way more than enough to subvert the electronic system.
You asked me, if I think it's worth it to people to rig the vote by hacking a compiler and making sure that it is the compiler that is used (not hard!): How does it compare to the ease of replacing paper ballots? Or just throwing them away?
And here's where we get to the solution that I propose: Video tape all handling of ballots, and the counting of ballots. It is now easy to record all ballot access, and place those records on the Internet. People should always access ballots in full view of both cameras, and members of parties, and whoever else wants to be an observer. The observers can then verify the video records. ("Yes, that is really what happened. This is not a false video.") Etc., etc., etc.,. This is much harder to fake out.
No, it's not true that "no matter how you look at it, this system is better than paper."
Electronic voting is not as trustworthy, because we've seen demonstrations of just how easy it is to subvert these guys. You have not presented any reasons why the hack I linked to is not reasonable. This is a remarkably simple hack, and Ken Thompson described the basics of how to write it. It is not expensive, it is very easy to perform. All you need to know is how the compiler will be aquired. Somebody will have the authority to choose the compiler. All you need to do is to be that person, or to find out what that person will do, or to intercept the request to retrieve the compiler; There are many ways to put the bugged compiler in the right place.
You could even subvert the commands "mv," "cp", or have the operating system of the machine it's compiled on perform a well timed switch, when nobody's looking. There's a million ways to do this.
Do not mistake my criticism for luddite conservatism. You are speaking with a hardcore transhumanist programmer. I've been programming since I was 7, and I look forward to the day when I can detach my brain from my body, and load it into an electronic cube. That is until we have the technology to siliconize the brain. You can confirm that I think this way because I'm Internet bonded. I am totally into tech.
It just happens that, in this case, the best technology is called paper & pencil & video recorders broadcasting and archiving onto the Internet.
The compiler can take the good friendly Open Source, compile like normal (for the most part,) but then inject some nastiness wherever it was programmed to.
Even observing the compilation of the compiler does not help, because someone can subvert the compiler that compiles the compiler.
What I recommend: Humans performing pencil & paper counting under scrutiny of video camera and representatives of competing parties. Distribute the video tapes of the counting process on the Internet, and maintain archives for at least 12 years.
If I worked in a big company, where physical security was a real issue, I'd probably encrypt my passwords as I wrote them down, and decrypt them as I read them out. The aim isn't to be foolproof; the aim is to thwart casual curiosity snooping.
If I didn't take my company password book with me home, I'd keep it in a locker at work.
I write my passwords down.
on
Too Many Passwords
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I write my passwords down in a special location in a special book.
You can't look at my password over the Internet.
You can't (for at least 30 years) make a robot that will find my passwords.
If a server that stores my password is compromised, then it is only that password that is compromised.
I have offloaded Internet security into Material security.
I use a separate password for every forum I care about. My passwords on my personal computers are changed regularly. I can do this, because of my password book. Without it, this would be implausible.
It is conceivable that someone will get my password by taking my book from me, and snapping pictures of the password pages with their cell phone. Very well then, let someone make the $500 airplane trip over here, come into the office, find my book, and then start snapping pictures. Or maybe find me on the streets if it's lunch time, and rip the book out of my backpack. Conceivable.
But I think this is prohibitively expensive for most people. It would be cheaper to hack a website, and get some other guy's password, and see where else the password might be usable.
I think it is less risky to keep a watchful eye on my password book, than to use only a finite number of passwords.
If someone thinks this is wrong, tell me what you do, and tell me why it is more secure. Not what you can imagine doing; Rather, tell me what you really do.
That guy didn't get run over by the tank. I'm using the very same resource you just linked.
He was ordered to be run over, but the tank driver refused to follow those orders. (The tank driver was later arrested.)
You wrote: "Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper."
I recognize that our rights are more than words on a sheet of paper. But I'm a little more interested in what people will do.
In this case, the tank driver resisted an order to kill.
I frequently wonder: Would an American do the same? I remember WACO, and I note many places where our media is clearly subserviant to the US government.
We must take refuge in more than just our rights, we need to think about the spirit behind those rights.
In this respect, I think Americans are much weaker.
Chinese know that they resist their government. Americans do not.
I investigated Ubuntu on the recommendations of Planet Gnome when it came out. I had problems with Ubuntu detecting my video cards, on 2 out of my 3 computers. Not sure why. It just gets to X, and then reboots. (Lather, rinse, repeat.) I lost interest.
