Oh yeah.. it's the end of privacy. Hello.. if a camera can't see anything at any given moment, neither can the security guys.
So if your date is sitting around, they *can't* see it from your point of view accurately, because you would be obscuring the camera. What? The camera is above your head looking at your date? then you never had privacy in the first place.
The hologram thing is cool.. someone just has to invent the hologram
This isn't about precise 3d imaging of each person wandering around.. it's about a model that's easier to work with.
Following people around using discrete cameras is not natural... it's difficult.
Using those cameras to create a more natural 3d environment for those monitoring to see what's going on will make it easier for security staff to have a good feel for what's up.
as much as I dislike what they are doing here.. you have to remember something. And if you can't see this... go travel a bit.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There HAVE to be rules.
The playground those rules work in is an ever-changing landscape.
No law covers all cases.
The point is.. if doing this briefly during something requiring very high security helps them, that's not too big a deal, as long as the order to do it is only for this event.
No, I'm not being complacent. Yes, I know that ' rights are eroded slowly'. But just because seomthing that wasn't done before is done now doesn't mean that's happening.
European nations, and Canada, tend to be more apt to do something as a short-term solution but not use it again and again in order to meet a goal. The US tends to do something once, then do it forever.
Remember, the law is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Get an old busted hard drive. Open it up. Gut it. Pack it full of thermite. Rig up an electronic ignition that can ignite the thermite.. you'll probably have to stage it.. thermite has a high ignition temperature.(standard electric match -> some chemical that's easy to light but burns really hot -> thermite). Rig it up a watchdog timer inside the drive too.
Now have a driver that asks for a password on boot and kicks the dog for you.
If it fails.. the dog ignites the thermite and turns your computer into a pile of molten slag.
Who said anything about permitting people to enter the country? I'm talking about the right to fly on an airplane, not the right to enter the US.
Whether or not Joe can enter the country is for Customs & Immigration to sort out.
On that note.. teh US is one of the only countries in the world that performs customs & immigration checks on people who are only getting connecting flights. Of course, all you americans probably think that's normal.
it says a faster way for it's frequent flyers to get through security.
Last time I flew on an airline... I a) Walked to the security gate (X-ray machine, metal detector, etcetera). I put my carryon bags in the machine, walked through the detector, which beeped. A girl waved a wand around to verify that it was my belt buckle that set off the detector, I grabbed my bags, and went on my way.
How, exactly, is having me do an eye scan going to speed up my going through security? They can't be permitting anyone into the secure area without going through this process.. can they? If they are, that makes security WORSE, not better. But there's now ay they are doing that..
So how is this going to make it 'more secure'.. given that you shouldn't have to identify yourslef to fly anyway?
I mean, if airlines wan't increased security of any sort.. people tend to agree, or at least not too strongly disagree, after all, we need our airplanes to be safe, right? Oh wait, yeah, except for the terrible incidents on Sept. 11th, THEY ARE. And it's not likely something of that nature could happen again. Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts... They just used fear.
My problem is this: Flying is a needed method of travel. You can't very well avoid it if you have to travel. So, let's see.. I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?
It doesn't add up. If things like this keep happening, eventually it will be on trains, city busses, and tollbooths on our highways.
WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.
Yeah.. It's *REALLY* hard to read the difference between the numbers "20" and "100" and "50" and "5"
I get them mixed up ALL THE TIME.
Seriously. Maybe you liked money in europe where each denominiation is a different size (and dimension, often). I found it a royal pain in the ass. Can't carry it in a neat bundle.. can't fan it properly.
I hardly think some foreigners finding money all the same size too difficult is a reason to change something that has been standard for ages.
Well.. let's say I don't believe in a soul. Let's say I believe that the sense of consciousness comes from simply the arrangement of the molecules themselves and the patterns that arise within the mind.
Given that, if we made an exacty quantum duplicate, It seems clear that both copies would feel they were, in fact, me. And they would both be correct.. however... would the copy really be me?
What I mean is, to outsiders, both are indistinguishable in any way whatsoever. Yes, after the copy, they go on to have different experiences, but that's not what we are talking about.
The thing is.. from my point of view. is it really me?
No, a lot of small changes over time is not the same thing as big changes all at once.
I think you are mixing up unix users with linux users, who like to change distributions and whatnot, or don't.
Applications are applications. They are no different. The Gimp is a great example, as you say.. I agree.
