Of course, amateurs are not bound be either rules for peer-review to get published or by NASA's process for press-releases, so their results will often appear on the web sooner than the offical findings. But they should also be treated with a certain measure of skepticism.
Of course, you meant to say that all results should be treated with a certain measure of skepticism.
...not likely. There is no way on Earth they will give up this power to control the market. In fact, there is no way anyone will ever give up any power unless a) it is taken from them (usually by force) or b) they can replace it with another power that is equal or stronger. The best that we can hope for is that the law will for the most part go uninforced because it is basically unworkable or unjust.
As evidenced by by Indian independence movement from British Colonial rule.
comes to spam, there's a value to beating them, so what some enterprising spammers do is set up porn sites that tell people "enter the word you see here and get free porn!". Lots of horny geeks do the spammers' work for them. The difference between the two scenarios is that the spammers are willing to pay minute
I've seen this mentioned a lot but haven't ever actually seen a porn site that does this. Can you please provide some references? Because I really want to know if this is something that actually happens as opposed to just being an Internet myth... and I'd like someplace that gave out free porn for filling in CAPTCHAs.
Just as regualation destroys free trade, it will make the internet crawl to a halt.
I believe the first part of this statement is a tautology and perhaps inappropriate as the basis for further assertion.
I'd say it was more or less equivalent to "Just as wet destroys dry, it will make your automobile crawl."
In any case, there is already a ton of regulation that no one wants to go away. Dow chemical doesn't want regulation to go away, particularly regulation that protects patents and trade secrets... they just want some regulations to go away... like the ones that say they can't dump Dioxin anywhere they please.
The whole free market versus regulated market debate is a white elephant... the debate is about set A of regulations versus set B of regulations. It is a debate about who benefits from each set. Same thing here, which is what the original artcle was pointing out.
That is what a man-in-the-middle attack is. And don't bother telling me that every user should check every certificate from every site and make sure that the site name is a legitimate site for that organization. Just look at citibank to see the problems with that
You seem to be arguing both sides of the issue... in the grand-parent you said that single communication channel meant no security because of man-in-the-middle.
Now it seems like you are saying that using a second channel (verifying the site name by looking at TV, Bank statement, asking a Teller, etc.) is a lost cause.
So if you any single channel communication can't work because of man-in-the-middle. And you aren't allowed to be able to educate the user (which seems to translate into using a second channel to give users info), what is your proposed solution?
You seem to just be saying this problem is intractable.
POSIX, like most specs, is designed to allow software to be both closed-source, and compatible. When your code is available, the sole traditional reason for specs is gone.
I'm under the impression that this type of argument is usually refered to as the "straw man." You redefine the issue ("there is only one reason for having specs and it is this") to something that you can refute, refute it, and then declare victory.
But saying open code is the solution for specs doesn't seem quite complete. So are we saying whoever gets there first wins? I.e. if you are the first to define a protocol in code, everyone else must follow what you've said? Which is okay as long as you are Open Source, but abject evil if you are closed source. (see Microsoft discussions, et al.)
Or perhaps we might call upon the invisible hand of the market to decide. Saying everyone code their solution to the problem... and whatever is used becomes the de facto standard. But doesn't this imply that a lot of people will spend a lot of time creating code that will never be used? Is this really the most efficient process?
And given the reality of the world where open source and closed source software must interact, what then?
I would posit another reason for a spec that you implicitly dismiss. That the goal of development can be agreed upon before any development starts so that more than one solution can be available at the same time. In fact for closed-source code I think this is as strong a reason as the one you posit. Companies don't all want to come up with their own idea of LDAPv4, code it, launch it, find they did not "win" in the market, and then redevelop to the version of LDAPv4 that did win.
...you hope. As the reviewer said, precise synchronization is absolutely critical for forensic purposes. Can you conclusively demonstrate that Event A on machine Foo occurred before Event B on machine Bar? Would you be willing to testify to that fact if a conviction or monetary judgment were on the line?
Well, since different observers have different simultaneity space-times, in general two observers cannot be assumed to agree on whether event A preceded or followed event B. (if it event B does not reside in event A's light-cone and vice-versa)... time ordering of events and simultaneity are illusions.
You might do with just a touch, just a touch by the way... not too much, of humility. I mean even Newton (who was by all accounts not at all humble) wrote "if I've seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." If Newton can acknowledge that he relied heavily on the work of those that came before him (and didn't just spontaneously discover the sum total of all human knowledge gathered prior to the 17th century), perhaps you could acknowledge that someone starting small and growing from there does not immediately make them a complete ignoramus.
