Your point is excellent, but of course the reason that things have generally improved in these matters is exactly because of that perception and a willingness to act on it to block such extreme measures. It's that public pressure that keeps it down, not some general inclination toward the common good on the part of those in power.
As an aside, I think there is a pretty strong case that America is getting less and less democratic (not in the pure sense of the word, of course, but representatively democratic, as it was intended to be). It essentially has to do with the fact that the citizen/representative ratio has grown much larger than the founders could ever have expected. With so many constituents to such a small number of representatives, it shouldn't be any surprise that our views are represented much less democratically than in the past.
This is not at cross-points to your point, mind you--it's perfectly possible (and probably even natural) for a democratic decision to result in less freedom for a minority (or perceived minority). Those issues were really a failing of the judiciary, which is theoretically immune from democratic pressures, to check the democratically elected executive and legislative branches.
I'm not sure the aperature necessarily corresponds to the beam width, but point taken. OTOH, guy I was responding to didn't seem to think 2KW for.35 seconds was that big a deal. So, as I say, I'm no physicist, but I'm curious as to which of you is correct, if cutting is not the primary damage mechanism.
I'm no physicist, but aren't we talking about different damage mechanisms here? A laser is not a kinetic energy weapon--it would be more of a cutting weapon, like a knife. You don't have to have a great deal of energy behind a blade to do a significant amount of damage, if it's sharp enough. So high levels of energy should not be required, unlike bullets, which rely on KE for effect.
I've noticed there are far more people here calling bullshit on this than otherwise. Maybe it's because everyone who is laid off is filling their day by posting on Slashdot, and the hard-working crowd that has been holding their jobs and getting raises don't have time for it.
During WW2, we didn't labor under the current assumption that a single person (or even a relatively small group of people) could drag an entire country into a series of atrocities that the majority did not approve of. It was called 'personal responsibility'. What we have now, essentially, is a large-scale and largely unspoken general acceptance of the Nuremberg Defence.
So yeah, we made war on the Germans. All of 'em. And it wasn't wrong; it was necessary. Because it was their fault Hitler was in power in the first place. Sure, he brutalized and terrorized them. But, like Saddam and the Ba'athists, Hitler and the Nazis were a minority.
We spend far too much time excusing the Iraqi people and going out of our way to insist that we're not making war on them. Like hell we're not. The unfortunate thing is that we use that excuse, the idea that we are really only going after one guy, to bypass the entire argument over whether or not what evils we claim to combat are worth making war on the Iraqi people.
Sure, but you could say that about any actor or actress in any category. They all have hundreds of people behind them, doing makeup, lighting, photography, direction, and the like, all of which contributes to that final performance that you see rendered on the screen. In more recent films, digital effects have even played a significant part in the performances of 'live' actors.
I don't think the question here is as simple as whether or not what you see on-screen is a fabrication or not. It's always a fabrication--the only question is how much is it the expression of the actor's work and how much is someone else's, and I'm not sure even that is a line that can be firmly drawn.
Re:Taking pictures with satellites
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 1
Can't for the life of me find a link right now, but in fact there is a device exclusively designed to examine and take pictures of objects in orbit. It's a modified Boeing jet that the Air Force commissioned to get a good look at Soviet satellites back when those were a concern. You can see either it or one of the testbeds sitting out on the ramp at Boeing Field in Seattle quite frequently as you drive by.
Most of the designs that I have (casually) checked out actually regard that as a plus. It's a cheap, elegant way to harvest the energy for hoisting loads up the elevator.
Re:Why not try for the ISS
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ya know, I've been wondering about this ever since people have started debating it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I'd be curious if someone else does:
Some time ago, I remember seeing/reading about these small devices called 'Rescue Balls' that the shuttles carried aboard them. They were basically just small, single-person sized foldable containers which could be sealed and pressurized with someone inside. The idea was, if a shuttle ever were stranded in orbit, there wasn't room to have spacesuits aboard for every crewmember, so most of the crew would get zipped up into these little doohickeys and the two that had suits would basically carry them over to the rescue ship.
Now, I understand there wasn't fuel enough to make it to the ISS (although I think people who think that was the only orbital option aren't thinking hard enough--I think there were more avenues that would have been explored for an orbital rescue had this been debated before rather than after the fact). But does the 'only two suits' or 'no one was trained for a spacewalk' argument really hold, or are these rescue balls still carried? Does anyone have any better information about them?
People like to blame discrimination for there own short-comings and lack of willingness to keep current.