The original point was something to the effect that we tend to learn systems better when they change less. Unix admins tend to know more about what's going on simply because the system has slowly evolved.. it has not been plagued by massive changes every year or two. (You spend a good part of each product cycle with Mircosoft systems catching up with what they changed. With linux, you end up gradually using new things as they come out.. which is totally different.)
But none of these keybindingds (I'm referring more to the shell here) or things that have changed have been very fundamental. Adding color to the shell, or extra keybindings, or re-mapping the backspace key are overly large changes to a system.
Nobody is saying a system can't evolve and change... but it's when a new version of something comes out every year and LOTS OF STUFF is just moved around or different that people get really upset. When the old things they want to do just no longer work.
I, for one, agree. The longer people keep the same system and the same software, the better they learn it.
I don't buy this stuff about how unix is hard and other stuff is easy... I remember LOTS of yuppie boomers who learned old wordperfect just fine.. and that's certainly not wysiwig. Obscure keypresses, hidden markup codes, they understood it all.. and some were really good at it.
The problem is when things change rapidly. Totally.
Emacs keybindings aren't changed because there is no reason to change them. Nobody wants to re-write all that lisp.
Right.. except the original beam no longer exists.. it's state has been frozen in something, and re-emitted later.
As for the difference... no science we have yet teleports actual particles.
It does bring up an interesting dilemma though...
if we COULD make a precise, quantum copy of a person, which one would be the 'real' person? Both would percieve they are real, both would be for ALL purposes, identical. If one were destroyed immediately after quantum duplication, there would be no way to find out which is the original.
So if someone duplicates you.. which one is really you? what happens to your sense of continuity?
I dunno about you, but my cordless phone works in 2.4Ghz. Works great. My neighbor has one too. IT works great too. It's not 802.11b, of course.. but who cares. IT's a phone.
Also.. another reason that WiFi isn't used is.. RANGE!
Sorry, but 2.4Ghz sucks for penetration. You get shit range if there is any concrete in the building.
if you read.. you'll see he's not making authentic replicas of the original props.. but rather just cool looking light-saber like thingys.
BTW.. people selling props made out of the same parts as original props (You have to love how creative they were back then) are selling sabers for well over a grand.
Well.. what would you call something that takes video input and relays it to your visual cortex?
I'd call it an eye.
Re:Gentoo is a giant step, too long for mere morta
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
The lack of standards is good, in a way.
From a learning point of view, as a hobbyist system, it's fantastic. You actually learn what is flexible and what is not. I've seen far too many Solaris admins or whatnot who just can't seem to think that something might be in a different directory.. and if it is, it was done 'wrong'.
Re:Gentoo is a giant step, too long for mere morta
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2
Wow. Industry wide support. Yay.. just what I've been waiting for.
A linux distribution so messy that you NEED an industry to support it.
okay.. I'm mixing words.. but there is a grain of truth to it.
To think, all these years, the hundred boxes I've run, it hasn't mattered.
Supporting what, exactly? What is this 'industry' that supports RedHat but not Debian? I have yet to find a single piece of software I have needed that did not work under Debian.
On stability & servers.
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First.. you mentioned it, but I'm not sure everyone got it....
The 'Unstable' in debian terms does not mean the system is unstable, it means the package dependencies are unstable. It has nothing to do with running unstable code. It means that there is no guarantee a change will not break a lot of stuff and not be fixed for a while. It's not uncommon to try to install a package and find the dependencies don't exist yet... or they exist, but are an older version. That's what unstable is all about.
Secondly.. regarding server stability.
IF you build your kernels yourself (you should), and if you are aware of what services are running, system stability is not really an issue.
I know that debian is pretty much the only system where I *don't* run hand-compiled apache, ftpd, etc. You should know what's up in your system. In this respect, no system is more stable than any other.
So let me get this straight.
on
Wolframania
·
· Score: 2
Explaining the universe with equations is flawed; we should be explaining it a cellular automata, or as a computer program...
but we know that cellular automata and computer programs can be expressed fundamentally as equations..... no?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah.. it's the end of privacy.
Hello.. if a camera can't see anything at any given moment, neither can the security guys.
So if your date is sitting around, they *can't* see it from your point of view accurately, because you would be obscuring the camera. What? The camera is above your head looking at your date? then you never had privacy in the first place.