Not that I'm comparing you to Newton... no doubt you've contributed a lot more original thought to the body of human knowledge than he ever did. (that is in addition of course to recreate the entirety of the body of human knowledge without ever referencing a book... although I must admit it's passing curious why you seem so focused on electronics given the knowledge of everything you have within you.) On second thought forget my whole post... I think you must be right in your tacit assertion that you didn't learn anything from anyone...
I only hope that you'll have a chance to read my reply and attendant apology for thinking you lacking in humility. That thick condescension towards your coworker and others that exudes from your post surely means you maintain an extremely busy social calendar.
Best of luck to you and please forgive those of us who have to rely on the knowledge of others to learn things. We don't mean to make you bitter. (Although I'm sure your bitterness makes you a wiz with the ladies.)
While I agree that this article (and articles at slashdot in general) is presented in somewhat inflammatory way, I think a lot of people are missing the intent of slashdot all together.
I think there is a lot of value in bringing these issues up for discussion and/or debate. I like seeing what a lot of people have to say about different things like this. It's interesting to see what each individuals response is coming from whatever context they happen to be in.
But people on slashdot get too caught up in slamming slashdot for being paranoid or alarmist or not free-market enough or too free-market or not skilled enough as journalist/editors/proofreaders/publishers... it kind of misses the point. Complaining about slashdot staff and contributors muddles the signal of discussing the topice presented.
So can we have a little less meta-conversation (this is a stupid story, this is a poorly written story, this story proves the -bias of slashdot) and more actual conversation (coming from the context of a bioinformatics researcher i think this topic is interesting because... )
Perhaps his answer was too long in coming for you, but he did address your point. The reason Kolmogorov's Theory gives for preferring the more simple explanation is that it is more likely to be correct.
That is, a model is built on finite data (the first part of the infinite string of numbers) and if we build two models on that data and then use them to predict future data (the next digit in the infinite string of numbers), the one that is simplest is the one that is most likely to give us a correct prediction.
Certainly in terms of usefulness models (theories) that let us accurately predict what is coming next are far more useful than ones that don't.
In terms of being "real," I would tend to lean towards the view that models that give accurate predictions are probably more in accord with objective reality (whatever that is) than one's that don't.
And I think that we can't be certain that the Universe follows a pattern, but we certainly have to assume it does to do any science.
I think it's amazing that we don't have laws preventing this kind of decemination of information
So if I want to sign up to be a seller with ebay and let them give out my information the government should intervene and prevent that? Whatever happened to letting conssenting adults enter into contracts? Guess what you are looking for is a nanny state to baby you?
Who said anything about two consenting adults? It's one adult and one huge corporation. One of the parties to the contract will definitely die after at most about 120 years, can work no more than 168 hours in a week, can be imprisoned or executed, has few protections from debts that are enshrined in law, and can't sell parts of itself to raise money. The other party is physically immortal, cannot be imprisoned or executed, has no hard limitation on the man-hours available to it, has all sorts of protections from civil, criminal, and tax liability, and in general is not equal to a person.
This inequity between the two parties means that one gets the shaft. That's because the corporation can dictate to you and you don't have any power at all to negotiate. I don't need a nanny state to baby me, I need a state that doesn't create "artificial persons" and then turn around and say "we want an unregulated marketplace."
By creating "artificial persons" that limit the liability of an enterprise which in truth is often just one person or a very small group of people, the government has created for itself a responsibility to regulate said artificial persons.
So take your laissez-faire politics back to the land of unicorns, dragons, and other mythical beasts.
Per Usenet tradition, whoever first compares the opposing viewpoint to Hitler, Nazis or Fascism loses. Given that SCO made signs that equated Linux and Fascism (and Communism, hello SCO? communist and fascist collectively killed 30 million of each other during World War II... might want to look into the differences...), SCO has automatically lost this argument. I think now is a perfect time for the judiciary to set the precedent of giving Usenet posting traditions the weight of law and to summarily dismiss SCO's suit.
No, it's not piracy. Piracy involves people with one eye and a peg leg who go "har." Or perhaps more specifically, a robbery at sea, often accompanied by violence. Fight the co-opting of the term "piracy" for copyright violations. It is just meant to incorrectly associate a purely non-violent, non-threatening, non-property depriving (not revenue depriving, although I think that can be debated) crime with something that is far more serious and violent.
