I'll remember that when I watch the fireworks the next fourth of July. For all the good it will do me.
Evidently I don't have enough privacy rights to stop the government from searching through my library records, seeing what books I buy, or reading my emails in the name of stopping terrorism (and doing so without a court order). Thanks to the patriot act.
Why does everyone use Columbine as an excuse to increase Big Brotherism?
Most of it is pathological. Parents and school administrators are scared. So naturally they will do anything they can think of to prevent another Columbine from happening. More cops and cameras in schools are the first things that comes to mind.
But I think you touched upon a larger issue. Since 9/11 we as a nation have lived in a constant state of fear, much of it irrational.
Where do we stop and look at ourselves and ask what are we giving up in the name of security?
I am just stating fact. It's true that it would be wrong for companies to place video equipment in changing rooms and bathrooms, and in fact there are laws specifically preventing this.
You can be sure that you are covered by five different cameras as you enter and leave changing rooms. Also, most stores have spies close to these areas.
So much as ISPs and computer privacy is concerned, I wouldn't say they have the right to do anything. but that does not mean they don't have some capability and can use it covertly. One example might be is if you are a spammer.
Also as you know, the FBI can intercept much of your email traffic with carnivore if they wanted to, and because of the patriot act they do not need to get a court order to do so anymore.
Privacy is not a constitutional right. Modern electronics means that we as citizens are going to monitored and watched more than ever before.
How can "federal" wiretapping laws vary from state to state? Either the laws he broke are federal laws and the so the charges are federal or they were state laws and the article should read "California wiretapping charges."
There are also federal wiretapping laws covering much the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive. It just happens that some states extend federal law.
This guy was investigated by a federal grand jury, hence federal law applies to him.
But so does state law, and he could be charged under that too. Like Linda Tripp was for recording Monica Lewinsky's calls.
Actually, kids in schools can not prevent the search of their lockers, as the school owns the lockers. I imagine it is this same logic that is extended to computers owned by the school.
The same unfortunately is applicable to many places of employment. Owning the equipment gives employers the right to monitor it. I believe that this was decided in the supreme court.
You should never assume that you have privacy on equipment you do not own.
Wiretapping laws actually vary from state to state. Some states allow you to secretly record a conversation as long as you are a part of that conversation. A few states do not allow this - you have to tell people you are recording them.
In this instance, the guy at the insurance company was not a party to the conversations going on. Therefore he was obviously in danger of violating the law.
Being a whistleblower means that you call up the FBI and you let them do the investigating. Here, he was playing the role of the FBI.
Unfortunate mistake, considering that his former employers probably were/are scumbags.
I keep hoping for news of mineral resources somewhere in the solar system, that would make space travel profitable. There has to be a way to make money off of outer space, but what is it?
Diamonds are relatively common. Artificial scarcity is created by the DeBeers monopoly and market manipulation. It's such that DeBeer's executives can't step foot in the United States without being subject to arrest. However, given the pro-corporate enviroment with this administration, they could get off the hook.
I digress. Any mineral resource you can dream of will always be cheaper to obtain on the terra Earth, no matter what.
Sending a launch vehicle and infrastructure to obtain minerals in outer space just is not feasible.
Even if it was a reusable jet plane that could reach outerspace, it still would outway heavily the costs of finding (or manufacturing) the mineral/substance on Earth. That also goes for medicines that might be manufactured in zero G. If there was a medicine that was invented/made in zero G, the huge economic incentive would drive (and find) an alternative manufacturing/substance discovery on Earth.
Trying to intimidate the guy who would kidnap misbehaving Intel employees and keep them locked in his cellar in Oregon for weeks on end?
I really think that it shows the resiliency of the human spirit the way that those employees were able to tunnel out 30 feet to freedom using nothing but a broken glass shard from a bottle of Dom Perignon 1959 (that was a good year).
That is another story in itself. But I think it shows why Intel is able to produce a quality product that keeps up with Moore's law year after year.
Some call it intimidation, I call it innovation.
Microsoft obviously doen't intimidate^H^H^H^H^Hinnovate enough, as their product is still crap.
