150 kilowatts is 201 horsepower. (conversion link; 1 horsepower = approximately 745.7 watts)
F-16 Aircraft use a powerplant ranging from 15,000 to 19,000 (28,000 to 32,000 with afterburner) pounds force of thrust.
To convert between thrust and horsepower, use this formula: [(Thrust in lbs x Speed in mph) / 550] x 1.47 = horsepower (formula link)
So let's assume an airspeed of 400 miles per hour. Without afterburners: Low: ((15,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 16,036.3636 High: ((19,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 20,312.7273 And with afterburners: Low: ((28,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 29,934.5455 High: ((32,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 34,210.9091
So let's say about 18,000 horsepower on average regularly and 32,000 horsepower on average with afterburners.
A 150 kilowatt laser requires 1.1% of the total engine power produced (on average) by an F-16 turbofan engine, and 0.6% of the engine's power with afterburners engaged.
In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.
I think that the real irony here is that an invention of Texas Instruments was invented in India. That little bit of outsourcing should hit the ol' G-dubber close to home, no? Probably won't wake his ass up, though...
"but one can't help but wonder if such a device will breed less assertive graduates who lack the will to stand up and voice their opinion on sensitive issues."
I don't think this device can do anything worse than what forced, mandatory public schooling has done. Think about this from the point of view of government as a general concept. At home, a child is familiar with one form of government: dictatorship--do what you're told, or else. At school, what form of government do we have? Dictatorship as well, but on a much more massive scale with a hierarchy that is more similar to that of a corporation (hey, wait...). For the first 18ish years of most peoples' lives, they are "kept down" by somebody, whether their parents or their school, and they're only "kept up" by their friends around them. Then we give them the "right" to vote and wonder why they don't use it. Perhaps it's because we have this long history of totally denying children the right to, well, anything, and it takes them a good four years in college and four to six more years after that to un-learn all the damage the oppression of public schooling has provided so that they can get out and finally voice their opinion. Of course, if they skip college, they're perfect little unquestioning factory-worker automatons, just like the public school experiment wanted them to be. (ponder for a moment that our factory jobs are being shipped overseas and the notion of forced schooling is many decades out of fashion because it trains people for jobs and social environments which are rapidly dwindling in number)
I really don't think giving people a clicker so they can answer sensitive questions is a bad thing. I think the entire environment where 30 people mindlessly follow a single adult (that's what a classroom is in a modern public school. 1 commander, 30 soldiers...) is what totally ruins our children.
The government knows the people can COUNT and that's why they've prohibited the viewing and photography of flag-draped caskets.
I've heard a rumor that the figure of 1,700 (or whatever the running total is at) includes only those who are killed in active duty. The figure doesn't include those who die outside of Iraq or on the way out of Iraq (at the war hospitals in Germany for example) as a result of injuries sustained within Iraq itself. See here: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1622.htm Take it with a grain of salt...but still, it makes you wonder...
Yes, this will work perfectly, because everybody knows that the populace loves giving out MORE personal information ONLINE.
Yeah, they love it all right...
Come on, really, who thinks of this shit? Why can't they just be three questions? I hate that about websites that mandate that you have some kind of "secret question" and it's from a drop-down list of "what was your mother's maiden name?" and "what is your favorite pet's name?" and so on. Why can't you just give me a field to type in my own question(s) and its (their) respective answer(s)? Then they can be totally nonsensical and ultimately more secure. "What color is a turnip?" "Bicycle!"
You don't find it informative to know which lights are left on most frequently? Think outside the box. Don't think about pointing the finger, think about problem resolution.
Lights being left on wastes energy. Perhaps that room needs timed light switches that switch off automatically after 4 hours' time? Perhaps that room needs Compact Fluorescent Lamps instead of Incandescant in order to save power when they do get left on? Maybe both? It isn't about arguing over who is using more power, it's acknowledging everyone's power usage and looking at ways to eliminate unneccessary consumption.