Say "copyright violation" instead of "piracy" and no one pays any attention. And that's as it should be.
I admire Linux for his attempt to take the high road and ignore this as a minor attack. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that this is not a minor attack. SCO is threatening the viablity of Linus' life work and his greatest accomplishment. If he will not fight when attacked this way, then he has no life's work or accomplishment.
Much like yourself I would guess.
Who are you to criticize him or say his accomplishments amount to nothing if he refuses to follow your advice, when he's contributed far more to the world than you ever will?
Having given something creative and imaginative to the world, you claim he has an obligation to defend it? His prior labors on your behalf are not enough for you?
What are you doing to defend Linux from SCO besides spouting at Slashdot? What have you invested in this fight or given to Linus that he owes you anything?
Yeah, but if they don't learn to read, they're going to be stuck with the same subsistence agriculture that hasn't worked too fucking well form them recently. That or UN or NGO handouts that only serve to strengthen the oppressive regimes that are torturing these people, because little of the aid that reaches the docks reaches the people thanks to rampant corruption.
Hmmm... I think Africa needs more subsistence farming not less. If the WTO didn't come in and modernize economies, replacing food with cash crops so that those countries can be part of the "world economy" they'd be a lot better off.
Fraud is bad yes, but this is not benefiting (in this case) the executives. It is early to say, but this isn't looking like a case of some rich guys stealing from the company for profit.
The underlying issue is the business, not the accounting used to patch things up. Enron was a money losing organziation, who hid that from everyone using accounting tricks. They went bankrupt due to the core business being very risky and volatile - not due to the accounting tricks.
Whatever the reason for the bankruptcy of Enron and others, the executives have made decisions that enriched themselves and left their employees with nothing.
Enron gave senior executives $55 million in retention bonuses immediately before it filed for bankruptcy. It didn't make any attempt to retrieve the money even after several executives left, failing to meet the obligations of the retention bonus. After it filed for bankruptcy it laid off 4,500 employees who received no severance because the company didn't have any money to pay them. Of course they would have if all the executives hadn't stolen $55 million out of company coffers.
But that wasn't all, they also invested all of their employees 401k money in Enron and so left them doubly screwed when they went out of business.
So before you jump on the bandwagon of "blame the rich guys who pirated the corporate accounts and stole nearly $4B and kept it for themselves" wait for the actual story. Chances are that money was never in the door, and profits were inflated to trick the public into thinking things were okay. Granted this is fradulent and deceptive, but its probably not how you describe it: a case of a few people stealing to enrich themselves.
Of course most executive get hefty bonuses for high revenues and profits... the fraud wasn't some selfless devotion to the company... it was for personal gain. And then they are usually heavily invested in the company and want to make their stock go up so they can sell it. Also not a selfless goal... So before you spend your time defending rich people who steal the money of their employees, get your head on straight.
The article ribs the witness for calling KDE an operating system. Well, no, KDE is a user interface / window manager / shell sitting on top of the Linux (or other) kernel. Same as Explorer, which is a user interface / window manager / shell on top of the Windows NT kernel (in NT/2000/XP anyway). Perhaps he should have said KDE/Linux, but do we really want to go there?
Well, I'll go right out and buy a copy of just the Windows NT kernel with no MS window manager and install that other window manager for the Windows/NT OS from... um... Oh I guess there isn't another window manager for MS OS, and come to think of it Microsoft doesn't offer their OS without a Window Manager. Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS. Strange that... guess all those systems with no console don't run an OS.
The thing that disappointed me the most about this book is the amount of space spent on the social dimensions of administering a weblog. For such a lightweight book to spend the majority of its pages on how to reduce trolls and have a coherent theme to your site, while ignoring technical questions, made it feel like a rip-off.
Particularly upsetting to me was the information on installation. The book basically repeated what's in the online documentation without adding anything. Nothing included on common problems with installation or on non-standard installs. The book was suprisingly nontechnical. It reminded me of fluff HTML books that spend all their pages on aesthetic questions and do's and don'ts of webpage design.
Expensive, short, and padded with fluff. Overall, disappointing, especially from O'reilly.
traveling at what scientists today call the maximum speed limit 'the speed of light'
I've never met any scientist, today or otherwise, who call the speed of light the maximum speed limit.