It's not as if there's a science fascist herding everyone towards string theory at gunpoint.
I wouldn't say gunpoint. But I would say tenure point. From the link I supplied there is this gem;
One reason that only one new theory has blossomed is that graduate students, postdocs and untenured junior faculty interested in speculative areas of mathematical physics beyond the Standard Model are under tremendous pressures. For them, the idea of starting to work on an untested new idea that may very well fail looks a lot like a quick route to professional suicide. So some people who do not believe in string theory work on it anyway. They may be intimidated by the fact that certain leading string theorists are undeniably geniuses. Another motivation is the natural desire to maintain a job, get grants, go to conferences and generally have an intellectual community in which to participate. Hence, few stray very far from the main line of inquiry.
This is pretty cogent. There is "herding" behavior towards string theory.
but does not string theory also allow for estimations or explinations of phenomenon that have not been observed yet?
This is the entire problem with string theory. String theory is a set of abstract ideas that have absolutely no connection to the observable universe whatsoever.
Therefore string theory is not science.
Basically, I'm basing my statement on the last part of the PBS show "The Elegant Universe" in which Greene states that when CERN starts up, they predict that when they do research they will be looking for "sparticles" and, if these are found, then they give evidence to support string theory.
The problem is that CERN will not have the astronomical energies to give any evidence to string theory, including sparticles.
That string theory "explains a lot of things (aren't they trying for everything?)" and that "it is beautiful" has all the hallmarks of religion to me.
I don't see where I asked you to believe string theory.
This is the problem I have with string theory. People who defend string theory are asking for faith.
Here is what Jim Gates, theorist of string theory had to say. From the link;
Gates: String theory is often criticized as having had no experimental input or output, so the analogy to a religion has been noted by a number of people. In a sense that's right; it is kind of a church to which I belong. We have our own popes and House of Cardinals. But ultimately science is also an act of faith -- faith that we will be capable of understanding the way the universe is put together.
If that isn't "from the horses mouth", I don't know what is. He makes my entire argument for me.
There is no connection between string theory and the observable universe. This singular undeniable fact is the reason that it is not science.
String theory is a siren song, that people mistakenly cling to because it offers explanations and mathematical beauty. But the abstract string theory has no connection to the real world.. As the article pointed out (more eloquently than I could), string theory is the "fad" among scientists right now.
BTW, I am not a "troll" because I show skepticism about string theory. Is not skepticism the foundation of science, or is that the part of the "scentific method" that is not "correct" anymore? Indeed, disagree with a popular theory here on slashdot and even though you offer a rational explanation, you get modded as a troll. (Not that slashdot has any credence whatsoever).
It seems this is the problem with string theory too. It is popular among a few elitist scientists right now, and disciples are eagerly waiting for these "high priests" to "mete out" explanations on how the universe might work, without any scientific justification whatsoever. Hence the popularity of this particular book being reviewed. So if you stray from the "sacred doctrine" of string theory you are not playing "the only game in town". Peer pressure will haunt you even though there might be totally different and valid ideas that are worth investigating.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it must be. Taken all together, string theory fits "religious thinking" better than it fits a scientific description of the universe.
It doesn't offend me (yet), I just find it amusing that supposed scientists do not recognize the "religion" that they are escaping into. Truly a spectacle.
Strictly speaking the scientific method as taught in schools is not really correct anymore.
So, if the scientific method is not correct anymore, does that mean all science up to this point in time is incorrect? Gee, I'd take that as the first sign things are going to pot.
So what is correct?? Pulling ideas out of the air and saying "hmmm, this looks like a pretty idea, it must be true. Until we test it (whenever that may be), it is true."
The major difference then between String Theory and religion is, we will find observable consequences of String Theory and we will test them.
So are you asking me to believe in string theory until then?
And nobody has been able to stand outside our solar system and observe the earth rotating around the sun, but we're pretty convinced of the scientific validity of a heliocentric system
Nearly all modern science, especially physics, relies heavily on inference.
The conclusion that the earth rotates around the sun is based on observation. The conclusion that the sun rotates around the earth at one time was an inference. Because it was an inference, was it true???