I'm not sure if it's a better Linux distro. (I think Knoppix CDs are cool, because they've worked on all of my computers.) But they get points in my book for being friendly and marketing themselves well, like Firefox. Something kind of overlooked in general.
In particular, could you write up what sorts of technologies are required, or would be helpful, in the construction of a space elevator?
Could you write up what sorts of technologies would be unlocked by having a space elevator? What sorts of things people would do with it?
Lastly, if you know of estimates on the timing of those things, could you write those up as well? We always appreciate links to reports, studies, organizations, etc.,.
If we could do real-time super-resolution in 2015, then it makes sense to me that, with some processing time, cell phone cameras in 2015 will render 3D-model textures and models. If the 4G network is around by then, (and it should be,) we could very well see instead that the data is sent to more powerful processing arrays elsewhere, (ie, on your home computers, or on Google's computers) and rendered into models in real-time. 4G is around 20Mb, perhaps 3G at 3Mb is enough to transmit low-grade video capture in real-time; Enough to make our 3D models in real time as well.
Presently, the OCR cameras require some rendering time. That requirement will clearly be gone by 2015; The cameras will automatically OCR text that is identified on-screen. (Perhaps the alarm will be a constant chirping buzz, whenever you use it?)
As a side note: Perhaps Google maps of the future will learn about what street names go to what streets, simply by recognizing and reading the sign posts.
What do you want to bet Google's going to get video footage of every city, and crank it into full-on 3D models? You better believe it. I'm betting on 2015, tops. (Who knows; I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't cranking on their Seattle footage now.)
We should also expect, I think, that the public will assemble it's own models from public footage. Volunteers will capture footage with their cell phones (or, if they are showing off, sophisticated digital video recordsers,) and feed it to a public free culture grid, which will churn out 3D models and textures for distribution and retrieval.
As a GNOME guy, I can tell you: I totally savor DCOP. Bonobo has been a disaster.
That said, what the parent was talking about was a bit more.
We need more than just an IPC system between components; We need an infrastructure on top of that IPC system that allows for:
Automatic retrieval of documentation.
Automatic discovery of relevant APIs.
The ability to select a menu item, and ask the system: "How do I automate that?"
The ability to record, manipulate, parameterize, and more deeply edit sequences of manipulations.
That is, we want to make a software component as transparent as possible, so that a programmer with little knowledge can start automating any app within seconds, and feel confident that all the know-how and ability to connect easily will be there.
DCOP is just a (good) mechanism for communicating with components. Okay, the components can talk with each other. But what words are they speaking to each other? We need a sophisticated language on top of that communications channel.
And, yes, we do need COM for Linux, but what the parent said is much more than just COM; it's also a set of introspection facilities on top of it, and support tools, and,......but it's absolutely the way we need to go.
And when we do, exactly what the parent said will happen: Programming will lift out of the programmer ghetto.
You can make missions much longer, since you are not supporting an entire body, only a brain.
You provide the technique for use on earth. Brains can live for 150 years, before decay. Bodies kill healthy brains when they die.
You blow the door to brain-computer interface wide open.
I also challenge your implications that:
Robotics technology will be, in 2020, pretty much where it is right now.
Robotics will be more limited than than the human body.
Robotics are somehow more vulnerable than human bodies, in space.
Human bodies, somehow, adapt to unknown issues. There are no "moon viruses" targeting the human body. Beyond adapting to viruses, I am unsure of what you mean by "adapting." We know that human bodies do not "adapt" to outer space. Instead, they just fry and die. (I would argue that a brain is quite capable of adapting to unknown issues, and we're talking about bringing the brain along, here.)
Humans would not be willing to go to the moon as a brain. I know at least 1 that would be willing to..!
Who is dying? Who is reproducing? What genes can help or hinder?
I have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.
It seems like you will die quickly if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. It seems like you will reproduce more if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. But location isn't encoded in your genes.
Perhaps interest in "religion," if such a thing can possibly be encoded in genes, could be selected for. But I have a hard time understanding how religiousness could be encoded into genes. Body strength is clear, but propensity to religion would require, I think, that the genetic code somehow be able to address specific abstract concepts. I have a hard time understanding how that could be, and without a lot of evidence showing how there could be such a causal chain, I would dismiss it.
If you live or die, it seems to be based more on politics, religion, and location. The same appears to be true for having children.