Maybe someday when we understand space and time better but not now
I think we understand space and time better everyday. But that doesn't mean that we will ever necessarily create a faster-than-light mode of transportation.
Lastly I cant type and spell so don't point out my typoes and spelling errors it is really laim.
Fair enough, but habital? This is more than simple mispelling, you missing an entire syllable!
Not being concerned enough with your post to look at a dictionary or check for typos is also pretty lame. Why share at all?
No mention in the review of the fact that the hero of Mogadishu (character name changed, played by Ewan MacGregor) is now in Leavenworth.
Read about his heroism in raping and molesting children.
Elsewhere one can read about how, not suprisingly, our current mideast conflict has as much connection with oil as any in the past.
Facing 30 years in prison for installing harmless software? That's almost twice as much as the maximum sentence for a single count of rape!!
In Georgia, rape is punishable by death. (Though the death penalty is seldom sought.)
I think ultimately it seems like he definitely did something wrong, i.e. using his employers computers for his (potential) financial gain, but the penalty (even the reduced plea deal penalty) is totally out of proportion to this wrong. Personally, this seems like something you'd get fired for, not prosecuted for.
The problem I've always seen to nanobots is where does such a small device store energy? In looking at various proposals and ideas on how they would work and what they'd do, it seems energy storage is always the missing component. Propulsion, RF transmission, anything involving actuators are all going to be energy-expensive activities, where does the energy come from?
Slashdot Mirror
With props to Garrison Keillor, I think at best half of human beings are of sub-standard intellect. (If we assume the standard is set at the median).
-m
Of course, you meant to say that all results should be treated with a certain measure of skepticism.
Nullius in Verba and all that...
As evidenced by by Indian independence movement from British Colonial rule.
I've seen this mentioned a lot but haven't ever actually seen a porn site that does this. Can you please provide some references? Because I really want to know if this is something that actually happens as opposed to just being an Internet myth... and I'd like someplace that gave out free porn for filling in CAPTCHAs.
I'd say it was more or less equivalent to "Just as wet destroys dry, it will make your automobile crawl."
In any case, there is already a ton of regulation that no one wants to go away. Dow chemical doesn't want regulation to go away, particularly regulation that protects patents and trade secrets... they just want some regulations to go away... like the ones that say they can't dump Dioxin anywhere they please.
The whole free market versus regulated market debate is a white elephant... the debate is about set A of regulations versus set B of regulations. It is a debate about who benefits from each set. Same thing here, which is what the original artcle was pointing out.
Now it seems like you are saying that using a second channel (verifying the site name by looking at TV, Bank statement, asking a Teller, etc.) is a lost cause.
So if you any single channel communication can't work because of man-in-the-middle. And you aren't allowed to be able to educate the user (which seems to translate into using a second channel to give users info), what is your proposed solution?
You seem to just be saying this problem is intractable.
And they have absolutely no idea what to do about their PSTN losses.
But saying open code is the solution for specs doesn't seem quite complete. So are we saying whoever gets there first wins? I.e. if you are the first to define a protocol in code, everyone else must follow what you've said? Which is okay as long as you are Open Source, but abject evil if you are closed source. (see Microsoft discussions, et al.)
Or perhaps we might call upon the invisible hand of the market to decide. Saying everyone code their solution to the problem... and whatever is used becomes the de facto standard. But doesn't this imply that a lot of people will spend a lot of time creating code that will never be used? Is this really the most efficient process?
And given the reality of the world where open source and closed source software must interact, what then?
I would posit another reason for a spec that you implicitly dismiss. That the goal of development can be agreed upon before any development starts so that more than one solution can be available at the same time. In fact for closed-source code I think this is as strong a reason as the one you posit. Companies don't all want to come up with their own idea of LDAPv4, code it, launch it, find they did not "win" in the market, and then redevelop to the version of LDAPv4 that did win.
Well, since different observers have different simultaneity space-times, in general two observers cannot be assumed to agree on whether event A preceded or followed event B. (if it event B does not reside in event A's light-cone and vice-versa)... time ordering of events and simultaneity are illusions.
-m
You might do with just a touch, just a touch by the way... not too much, of humility. I mean even Newton (who was by all accounts not at all humble) wrote "if I've seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." If Newton can acknowledge that he relied heavily on the work of those that came before him (and didn't just spontaneously discover the sum total of all human knowledge gathered prior to the 17th century), perhaps you could acknowledge that someone starting small and growing from there does not immediately make them a complete ignoramus.