String theory will be tested someday, but until it is its still a theory.
A theory is something that is proven. Dictionary.com says that a hypothesis is is an observation that can be tested by further investigation.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation
Has strings ever been (or can be) observed in nature??
They have not.
Physics without a testable hypothesis is Philosophy.
What will they be made of?? The vulcanization of rubber is ours.
We'll give you back the computers - the analogue ones. The first free programmable and digital coputersystem was invented by Konrad Zuse, Germany.
This is debatable. ENIAC was operational in 1945 when Konrad Zuse began building his.
You Europeans didn't want the computer anyway, as you burned the first one to ashes (Collosus), and therefore you can not prove that you actually built one.
Also, you'll have to use vacuum tubes. Transistors belong to us.
Joseph Henry, an American, is credited as the first who discovered the principles of a dynamo.
Without perms, our women will look fine, naturally. Long hairs are looking nice and elegant. Much better, as overdressed Hollywood bitches, with tons of chemicals in their hairs.
We both agree. We have Hollywood bitches.
I bet you wouldn't turn down a date with one though.
but until a Democratic president can get in for another 8 years
Let's not forget that the last "Democratic" president sold us down the river by signing the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act) into law. His name is Bill Clinton.
I consider the CTEA the more egregious of the two, as it is a complete handout to a few corporate interests with nothing given back to the public in return. But this seems to be congress' standard operating procedure (SOP) these days.
There is no indication that the current presidential candidates (esp. frontrunner Kerry) would not do the do the same. Indeed, his website mentions nothing about copyright issues or "digital rights".
and Kennedy and Scalia get the boot, they won't win.
Appointments to the court are for life. So the only way they get the "boot" is if they "kick the bucket".
Let's not forget the decision in Eldred vs. Ashcroft (challenging CTEA) was 7 to 2, meaning it was not even close.
I had thought (along with others) that the current court's propensity to limit federal powers would come into play here, but it did not. Essentially they said that while extending copyright terms may be a bad idea, it is within congress' power to do so.
While I'm glad to see Kahle vs. Ashcroft, it is for this reason I believe that it is doomed.
Even though they make a big deal about how this isn't Eldred vs. Ashcroft, it really is a distinction the court will find tenuous. They got shot down on the copyright extensions, they will get shot down on the inclusionary aspects of this.
The court does occasionally revisit decisions by hearing variants of issues that have appeared before them in the past, and is how they occasionally reverse themselves.
I do not think that they will get shot down because of the "inclusionary" aspects of the case.
Rather they will get shot down because most judge's eyes "glass over" when you mention copyright to them, and usually default to giving more rights to copyright holders.
This coupled with legislators favoring corporate over public interests is why we have the vast expanse called copyright law today.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't read all this! Summarize it in one word!
supercalifragilisticexpialidoucious
Maybe it's a cunning anagram of "hot porn"
Thanks a lot dude. I'll never be able to use "prothon" without thinking of "hot porn" now.
You pretty much have managed to kill it right out of the box.
I'll remember that when I watch the fireworks the next fourth of July. For all the good it will do me.
Evidently I don't have enough privacy rights to stop the government from searching through my library records, seeing what books I buy, or reading my emails in the name of stopping terrorism (and doing so without a court order). Thanks to the patriot act.
Then there is Total Information Awareness reborn which is the marrying of commercial and government databases to rob me of even more privacy, and echelon.
So privacy is a nice idea, but unfortunately, that is all that it is.
Our government is out of control in more ways than one.
Why does everyone use Columbine as an excuse to increase Big Brotherism?
Most of it is pathological. Parents and school administrators are scared. So naturally they will do anything they can think of to prevent another Columbine from happening. More cops and cameras in schools are the first things that comes to mind.
But I think you touched upon a larger issue. Since 9/11 we as a nation have lived in a constant state of fear, much of it irrational.
Where do we stop and look at ourselves and ask what are we giving up in the name of security?
I hope more people ask that question.