If the bad locations to be change faster than the cycle of having births and raising children (say, 30 years,)
Maybe there will be a super-horny-and-anti-condom gene. Again, I have a hard time understanding how visual recognition of a condom could be developed into a gene- and so quickly! (I understand condoms have existed for a few thousand years, but that doesn't seem long enough for genes and cells to be able to create condom recognizers.)
Re:I haven't read the book, but...
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
If all the author was saying was that "people who get into porn have a period where they get into more aspects of it," I don't think that'd be a problem. That's true for anything. If you join the town Geology club, you go from learning a few things about rocks to expeditions to knowing a lot about the local geology. There's an initial period of infatuation and discovery, with just about anything the mind lays it's hands on.
If that's all the author was saying, I don't think it'd be a big problem.
But I think the author's saying that you will now get into more and more extreme forms of porn, until you reach the point where you are having sex with kids, can't distinguish reality from fiction, rape real people, and can't have a friendship with or date a woman. The author's story is one of continuous escalation and immanent menace.
Based on what you've told me and my personal experiences, I just don't see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to 2015.
You log onto the Internet. (Ha, ha! Scratch that.) You're on the Internet, as always. All cities are wired all the time, and there's hardly a device that doesn't speak with the net. Today's cell phones are as laughable as 9600 baud modems are today. New cell phones are capable of creating 3D models and textures from items- it's the most popular way of "uploading" physical artifacts into the 3D virtual world.
You have a moment, and are interested in seeing what your friends are up to. Vinnie's browsing the web, researching some papers on post-modern something-or-other. Minipi is reading a paper for his information architecture classes. Mattis in Germany is looking at some music band sites. You can see them transparently live, even though they are all over the planet.
You go up to the music band sites and see that not just Mattis is working on it, but others are as well. You strike up a conversation with Mattis about the music. (With your voice.) The other people nearby may listen in, they may not- they may instead opt to just read the speech-to-text'ed transcript which passively rolls by in the background.
Joel wants to know how I'm doing, he goes checks it out. He sees me talking with Mattis; He's not particularly interested in the conversation, so he won't butt in or knock on the door; Instead, he just slips me an instant message letting me know he's nearby. Mattis notices my pause, and sees that I've received a note. "Oh, sorry, Mattis, something really important just came up." I talk with Joel.
Joel is working on a paper, and I see where it is, mid-writing. He's working on it with another fellow, in real-time. He needs some expertise of mine for this particular part; Something important to me, and that he knew that, and wants my input on it. I read it over, make some edits. "Hmm," his friend says, and proposes some other changes. We talk about it. We notice that there are 5 shadow people, watching as we right. Some people are very interested in Joel's thoughts; They're having a conversation about what he's writing on the permiter.
The basic idea here is that we're going to enter the "World Live Web." It turns out that it's rather useful to see and be seen. There are tremendous things that are possible by networking people, and that means live interaction. Deferring communications all the time is interesting, but has some problems, especially in terms of mass organizing. One thing we will see are regularly scheduled "time windows." It'll be a temporal hangout. Like a meeting or appointment, but not necessarily as formal.
Now, if you want to play "invisible" and be a voyeur, then fine. If you don't want people to see you while you're writing, be my guest. You can be one of "the invisible people."
But a lot of us, we're going to participate in this new world.
I am actually sympathetic to the basic idea here: New platform.
I'm newly skeptical of the approach of endlessly creating side-systems on the web browser.
There are amazing things that are possible when you make a new platform for integrating ideas.
For example, we can envision a world where you can watch people writing blog posts as they write them. We can imagine working on documents together with others in real-time. We can imagine social networks, we can imagine shared web browsing. We can imagine going to a web page, and seeing other people who happen to be browsing the web page at the same time as well. We can imagine looking at them, seeing what their affiliations are; There are all these things. We have seen voice communication. Within 10 years, good voice synthesis will be coupled, and we'll be able to look and sound like anybody.
Now, what we haven't seen, even in our imaginations, is all this stuff working together. Integrated into one platform.
Doing this stuff piece-meal, a little bit at a time, on the edge of the network, isn't going to work. It's just not. It'd take forever. Building new standards into the existing network just takes forever. There is no design team. Nadah. Nothing.
Where we see the cool stuff happening, really, is in these large behemeouth new platform.
Now, sure, we can get some milage out of AJAX. We can do sophisticated things with that.