Yes, and some other people like to take their anecdotal experience and use it as proof that an issue doesn't exist. What you suggest is correct, of course--one shouldn't fall into a rut and not expect to become less valuable. But that's no panacea when so many employers won't look at older workers as simply a useful repository of experience, but as creaking liabilities with families, failing minds, and doddering sensibilities. It's not always simply about what you are able to do yourself, but often as much about the perceptions of whoever you are dealing with.
Incidentally, I'm not in that boat myself--this is not someone talking out of bitterness, but simply a realistic snapshot of why people do or don't get hired. It would be lovely to think it's always because of their personal attributes, but that's simply not the case.
You've made the mistake of entering a debate about the legal interpretation of technological issues with your Common Sense flag set to "True". Please check your settings and try again.
That's an excellent point, but on the other hand, you have the legal implications of what amounts to a known form of DDOS attack. Since the typical effects of a Slashdotting are well known at this point, a 'victim' could as easily make the argument that posting just the link here was not simply distribution of information, but in fact a malicious attack on the site.
Man, where are you at? I can almost guarantee you that I could halve your IT expenses and get a stable, forward looking system into place within a year, without mucking around with two 70k consultants or a 50k tech. For a 65 person non-profit? That's just insane. I ran a seventy or so person non-profit working for about 40k (a few years ago, of course) by myself, with no significant hassle. Right now, I'm handling a 150 person company with one 35k tech under me and a part-time programmer as a consultant. Your advisory committee sounds like it needs to advise a little more.
There are always differences between systems, and different requirements may mean you demands are a bit higher than some, but it's almost inconcievable to me that you have that many people paid that much money and still have complaints with so few end-users.
Absolutely. Anytime I hear something like that (and I've heard it a few times--fortunately, never anywhere that I have personally been working) I think "clueless boss" (is that an oxymoron?;) ). Hours worked means nothing--it's what you get accomplished that is important. This is especially true in IT or programming, where a single inspirational flash in the shower one morning can more than equal a week's worth of toiling fruitlessly away behind the desk. Knowledge work is not like industrial piece-work--managers who can't get that shouldn't be managing knowledge workers.
The problem is that it's not irrelevant; it can be directly used to attack his fair use defense. A parody is not a parody if it's an item for item reproduction. You're only looking at presentation at the surface, but that's not the only issue, I'm afraid. And the district's lawyers are not going to miss the trick.
Here: this was linked above, too, but you could stand to re-read it. There do not have to be any damages for infringement to exist. And they do not have to try to collect any to get him to take his site down if it IS found to be infringing. And it MAY be found to be fair use, but that is less likely if it is found that he copied large chunks of the code verbatim, which is what we are discussing here, and as someone else also pointed out, that's only an argument you get to use after you're already in court, having admitted to infringement.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the district's behavior, but attributing their move to slimy tactics doesn't just magically blow away the legal argument.
Well, I hope someone else with mod points sees fit to mod up Lionel Hutts' post above as "Funny" because I just blew my mod responding to this post.
Also, you don't get copyrights on HTML code. Its common practice on the web to copy and past the templates from other people's web-design to use on your own.
Of course you do; it's copyrightable just like any other code. The fact that it's common practice to copy and paste the stuff does not change that. It's more a reflection of the difficulty of enforcing the copyright than anything else. If there is good evidence that he has in fact copied their code verbatim and is using it himself, and they have the lawyers to pursue the matter, they can certainly go after him on that basis.
Although, you are right, if I were to go bad, they'd be in a world of hurt. But that would be true regardless, no? Because even if someone else knew it, I'd undoubtedly change it to something they didn't know before performing my other nefarious deeds anyway. This system, minimizing knowledge of the golden password, is actually best from my perspective, because it minimizes that chances that someone could go bad and really cause unfixable issues--I am really the only risk (and consequently the only suspect if something happens--a good incentive to make sure nothing does) and therefore the only one to really worry about.
If the systems involved were more business critical, I'm sure there are more complete secure methods for double-checking control, but there's nothing here that can't be gone without for a few days. And even so, like most companies, this one will allow me to spend very little time on security matters, since they'll never believe it's an issue until there is a serious breach.
No, no... the password is locked away off-site in a safe deposit box as well, in case of my death or dismemberment. But it's unlikely that my technically less than astute superiors would realize they would need to retrieve that and get it to my subordinates ahead of time in order to successfully lock me out of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point is excellent, but of course the reason that things have generally improved in these matters is exactly because of that perception and a willingness to act on it to block such extreme measures. It's that public pressure that keeps it down, not some general inclination toward the common good on the part of those in power.