I find it frightening that a generation can grow up with the expectation of being monitored constantl
Yes, it is frightening. But after Columbine and increasing crime waves in schools you will see cameras everywhere.
I actually don't think that phones will be monitored that much, as many students have cell phones anyway.
An alternative would be to send your student to a private school that does not have cameras everywhere. But that of course will be more expensive.
There are many good books on privacy. The recurring theme is that it is possible to obtain privacy, but it is increasingly expensive to do so.
I did not imply that I am fine with anything.
I am just stating fact. It's true that it would be wrong for companies to place video equipment in changing rooms and bathrooms, and in fact there are laws specifically preventing this.
You can be sure that you are covered by five different cameras as you enter and leave changing rooms. Also, most stores have spies close to these areas.
So much as ISPs and computer privacy is concerned, I wouldn't say they have the right to do anything. but that does not mean they don't have some capability and can use it covertly. One example might be is if you are a spammer.
Also as you know, the FBI can intercept much of your email traffic with carnivore if they wanted to, and because of the patriot act they do not need to get a court order to do so anymore.
Privacy is not a constitutional right. Modern electronics means that we as citizens are going to monitored and watched more than ever before.
How can "federal" wiretapping laws vary from state to state? Either the laws he broke are federal laws and the so the charges are federal or they were state laws and the article should read "California wiretapping charges."
Wiretapping laws vary state to state.
There are also federal wiretapping laws covering much the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive. It just happens that some states extend federal law.
This guy was investigated by a federal grand jury, hence federal law applies to him.
But so does state law, and he could be charged under that too. Like Linda Tripp was for recording Monica Lewinsky's calls.
Actually, kids in schools can not prevent the search of their lockers, as the school owns the lockers. I imagine it is this same logic that is extended to computers owned by the school.
The same unfortunately is applicable to many places of employment. Owning the equipment gives employers the right to monitor it. I believe that this was decided in the supreme court.
You should never assume that you have privacy on equipment you do not own.
Wiretapping laws actually vary from state to state. Some states allow you to secretly record a conversation as long as you are a part of that conversation. A few states do not allow this - you have to tell people you are recording them.
In this instance, the guy at the insurance company was not a party to the conversations going on. Therefore he was obviously in danger of violating the law.
Being a whistleblower means that you call up the FBI and you let them do the investigating. Here, he was playing the role of the FBI.
Unfortunate mistake, considering that his former employers probably were/are scumbags.
I keep hoping for news of mineral resources somewhere in the solar system, that would make space travel profitable. There has to be a way to make money off of outer space, but what is it?
Diamonds are relatively common. Artificial scarcity is created by the DeBeers monopoly and market manipulation. It's such that DeBeer's executives can't step foot in the United States without being subject to arrest. However, given the pro-corporate enviroment with this administration, they could get off the hook.
I digress. Any mineral resource you can dream of will always be cheaper to obtain on the terra Earth, no matter what.
Sending a launch vehicle and infrastructure to obtain minerals in outer space just is not feasible.
Even if it was a reusable jet plane that could reach outerspace, it still would outway heavily the costs of finding (or manufacturing) the mineral/substance on Earth. That also goes for medicines that might be manufactured in zero G. If there was a medicine that was invented/made in zero G, the huge economic incentive would drive (and find) an alternative manufacturing/substance discovery on Earth.
That ultimately is the truth of the situation.
Trying to intimidate the guy who would kidnap misbehaving Intel employees and keep them locked in his cellar in Oregon for weeks on end?
I really think that it shows the resiliency of the human spirit the way that those employees were able to tunnel out 30 feet to freedom using nothing but a broken glass shard from a bottle of Dom Perignon 1959 (that was a good year).
That is another story in itself. But I think it shows why Intel is able to produce a quality product that keeps up with Moore's law year after year.
Some call it intimidation, I call it innovation.
Microsoft obviously doen't intimidate^H^H^H^H^Hinnovate enough, as their product is still crap.
SOP
It's not as if there's a science fascist herding everyone towards string theory at gunpoint.