But are we really going to make a 3D world with live document editing, voice & synthesis, presence, infinite versioning on everything, avatars, the whole thing, yadda yadda yadda, using just AJAX? Within 10-15 years? Hell no! It takes at least at least 5 years to make a new specification pretty much standard amongst users. Even RSS aggregators have only 10% penetration amongst blog readers.
What does this mean? It means that a new platform is in the works. Whether you know it or not, a new platform is in the works. Which of the new upstarts is going to be it, remains to be seen.
Sure, sure, sure-- there will be gateways between the world of Vanilla HTML + AJAX into these new worlds.
At some point, you can make a computer render pictures of the new world, and ship them off in AJAX. You can even play Lemmings in the browser now. (Well, you could have...) But the new world is going to be built in the new world. It's not going to be built piecemeal out here in weblandia. When we use browsers to access it, it will be a window into that world, but it will not be that world.
Dr David Penney didn't use carbon dating. Carbon dating only works to roughly 60,000 years ago. Beyond that, the radioactivity of the little C-14 that remains falls can't be told from background radiation.
I don't know what technique was used to date the spider; The article only says they used the blood in the spider to do it.
My understanding is that they are trying to build a unified system amongst themselves.
They can do it with or without the UN; The UN just happens to be a nice place to do it, since the venue's already set in place.
But if the US decides the UN isn't going to do it, and the US doesn't want to participate, then the US can shoot itself in the foot.
A power play it is. However, a power play is legitimate.
If people want UN governance over the DNS system, they can have UN governance.
If countries fear US control of the Internte DNS, then it is acceptable for them to want to create their own system.
The US can choose to play, or not to play.
Let's suppose the other countries of the world decide on an alternative Domain Name Systems. In some countries, they require it's us. In other countries, they only require it's use within the government. Gradually, over time, people of other countries adapt to the new system.
Except us, in the US. And, those people in the US who like the other system better, and switch to using it.
A power play like this is perfectly legitimate. You can only say "power plays are wrong" if you think that the structure of power now is irrevocably, and forevermore, perfect, and should never change.
In this case, I think it is wise of other countries to seek independent of the US control of the DNS system. Would you not agree?
I question the irrelevance you cast on hand-counts. Your conclusion does not follow. If it takes 6 days to count, rather than 3, well, that's fine by me.
As for overseers: I think I explicitely said that anybody could oversee.
Computers are great at following rules. The problem is, it's so incredibly easy to give them bad rules.
You still haven't answered any of my complaints: Anyone who has access to the computer before compile-time, can make it replace the output objects and executables.
If you don't think big money is going into thwarting the system, think again.
You can't replace trust with expedience, no matter how great the expedience. Not in a Democracy.
Will the voter notice? I don't think so. If I were hacking the election machine, I would make the paper ballot match whatever the voter put it.
As for the paper tally, I don't think there will be one. If there were any in the previous elections, I am not at all aware of them. The reason people want to do electronic voting, is so that they don't have to perform a paper tally.
Is it far fetched? "As if someone is going to be able to insert code into the GCC compiler?" No, I'm afraid it is not far fetched. Just think about the amount of money that goes into election campaigns. A mere $1,000,000 is way more than enough to subvert the electronic system.
You asked me, if I think it's worth it to people to rig the vote by hacking a compiler and making sure that it is the compiler that is used (not hard!): How does it compare to the ease of replacing paper ballots? Or just throwing them away?
And here's where we get to the solution that I propose: Video tape all handling of ballots, and the counting of ballots. It is now easy to record all ballot access, and place those records on the Internet. People should always access ballots in full view of both cameras, and members of parties, and whoever else wants to be an observer. The observers can then verify the video records. ("Yes, that is really what happened. This is not a false video.") Etc., etc., etc.,. This is much harder to fake out.
No, it's not true that "no matter how you look at it, this system is better than paper."
Electronic voting is not as trustworthy, because we've seen demonstrations of just how easy it is to subvert these guys. You have not presented any reasons why the hack I linked to is not reasonable. This is a remarkably simple hack, and Ken Thompson described the basics of how to write it. It is not expensive, it is very easy to perform. All you need to know is how the compiler will be aquired. Somebody will have the authority to choose the compiler. All you need to do is to be that person, or to find out what that person will do, or to intercept the request to retrieve the compiler; There are many ways to put the bugged compiler in the right place.
You could even subvert the commands "mv," "cp", or have the operating system of the machine it's compiled on perform a well timed switch, when nobody's looking. There's a million ways to do this.