Not that I'm comparing you to Newton... no doubt you've contributed a lot more original thought to the body of human knowledge than he ever did. (that is in addition of course to recreate the entirety of the body of human knowledge without ever referencing a book... although I must admit it's passing curious why you seem so focused on electronics given the knowledge of everything you have within you.) On second thought forget my whole post... I think you must be right in your tacit assertion that you didn't learn anything from anyone...
I only hope that you'll have a chance to read my reply and attendant apology for thinking you lacking in humility. That thick condescension towards your coworker and others that exudes from your post surely means you maintain an extremely busy social calendar.
Best of luck to you and please forgive those of us who have to rely on the knowledge of others to learn things. We don't mean to make you bitter. (Although I'm sure your bitterness makes you a wiz with the ladies.)
While I agree that this article (and articles at slashdot in general) is presented in somewhat inflammatory way, I think a lot of people are missing the intent of slashdot all together.
... )
I think there is a lot of value in bringing these issues up for discussion and/or debate. I like seeing what a lot of people have to say about different things like this. It's interesting to see what each individuals response is coming from whatever context they happen to be in.
But people on slashdot get too caught up in slamming slashdot for being paranoid or alarmist or not free-market enough or too free-market or not skilled enough as journalist/editors/proofreaders/publishers... it kind of misses the point. Complaining about slashdot staff and contributors muddles the signal of discussing the topice presented.
So can we have a little less meta-conversation (this is a stupid story, this is a poorly written story, this story proves the -bias of slashdot) and more actual conversation (coming from the context of a bioinformatics researcher i think this topic is interesting because
Just my two bits.
Perhaps his answer was too long in coming for you, but he did address your point. The reason Kolmogorov's Theory gives for preferring the more simple explanation is that it is more likely to be correct.
That is, a model is built on finite data (the first part of the infinite string of numbers) and if we build two models on that data and then use them to predict future data (the next digit in the infinite string of numbers), the one that is simplest is the one that is most likely to give us a correct prediction.
Certainly in terms of usefulness models (theories) that let us accurately predict what is coming next are far more useful than ones that don't.
In terms of being "real," I would tend to lean towards the view that models that give accurate predictions are probably more in accord with objective reality (whatever that is) than one's that don't.
And I think that we can't be certain that the Universe follows a pattern, but we certainly have to assume it does to do any science.
Who said anything about two consenting adults? It's one adult and one huge corporation. One of the parties to the contract will definitely die after at most about 120 years, can work no more than 168 hours in a week, can be imprisoned or executed, has few protections from debts that are enshrined in law, and can't sell parts of itself to raise money. The other party is physically immortal, cannot be imprisoned or executed, has no hard limitation on the man-hours available to it, has all sorts of protections from civil, criminal, and tax liability, and in general is not equal to a person.
This inequity between the two parties means that one gets the shaft. That's because the corporation can dictate to you and you don't have any power at all to negotiate. I don't need a nanny state to baby me, I need a state that doesn't create "artificial persons" and then turn around and say "we want an unregulated marketplace."
By creating "artificial persons" that limit the liability of an enterprise which in truth is often just one person or a very small group of people, the government has created for itself a responsibility to regulate said artificial persons.
So take your laissez-faire politics back to the land of unicorns, dragons, and other mythical beasts.
Per Usenet tradition, whoever first compares the opposing viewpoint to Hitler, Nazis or Fascism loses. Given that SCO made signs that equated Linux and Fascism (and Communism, hello SCO? communist and fascist collectively killed 30 million of each other during World War II... might want to look into the differences...), SCO has automatically lost this argument. I think now is a perfect time for the judiciary to set the precedent of giving Usenet posting traditions the weight of law and to summarily dismiss SCO's suit.
No, it's not piracy. Piracy involves people with one eye and a peg leg who go "har." Or perhaps more specifically, a robbery at sea, often accompanied by violence. Fight the co-opting of the term "piracy" for copyright violations. It is just meant to incorrectly associate a purely non-violent, non-threatening, non-property depriving (not revenue depriving, although I think that can be debated) crime with something that is far more serious and violent.
Say "copyright violation" instead of "piracy" and no one pays any attention. And that's as it should be.
Much like yourself I would guess.
Who are you to criticize him or say his accomplishments amount to nothing if he refuses to follow your advice, when he's contributed far more to the world than you ever will?