I wouldn't say gunpoint. But I would say tenure point. From the link I supplied there is this gem;
One reason that only one new theory has blossomed is that graduate students, postdocs and untenured junior faculty interested in speculative areas of mathematical physics beyond the Standard Model are under tremendous pressures. For them, the idea of starting to work on an untested new idea that may very well fail looks a lot like a quick route to professional suicide. So some people who do not believe in string theory work on it anyway. They may be intimidated by the fact that certain leading string theorists are undeniably geniuses. Another motivation is the natural desire to maintain a job, get grants, go to conferences and generally have an intellectual community in which to participate. Hence, few stray very far from the main line of inquiry.
This is pretty cogent. There is "herding" behavior towards string theory.
It really is "the only game in town".
but does not string theory also allow for estimations or explinations of phenomenon that have not been observed yet?
This is the entire problem with string theory. String theory is a set of abstract ideas that have absolutely no connection to the observable universe whatsoever.
Therefore string theory is not science.
Basically, I'm basing my statement on the last part of the PBS show "The Elegant Universe" in which Greene states that when CERN starts up, they predict that when they do research they will be looking for "sparticles" and, if these are found, then they give evidence to support string theory.
The problem is that CERN will not have the astronomical energies to give any evidence to string theory, including sparticles.
And you do realise that it's permissible to reserve judgment until the evidence is in, right?
heh. The evidence is in. String theory is not only a failed idea, it's not even wrong.
That string theory "explains a lot of things (aren't they trying for everything?)" and that "it is beautiful" has all the hallmarks of religion to me.
I don't see where I asked you to believe string theory.
This is the problem I have with string theory. People who defend string theory are asking for faith.
Here is what Jim Gates, theorist of string theory had to say. From the link;
Gates: String theory is often criticized as having had no experimental input or output, so the analogy to a religion has been noted by a number of people. In a sense that's right; it is kind of a church to which I belong. We have our own popes and House of Cardinals. But ultimately science is also an act of faith -- faith that we will be capable of understanding the way the universe is put together.
If that isn't "from the horses mouth", I don't know what is. He makes my entire argument for me.
There is no connection between string theory and the observable universe. This singular undeniable fact is the reason that it is not science.
String theory is a siren song, that people mistakenly cling to because it offers explanations and mathematical beauty. But the abstract string theory has no connection to the real world.. As the article pointed out (more eloquently than I could), string theory is the "fad" among scientists right now.
BTW, I am not a "troll" because I show skepticism about string theory. Is not skepticism the foundation of science, or is that the part of the "scentific method" that is not "correct" anymore? Indeed, disagree with a popular theory here on slashdot and even though you offer a rational explanation, you get modded as a troll. (Not that slashdot has any credence whatsoever).
It seems this is the problem with string theory too. It is popular among a few elitist scientists right now, and disciples are eagerly waiting for these "high priests" to "mete out" explanations on how the universe might work, without any scientific justification whatsoever. Hence the popularity of this particular book being reviewed. So if you stray from the "sacred doctrine" of string theory you are not playing "the only game in town". Peer pressure will haunt you even though there might be totally different and valid ideas that are worth investigating.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....it must be. Taken all together, string theory fits "religious thinking" better than it fits a scientific description of the universe.
Here is a very recent review of one such revival.
It doesn't offend me (yet), I just find it amusing that supposed scientists do not recognize the "religion" that they are escaping into. Truly a spectacle.
Strictly speaking the scientific method as taught in schools is not really correct anymore.
So, if the scientific method is not correct anymore, does that mean all science up to this point in time is incorrect? Gee, I'd take that as the first sign things are going to pot.
So what is correct?? Pulling ideas out of the air and saying "hmmm, this looks like a pretty idea, it must be true. Until we test it (whenever that may be), it is true."
The major difference then between String Theory and religion is, we will find observable consequences of String Theory and we will test them.
So are you asking me to believe in string theory until then?
What's 1+1? Have you ever seen a 1? Then how do you know two 1s make a 2?
What's a zero? What's the very concept of nothing? Have you ever seen nothing? Then how do you know it exists.
The beauty of mathematics is that you can describe many things with numbers.