As an aside, I think there is a pretty strong case that America is getting less and less democratic (not in the pure sense of the word, of course, but representatively democratic, as it was intended to be). It essentially has to do with the fact that the citizen/representative ratio has grown much larger than the founders could ever have expected. With so many constituents to such a small number of representatives, it shouldn't be any surprise that our views are represented much less democratically than in the past.
This is not at cross-points to your point, mind you--it's perfectly possible (and probably even natural) for a democratic decision to result in less freedom for a minority (or perceived minority). Those issues were really a failing of the judiciary, which is theoretically immune from democratic pressures, to check the democratically elected executive and legislative branches.
I'm not sure the aperature necessarily corresponds to the beam width, but point taken. OTOH, guy I was responding to didn't seem to think 2KW for .35 seconds was that big a deal. So, as I say, I'm no physicist, but I'm curious as to which of you is correct, if cutting is not the primary damage mechanism.
I'm no physicist, but aren't we talking about different damage mechanisms here? A laser is not a kinetic energy weapon--it would be more of a cutting weapon, like a knife. You don't have to have a great deal of energy behind a blade to do a significant amount of damage, if it's sharp enough. So high levels of energy should not be required, unlike bullets, which rely on KE for effect.
?
If I had mod points, I'd mod you off-topic, just to be ironic.
:/
Now watch me get modded off-topic. Irony sucks ass.
I've noticed there are far more people here calling bullshit on this than otherwise. Maybe it's because everyone who is laid off is filling their day by posting on Slashdot, and the hard-working crowd that has been holding their jobs and getting raises don't have time for it.
:)
Oh, but wait, here I am.
During WW2, we didn't labor under the current assumption that a single person (or even a relatively small group of people) could drag an entire country into a series of atrocities that the majority did not approve of. It was called 'personal responsibility'. What we have now, essentially, is a large-scale and largely unspoken general acceptance of the Nuremberg Defence.
So yeah, we made war on the Germans. All of 'em. And it wasn't wrong; it was necessary. Because it was their fault Hitler was in power in the first place. Sure, he brutalized and terrorized them. But, like Saddam and the Ba'athists, Hitler and the Nazis were a minority.
We spend far too much time excusing the Iraqi people and going out of our way to insist that we're not making war on them. Like hell we're not. The unfortunate thing is that we use that excuse, the idea that we are really only going after one guy, to bypass the entire argument over whether or not what evils we claim to combat are worth making war on the Iraqi people.
Not to mention, what happened to the first nine, eh? ;)
Well, obviously not. Satellites are way up in the air, and hamsters can't fly. Duh.
I'm guessing they are using IP over avian carriers to get around the altitude issue.
Sure, but you could say that about any actor or actress in any category. They all have hundreds of people behind them, doing makeup, lighting, photography, direction, and the like, all of which contributes to that final performance that you see rendered on the screen. In more recent films, digital effects have even played a significant part in the performances of 'live' actors.
I don't think the question here is as simple as whether or not what you see on-screen is a fabrication or not. It's always a fabrication--the only question is how much is it the expression of the actor's work and how much is someone else's, and I'm not sure even that is a line that can be firmly drawn.
Can't for the life of me find a link right now, but in fact there is a device exclusively designed to examine and take pictures of objects in orbit. It's a modified Boeing jet that the Air Force commissioned to get a good look at Soviet satellites back when those were a concern. You can see either it or one of the testbeds sitting out on the ramp at Boeing Field in Seattle quite frequently as you drive by.
Relative velocity... the foam may have been going Mach 2, but then, so was the shuttle, and in pretty much the same direction.
I think it's the frozen aspect that is of more concern than the speed at impact, which probably wasn't actually that great.
Most of the designs that I have (casually) checked out actually regard that as a plus. It's a cheap, elegant way to harvest the energy for hoisting loads up the elevator.
Ya know, I've been wondering about this ever since people have started debating it. I honestly don't know the answer, but I'd be curious if someone else does:
Some time ago, I remember seeing/reading about these small devices called 'Rescue Balls' that the shuttles carried aboard them. They were basically just small, single-person sized foldable containers which could be sealed and pressurized with someone inside. The idea was, if a shuttle ever were stranded in orbit, there wasn't room to have spacesuits aboard for every crewmember, so most of the crew would get zipped up into these little doohickeys and the two that had suits would basically carry them over to the rescue ship.
Now, I understand there wasn't fuel enough to make it to the ISS (although I think people who think that was the only orbital option aren't thinking hard enough--I think there were more avenues that would have been explored for an orbital rescue had this been debated before rather than after the fact). But does the 'only two suits' or 'no one was trained for a spacewalk' argument really hold, or are these rescue balls still carried? Does anyone have any better information about them?