Having given something creative and imaginative to the world, you claim he has an obligation to defend it? His prior labors on your behalf are not enough for you?
What are you doing to defend Linux from SCO besides spouting at Slashdot? What have you invested in this fight or given to Linus that he owes you anything?
Hmmm... I think Africa needs more subsistence farming not less. If the WTO didn't come in and modernize economies, replacing food with cash crops so that those countries can be part of the "world economy" they'd be a lot better off.
The underlying issue is the business, not the accounting used to patch things up. Enron was a money losing organziation, who hid that from everyone using accounting tricks. They went bankrupt due to the core business being very risky and volatile - not due to the accounting tricks.
Whatever the reason for the bankruptcy of Enron and others, the executives have made decisions that enriched themselves and left their employees with nothing.
Enron gave senior executives $55 million in retention bonuses immediately before it filed for bankruptcy. It didn't make any attempt to retrieve the money even after several executives left, failing to meet the obligations of the retention bonus. After it filed for bankruptcy it laid off 4,500 employees who received no severance because the company didn't have any money to pay them. Of course they would have if all the executives hadn't stolen $55 million out of company coffers.
But that wasn't all, they also invested all of their employees 401k money in Enron and so left them doubly screwed when they went out of business.
So before you jump on the bandwagon of "blame the rich guys who pirated the corporate accounts and stole nearly $4B and kept it for themselves" wait for the actual story. Chances are that money was never in the door, and profits were inflated to trick the public into thinking things were okay. Granted this is fradulent and deceptive, but its probably not how you describe it: a case of a few people stealing to enrich themselves.
Of course most executive get hefty bonuses for high revenues and profits... the fraud wasn't some selfless devotion to the company... it was for personal gain. And then they are usually heavily invested in the company and want to make their stock go up so they can sell it. Also not a selfless goal... So before you spend your time defending rich people who steal the money of their employees, get your head on straight.
Well, I'll go right out and buy a copy of just the Windows NT kernel with no MS window manager and install that other window manager for the Windows/NT OS from ... um ... Oh I guess there isn't another window manager for MS OS, and come to think of it Microsoft doesn't offer their OS without a Window Manager. Come to think of it they claim a Window Manager is an integral part of an OS. Strange that... guess all those systems with no console don't run an OS.
"it's designed to get through to people with enough casual knowledge of computers to fake intelligent conversation"
I really hope this doesn't mean you think people need a knowledge of computers to have an intelligent conversation.
I think the vast majority of intelligent conversation doesn't require any computer knowledge at all.
The thing that disappointed me the most about this book is the amount of space spent on the social dimensions of administering a weblog. For such a lightweight book to spend the majority of its pages on how to reduce trolls and have a coherent theme to your site, while ignoring technical questions, made it feel like a rip-off.
Particularly upsetting to me was the information on installation. The book basically repeated what's in the online documentation without adding anything. Nothing included on common problems with installation or on non-standard installs. The book was suprisingly nontechnical. It reminded me of fluff HTML books that spend all their pages on aesthetic questions and do's and don'ts of webpage design.
Expensive, short, and padded with fluff. Overall, disappointing, especially from O'reilly.
I've never met any scientist, today or otherwise, who call the speed of light the maximum speed limit.
Maybe someday when we understand space and time better but not now
I think we understand space and time better everyday. But that doesn't mean that we will ever necessarily create a faster-than-light mode of transportation.
Lastly I cant type and spell so don't point out my typoes and spelling errors it is really laim.
Fair enough, but habital? This is more than simple mispelling, you missing an entire syllable!
Not being concerned enough with your post to look at a dictionary or check for typos is also pretty lame. Why share at all?
Elsewhere one can read about how, not suprisingly, our current mideast conflict has as much connection with oil as any in the past.
In Georgia, rape is punishable by death. (Though the death penalty is seldom sought.)
I think ultimately it seems like he definitely did something wrong, i.e. using his employers computers for his (potential) financial gain, but the penalty (even the reduced plea deal penalty) is totally out of proportion to this wrong. Personally, this seems like something you'd get fired for, not prosecuted for.
The problem I've always seen to nanobots is where does such a small device store energy? In looking at various proposals and ideas on how they would work and what they'd do, it seems energy storage is always the missing component. Propulsion, RF transmission, anything involving actuators are all going to be energy-expensive activities, where does the energy come from?