The hologram thing is cool.. someone just has to invent the hologram
This isn't about precise 3d imaging of each person wandering around.. it's about a model that's easier to work with.
Following people around using discrete cameras is not natural... it's difficult.
Using those cameras to create a more natural 3d environment for those monitoring to see what's going on will make it easier for security staff to have a good feel for what's up.
as much as I dislike what they are doing here.. you have to remember something. And if you can't see this... go travel a bit.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom. There HAVE to be rules.
The playground those rules work in is an ever-changing landscape.
No law covers all cases.
The point is.. if doing this briefly during something requiring very high security helps them, that's not too big a deal, as long as the order to do it is only for this event.
No, I'm not being complacent. Yes, I know that ' rights are eroded slowly'. But just because seomthing that wasn't done before is done now doesn't mean that's happening.
European nations, and Canada, tend to be more apt to do something as a short-term solution but not use it again and again in order to meet a goal. The US tends to do something once, then do it forever.
Remember, the law is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
What you do is this.
Get an old busted hard drive.
Open it up.
Gut it.
Pack it full of thermite.
Rig up an electronic ignition that can ignite the thermite.. you'll probably have to stage it.. thermite has a high ignition temperature.(standard electric match -> some chemical that's easy to light but burns really hot -> thermite).
Rig it up a watchdog timer inside the drive too.
Now have a driver that asks for a password on boot and kicks the dog for you.
If it fails.. the dog ignites the thermite and turns your computer into a pile of molten slag.
Who said anything about permitting people to enter the country?
I'm talking about the right to fly on an airplane, not the right to enter the US.
Whether or not Joe can enter the country is for Customs & Immigration to sort out.
On that note.. teh US is one of the only countries in the world that performs customs & immigration checks on people who are only getting connecting flights. Of course, all you americans probably think that's normal.
it says a faster way for it's frequent flyers to get through security.
Last time I flew on an airline...
I a) Walked to the security gate (X-ray machine, metal detector, etcetera). I put my carryon bags in the machine, walked through the detector, which beeped. A girl waved a wand around to verify that it was my belt buckle that set off the detector, I grabbed my bags, and went on my way.
How, exactly, is having me do an eye scan going to speed up my going through security? They can't be permitting anyone into the secure area without going through this process.. can they? If they are, that makes security WORSE, not better. But there's now ay they are doing that..
So how is this going to make it 'more secure'.. given that you shouldn't have to identify yourslef to fly anyway?
I mean, if airlines wan't increased security of any sort.. people tend to agree, or at least not too strongly disagree, after all, we need our airplanes to be safe, right? Oh wait, yeah, except for the terrible incidents on Sept. 11th, THEY ARE. And it's not likely something of that nature could happen again.
Those animals didn't use guns or weapons smuggled onboard, they weren't some kind of secret spy martial arts experts...
They just used fear.
My problem is this: Flying is a needed method of travel. You can't very well avoid it if you have to travel. So, let's see.. I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?
It doesn't add up. If things like this keep happening, eventually it will be on trains, city busses, and tollbooths on our highways.
WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.
Yeah..
It's *REALLY* hard to read the difference between the numbers "20" and "100" and "50" and "5"
I get them mixed up ALL THE TIME.
Seriously. Maybe you liked money in europe where each denominiation is a different size (and dimension, often).
I found it a royal pain in the ass. Can't carry it in a neat bundle.. can't fan it properly.
I hardly think some foreigners finding money all the same size too difficult is a reason to change something that has been standard for ages.
Well.. let's say I don't believe in a soul. Let's say I believe that the sense of consciousness comes from simply the arrangement of the molecules themselves and the patterns that arise within the mind.
Given that, if we made an exacty quantum duplicate, It seems clear that both copies would feel they were, in fact, me. And they would both be correct.. however... would the copy really be me?
What I mean is, to outsiders, both are indistinguishable in any way whatsoever. Yes, after the copy, they go on to have different experiences, but that's not what we are talking about.
The thing is.. from my point of view. is it really me?
No, a lot of small changes over time is not the same thing as big changes all at once.
I think you are mixing up unix users with linux users, who like to change distributions and whatnot, or don't.
Applications are applications. They are no different. The Gimp is a great example, as you say.. I agree.