People like to blame discrimination for there own short-comings and lack of willingness to keep current.
Yes, and some other people like to take their anecdotal experience and use it as proof that an issue doesn't exist. What you suggest is correct, of course--one shouldn't fall into a rut and not expect to become less valuable. But that's no panacea when so many employers won't look at older workers as simply a useful repository of experience, but as creaking liabilities with families, failing minds, and doddering sensibilities. It's not always simply about what you are able to do yourself, but often as much about the perceptions of whoever you are dealing with.
Incidentally, I'm not in that boat myself--this is not someone talking out of bitterness, but simply a realistic snapshot of why people do or don't get hired. It would be lovely to think it's always because of their personal attributes, but that's simply not the case.
You've made the mistake of entering a debate about the legal interpretation of technological issues with your Common Sense flag set to "True". Please check your settings and try again.
That's an excellent point, but on the other hand, you have the legal implications of what amounts to a known form of DDOS attack. Since the typical effects of a Slashdotting are well known at this point, a 'victim' could as easily make the argument that posting just the link here was not simply distribution of information, but in fact a malicious attack on the site.
:)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Man, where are you at? I can almost guarantee you that I could halve your IT expenses and get a stable, forward looking system into place within a year, without mucking around with two 70k consultants or a 50k tech. For a 65 person non-profit? That's just insane. I ran a seventy or so person non-profit working for about 40k (a few years ago, of course) by myself, with no significant hassle. Right now, I'm handling a 150 person company with one 35k tech under me and a part-time programmer as a consultant. Your advisory committee sounds like it needs to advise a little more.
There are always differences between systems, and different requirements may mean you demands are a bit higher than some, but it's almost inconcievable to me that you have that many people paid that much money and still have complaints with so few end-users.
Right you are. Feeling a bit clueless myself, today.
Absolutely. Anytime I hear something like that (and I've heard it a few times--fortunately, never anywhere that I have personally been working) I think "clueless boss" (is that an oxymoron? ;) ). Hours worked means nothing--it's what you get accomplished that is important. This is especially true in IT or programming, where a single inspirational flash in the shower one morning can more than equal a week's worth of toiling fruitlessly away behind the desk. Knowledge work is not like industrial piece-work--managers who can't get that shouldn't be managing knowledge workers.
Oh, I thought it was because the MS servers are always going down. ;)
The problem is that it's not irrelevant; it can be directly used to attack his fair use defense. A parody is not a parody if it's an item for item reproduction. You're only looking at presentation at the surface, but that's not the only issue, I'm afraid. And the district's lawyers are not going to miss the trick.
*sigh*
Here: this was linked above, too, but you could stand to re-read it. There do not have to be any damages for infringement to exist. And they do not have to try to collect any to get him to take his site down if it IS found to be infringing. And it MAY be found to be fair use, but that is less likely if it is found that he copied large chunks of the code verbatim, which is what we are discussing here, and as someone else also pointed out, that's only an argument you get to use after you're already in court, having admitted to infringement.
I don't disagree with your analysis of the district's behavior, but attributing their move to slimy tactics doesn't just magically blow away the legal argument.
Well, I hope someone else with mod points sees fit to mod up Lionel Hutts' post above as "Funny" because I just blew my mod responding to this post.
Also, you don't get copyrights on HTML code. Its common practice on the web to copy and past the templates from other people's web-design to use on your own.
Of course you do; it's copyrightable just like any other code. The fact that it's common practice to copy and paste the stuff does not change that. It's more a reflection of the difficulty of enforcing the copyright than anything else. If there is good evidence that he has in fact copied their code verbatim and is using it himself, and they have the lawyers to pursue the matter, they can certainly go after him on that basis.
Although, you are right, if I were to go bad, they'd be in a world of hurt. But that would be true regardless, no? Because even if someone else knew it, I'd undoubtedly change it to something they didn't know before performing my other nefarious deeds anyway. This system, minimizing knowledge of the golden password, is actually best from my perspective, because it minimizes that chances that someone could go bad and really cause unfixable issues--I am really the only risk (and consequently the only suspect if something happens--a good incentive to make sure nothing does) and therefore the only one to really worry about.
If the systems involved were more business critical, I'm sure there are more complete secure methods for double-checking control, but there's nothing here that can't be gone without for a few days. And even so, like most companies, this one will allow me to spend very little time on security matters, since they'll never believe it's an issue until there is a serious breach.
No, no... the password is locked away off-site in a safe deposit box as well, in case of my death or dismemberment. But it's unlikely that my technically less than astute superiors would realize they would need to retrieve that and get it to my subordinates ahead of time in order to successfully lock me out of the system.