I can describe the number of hobbits in LOTR with numbers and mathematics, but that does not mean that hobbits exist in the real world.
why not offer something more substantial, and, dare I say, SCIENTIFIC to support your hypothesis?
Strings have not been observed. There is nothing that predicts their existence outside of emotional physicists. They do not exist. QED.
And nobody has been able to stand outside our solar system and observe the earth rotating around the sun, but we're pretty convinced of the scientific validity of a heliocentric system
Nearly all modern science, especially physics, relies heavily on inference.
The conclusion that the earth rotates around the sun is based on observation. The conclusion that the sun rotates around the earth at one time was an inference. Because it was an inference, was it true???
String theory will be tested someday, but until it is its still a theory.
A theory is something that is proven. Dictionary.com says that a hypothesis is is an observation that can be tested by further investigation.
String theory is niether of these.
String theory will be tested someday
So are you asking me to have faith until then?
String theory is not the observed behaviour mentioned in step 1. It is the hypothesis/theory mentioned in steps 3 - 5
That's the problem. Strings are unobservable, and string theory describes nor predicts nothing that is not explained by another larger theory.
The "scientific" method is this;
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation
Has strings ever been (or can be) observed in nature??
They have not.
Physics without a testable hypothesis is Philosophy.
String theory is not science.
is "religion for scientists".
it's certainly not science.
O.K., you can have "mechanical" TV. We'll keep the electronic TV.
He later admitted the deficiencies of his sytem as unworkable.
It's one thing to have an idea, and quite another to make it work.
Also, don't forget that motion pictures is an Edison invention also.
Well, we will use Pirelli tires
What will they be made of?? The vulcanization of rubber is ours.
We'll give you back the computers - the analogue ones. The first free programmable and digital coputersystem was invented by Konrad Zuse, Germany.
This is debatable. ENIAC was operational in 1945 when Konrad Zuse began building his.
You Europeans didn't want the computer anyway, as you burned the first one to ashes (Collosus), and therefore you can not prove that you actually built one.
Also, you'll have to use vacuum tubes. Transistors belong to us.
Joseph Henry, an American, is credited as the first who discovered the principles of a dynamo.
Without perms, our women will look fine, naturally. Long hairs are looking nice and elegant. Much better, as overdressed Hollywood bitches, with tons of chemicals in their hairs.
We both agree. We have Hollywood bitches.
I bet you wouldn't turn down a date with one though.
but until a Democratic president can get in for another 8 years
Let's not forget that the last "Democratic" president sold us down the river by signing the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and CTEA (Copyright Term Extension Act) into law. His name is Bill Clinton.
I consider the CTEA the more egregious of the two, as it is a complete handout to a few corporate interests with nothing given back to the public in return. But this seems to be congress' standard operating procedure (SOP) these days.
There is no indication that the current presidential candidates (esp. frontrunner Kerry) would not do the do the same. Indeed, his website mentions nothing about copyright issues or "digital rights".
and Kennedy and Scalia get the boot, they won't win.
Appointments to the court are for life. So the only way they get the "boot" is if they "kick the bucket".
Let's not forget the decision in Eldred vs. Ashcroft (challenging CTEA) was 7 to 2, meaning it was not even close.
I had thought (along with others) that the current court's propensity to limit federal powers would come into play here, but it did not. Essentially they said that while extending copyright terms may be a bad idea, it is within congress' power to do so.
While I'm glad to see Kahle vs. Ashcroft, it is for this reason I believe that it is doomed.
Even though they make a big deal about how this isn't Eldred vs. Ashcroft, it really is a distinction the court will find tenuous. They got shot down on the copyright extensions, they will get shot down on the inclusionary aspects of this.
The court does occasionally revisit decisions by hearing variants of issues that have appeared before them in the past, and is how they occasionally reverse themselves.
I do not think that they will get shot down because of the "inclusionary" aspects of the case.
Rather they will get shot down because most judge's eyes "glass over" when you mention copyright to them, and usually default to giving more rights to copyright holders.
This coupled with legislators favoring corporate over public interests is why we have the vast expanse called copyright law today.