The original point was something to the effect that we tend to learn systems better when they change less. Unix admins tend to know more about what's going on simply because the system has slowly evolved.. it has not been plagued by massive changes every year or two. (You spend a good part of each product cycle with Mircosoft systems catching up with what they changed. With linux, you end up gradually using new things as they come out.. which is totally different.)
What does size have to do with selling new players?
It's not like one of these in a standard CD form-factor is going to play in your discman. Ever tried to play a DVD on your discman?
The point wasn't that you can't tap it.
The point is that it's a very narrow beam compared to radio, and you can't listen in from any kind of distance.
But none of these keybindingds (I'm referring more to the shell here) or things that have changed have been very fundamental. Adding color to the shell, or extra keybindings, or re-mapping the backspace key are overly large changes to a system.
Nobody is saying a system can't evolve and change... but it's when a new version of something comes out every year and LOTS OF STUFF is just moved around or different that people get really upset. When the old things they want to do just no longer work.
I, for one, agree. The longer people keep the same system and the same software, the better they learn it.
I don't buy this stuff about how unix is hard and other stuff is easy... I remember LOTS of yuppie boomers who learned old wordperfect just fine.. and that's certainly not wysiwig. Obscure keypresses, hidden markup codes, they understood it all.. and some were really good at it.
The problem is when things change rapidly. Totally.
Emacs keybindings aren't changed because there is no reason to change them. Nobody wants to re-write all that lisp.
Right.. except the original beam no longer exists.. it's state has been frozen in something, and re-emitted later.
As for the difference... no science we have yet teleports actual particles.
It does bring up an interesting dilemma though...
if we COULD make a precise, quantum copy of a person, which one would be the 'real' person? Both would percieve they are real, both would be for ALL purposes, identical. If one were destroyed immediately after quantum duplication, there would be no way to find out which is the original.
So if someone duplicates you.. which one is really you? what happens to your sense of continuity?
1 mile? I don't think so.
Maybe in open prarie with no bugs in the way to distrot the signal... but that's near laboratory conditions.
Those gigarange phones don't go anywhere near a mile.
That cordless phones should use 802.11b?
I dunno about you, but my cordless phone works in 2.4Ghz. Works great. My neighbor has one too. IT works great too. It's not 802.11b, of course.. but who cares. IT's a phone.
Also.. another reason that WiFi isn't used is.. RANGE!
Sorry, but 2.4Ghz sucks for penetration. You get shit range if there is any concrete in the building.
900Mhz much better.
if you read.. you'll see he's not making authentic replicas of the original props.. but rather just cool looking light-saber like thingys.
BTW.. people selling props made out of the same parts as original props (You have to love how creative they were back then) are selling sabers for well over a grand.
And..
if it has a glass plasma tube in the middle, you can still smash it up but good even if the outer polycarbonate casing is intact.
Really.
Well.. what would you call something that takes video input and relays it to your visual cortex?
I'd call it an eye.
The lack of standards is good, in a way.
From a learning point of view, as a hobbyist system, it's fantastic. You actually learn what is flexible and what is not. I've seen far too many Solaris admins or whatnot who just can't seem to think that something might be in a different directory.. and if it is, it was done 'wrong'.
Wow. Industry wide support. Yay.. just what I've been waiting for.
A linux distribution so messy that you NEED an industry to support it.
okay.. I'm mixing words.. but there is a grain of truth to it.
To think, all these years, the hundred boxes I've run, it hasn't mattered.
Supporting what, exactly? What is this 'industry' that supports RedHat but not Debian? I have yet to find a single piece of software I have needed that did not work under Debian.
First.. you mentioned it, but I'm not sure everyone got it....
The 'Unstable' in debian terms does not mean the system is unstable, it means the package dependencies are unstable. It has nothing to do with running unstable code. It means that there is no guarantee a change will not break a lot of stuff and not be fixed for a while. It's not uncommon to try to install a package and find the dependencies don't exist yet... or they exist, but are an older version. That's what unstable is all about.
Secondly.. regarding server stability.
IF you build your kernels yourself (you should), and if you are aware of what services are running, system stability is not really an issue.
I know that debian is pretty much the only system where I *don't* run hand-compiled apache, ftpd, etc. You should know what's up in your system. In this respect, no system is more stable than any other.
Explaining the universe with equations is flawed; we should be explaining it a cellular automata, or as a computer program...
but we know that cellular automata and computer programs can be expressed fundamentally as equations..... no?
Yeah. But can they sustain the same performance?
What about price/performance?