Do not mistake my criticism for luddite conservatism. You are speaking with a hardcore transhumanist programmer. I've been programming since I was 7, and I look forward to the day when I can detach my brain from my body, and load it into an electronic cube. That is until we have the technology to siliconize the brain. You can confirm that I think this way because I'm Internet bonded. I am totally into tech.
It just happens that, in this case, the best technology is called paper & pencil & video recorders broadcasting and archiving onto the Internet.
It doesn't matter if it's Closed or Open. It's still easy to subvert.
No, I'm sorry, but that's not sufficient.
The compiler (which is executed as a binary) itself could be subverted.
The compiler can take the good friendly Open Source, compile like normal (for the most part,) but then inject some nastiness wherever it was programmed to.
Even observing the compilation of the compiler does not help, because someone can subvert the compiler that compiles the compiler.
What I recommend: Humans performing pencil & paper counting under scrutiny of video camera and representatives of competing parties. Distribute the video tapes of the counting process on the Internet, and maintain archives for at least 12 years.
If I worked in a big company, where physical security was a real issue, I'd probably encrypt my passwords as I wrote them down, and decrypt them as I read them out. The aim isn't to be foolproof; the aim is to thwart casual curiosity snooping.
If I didn't take my company password book with me home, I'd keep it in a locker at work.
I have offloaded Internet security into Material security.
I use a separate password for every forum I care about. My passwords on my personal computers are changed regularly. I can do this, because of my password book. Without it, this would be implausible.
It is conceivable that someone will get my password by taking my book from me, and snapping pictures of the password pages with their cell phone. Very well then, let someone make the $500 airplane trip over here, come into the office, find my book, and then start snapping pictures. Or maybe find me on the streets if it's lunch time, and rip the book out of my backpack. Conceivable.
But I think this is prohibitively expensive for most people. It would be cheaper to hack a website, and get some other guy's password, and see where else the password might be usable.
I think it is less risky to keep a watchful eye on my password book, than to use only a finite number of passwords.
If someone thinks this is wrong, tell me what you do, and tell me why it is more secure. Not what you can imagine doing; Rather, tell me what you really do.
I just want to note:
That guy didn't get run over by the tank. I'm using the very same resource you just linked.
He was ordered to be run over, but the tank driver refused to follow those orders. (The tank driver was later arrested.)
You wrote: "Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper."
I recognize that our rights are more than words on a sheet of paper. But I'm a little more interested in what people will do.
In this case, the tank driver resisted an order to kill.
I frequently wonder: Would an American do the same? I remember WACO, and I note many places where our media is clearly subserviant to the US government.
We must take refuge in more than just our rights, we need to think about the spirit behind those rights.
In this respect, I think Americans are much weaker.
Chinese know that they resist their government. Americans do not.
I investigated Ubuntu on the recommendations of Planet Gnome when it came out. I had problems with Ubuntu detecting my video cards, on 2 out of my 3 computers. Not sure why. It just gets to X, and then reboots. (Lather, rinse, repeat.) I lost interest.
I'm not sure if it's a better Linux distro. (I think Knoppix CDs are cool, because they've worked on all of my computers.) But they get points in my book for being friendly and marketing themselves well, like Firefox. Something kind of overlooked in general.
You seem knowledgable on this subject! Would you write something for the WikiCities futures wiki?
In particular, could you write up what sorts of technologies are required, or would be helpful, in the construction of a space elevator?
Could you write up what sorts of technologies would be unlocked by having a space elevator? What sorts of things people would do with it?
Lastly, if you know of estimates on the timing of those things, could you write those up as well? We always appreciate links to reports, studies, organizations, etc.,.
Feel free to start small..!
You'll have to define "soon..." ...The definition seems to have been changing, after all.
Do you mean like: "You won't see it for at least 20 years," or do you mean like in the historically conventional sense, "100 years," or, "200 years."
So, according to the article, we will see this commercially around 2008-2010.
Justin Rattner tells us that in 2015, we should expect to see real-time super-resolution from cell cameras. That is, the ability to pick up several frames, and figure out more about the image, in real time, just based on the offsetting from holding a camera with a minute unconscious shake. (The problem is parallelizable, and 2015's x10-x100 core systems should take care of it.)
We already have the software to construct models & textures, after some rendering, from video footage.
If we could do real-time super-resolution in 2015, then it makes sense to me that, with some processing time, cell phone cameras in 2015 will render 3D-model textures and models. If the 4G network is around by then, (and it should be,) we could very well see instead that the data is sent to more powerful processing arrays elsewhere, (ie, on your home computers, or on Google's computers) and rendered into models in real-time. 4G is around 20Mb, perhaps 3G at 3Mb is enough to transmit low-grade video capture in real-time; Enough to make our 3D models in real time as well.
Presently, the OCR cameras require some rendering time. That requirement will clearly be gone by 2015; The cameras will automatically OCR text that is identified on-screen. (Perhaps the alarm will be a constant chirping buzz, whenever you use it?)
As a side note: Perhaps Google maps of the future will learn about what street names go to what streets, simply by recognizing and reading the sign posts.
What do you want to bet Google's going to get video footage of every city, and crank it into full-on 3D models? You better believe it. I'm betting on 2015, tops. (Who knows; I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't cranking on their Seattle footage now.)
We should also expect, I think, that the public will assemble it's own models from public footage. Volunteers will capture footage with their cell phones (or, if they are showing off, sophisticated digital video recordsers,) and feed it to a public free culture grid, which will churn out 3D models and textures for distribution and retrieval.
Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Are these outlandish thoughts for 2015? No! You can't have your Flying Car! Down boy! Retrain your imagination! Yes, people have predicted the future before; read about NISTEP's 1970's predictions for 1990-2000.
That said, what the parent was talking about was a bit more.
We need more than just an IPC system between components; We need an infrastructure on top of that IPC system that allows for:
That is, we want to make a software component as transparent as possible, so that a programmer with little knowledge can start automating any app within seconds, and feel confident that all the know-how and ability to connect easily will be there.
DCOP is just a (good) mechanism for communicating with components. Okay, the components can talk with each other. But what words are they speaking to each other? We need a sophisticated language on top of that communications channel.
Absofrigginlutely correct.
... ...but it's absolutely the way we need to go.
And, yes, we do need COM for Linux, but what the parent said is much more than just COM; it's also a set of introspection facilities on top of it, and support tools, and,
And when we do, exactly what the parent said will happen: Programming will lift out of the programmer ghetto.
I would recommend research into brain-computer interface.
I also challenge your implications that:
Screw the moon- for now; We should instead work to develop the technology to separate a brain from the body by 2020.
...
Master that trick, and you can make the moon easily. No need for showers, much less food, no hallways,
Much more compact ship, much less costly.
And the "side benefits" go about a 1,000,000x further than the side effects gained from moon trips.
Sure, sure, but: Do they kill you before you have children?
My understanding is that cancer kills people who are older.
Activists, and the word activist in general I associate with people who are singularly (and often myopically) focused on one goal.
I think it's- There are many things wrong with the world, but you can't substantially work to solve them all. So, we pick one, and go with that.
Who is dying? Who is reproducing? What genes can help or hinder?
I have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.
It seems like you will die quickly if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. It seems like you will reproduce more if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. But location isn't encoded in your genes.
Perhaps interest in "religion," if such a thing can possibly be encoded in genes, could be selected for. But I have a hard time understanding how religiousness could be encoded into genes. Body strength is clear, but propensity to religion would require, I think, that the genetic code somehow be able to address specific abstract concepts. I have a hard time understanding how that could be, and without a lot of evidence showing how there could be such a causal chain, I would dismiss it.
If you live or die, it seems to be based more on politics, religion, and location. The same appears to be true for having children.
If the bad locations to be change faster than the cycle of having births and raising children (say, 30 years,)
Maybe there will be a super-horny-and-anti-condom gene. Again, I have a hard time understanding how visual recognition of a condom could be developed into a gene- and so quickly! (I understand condoms have existed for a few thousand years, but that doesn't seem long enough for genes and cells to be able to create condom recognizers.)
If all the author was saying was that "people who get into porn have a period where they get into more aspects of it," I don't think that'd be a problem. That's true for anything. If you join the town Geology club, you go from learning a few things about rocks to expeditions to knowing a lot about the local geology. There's an initial period of infatuation and discovery, with just about anything the mind lays it's hands on.
If that's all the author was saying, I don't think it'd be a big problem.
But I think the author's saying that you will now get into more and more extreme forms of porn, until you reach the point where you are having sex with kids, can't distinguish reality from fiction, rape real people, and can't have a friendship with or date a woman. The author's story is one of continuous escalation and immanent menace.
Based on what you've told me and my personal experiences, I just don't see it.