What's next, sensors that monitor peoples' position and only turn on lights / apply electricity to the devices near them? Hey, that's a thought...
It isn't about guilt or accountability, it's about getting a fuller picture of the scenario so that one can navigate that scenario responsibly. Finger-pointing and blame-placing does not a solution make.
The key is that they're parrots. Almost all variety of parrot are curious, playful birds.
When I was watching Animal Planet, they mentioned a couple varieties of wild parrot and how they destroy cars and buildings by taking them apart. They settled on Alex the African Grey as the #1 most intelligent creature, but they saluted all parrots for their unique intellect.
Some variety of Snow Monkey was also on the list, at number 5 I think. One monkey of a particular group supposedly saw somebody bathing in a hot spring and then she tried it herself. Now her whole group stays warm in the heated spring year-round.
I don't know if the chimps that use a "hand language" are able to grasp logical concepts like counting.
I'm waiting for something that can do simple math. Grasping something as abstract as basic mathematics would demonstrate real intelligence and reasoning. Counting is a good start, but solving 2+2 would be better. That is, he can count the number of red blocks and he can count the number of blue blocks, so can he tell us how many blocks there are if we ask "how many red blocks?" and then "how many blue blocks?" and then cover up the table somehow and ask him "how many blocks total?"
The training of Alex is an experiment which is constantly in progress. This isn't "bad science" but "science in progress."
It's kind of like condemning an experiment by reading one progress report, decades before the final report is available. And I say decades because Alex is 28 and African Grey parrots can live to be 65+ years old.
I just saw something last night on Animal Planet on the "Most Extreme" intelligent animals. Parrots were #1, specifically this bird Alex, who has been in training for almost 20 years, I think it is.
My dad has an African Grey whose name is Max. Max is not as intelligent as Alex, but he demonstrates a limited intelligence. Simple things like saying "come here" when he wants attention or saying "whoops" when he drops a piece of food. It isn't on par with the counting and identifying that Alex can do.
If you see video of Alex, it's totally amazing. He can identify what objects are made of (wood, metal, wool), he can identify colors (red, blue, yellow, green) and even count up to five--now including zero. He can even flip you attitude: "wanna go sleep" or "wanna go home" or "hungry" -- all in the middle of a training session.
JBoss founder Marc Fleury refers to "hobbyist" Open Source contributors and makes the case that "no one is going to work for free."
Free in what context? There is more of value in life than simply dollars and cents. Self-respect, the respect and admiration of others, the ability to contribute to something that will positively change the lives of tens, hundreds, possibly thousands (or even millions) of people.
This man is a greedy bastard, and a foolish one at that. He only sees the bottom line in dollars and cents. Who respects him, who he is able to respect, and what goodwill he has demonstrated to his fellow man...these things don't even register in this guy's head.
It isn't that no one is going to work for free. It's that no one who believes that money is the only way to be paid, that wealth is only measured in dollars and cents--it's that no one who believes those things will work for free. And that's fine, because they're capitalists to the core and they don't even have the single shred of communism in them which is required to get behind open source. Fuck 'em, we don't want their "free" labor anyhow. The only free labor we want is that which is voluntary and comes from people who recognize that there's more to life than money.
What's causing this fear of sex? Maybe all the STDs you can get without knowing. Do you think your body lights up green when you contract HIV? No, you don't ever know until you get tested. The fact that one little pleasurable act can totally ruin your life is what causes fear of sex. The fear is so strong because it IS a pleasurable act! I mean, damn, sex is fun, that's why people do it so much (aside from the making babies part of things). It's a pleasurable act not to be committed promiscuously for the danger involved in doing so is unknown and potentially life-threatening.
If I hold a gun up to somebody's head and I blow their brains out, unless I was particularly angry at that person, I'm going to feel some remorse and it isn't going to be as pleasurable or attractive to me as, say, sex. Sex has many negative reprecussions (pregnancies that result in fatherless children and population growth, STDs, emotional trauma, learning for the first time that when she says "I'm clean" she means "I was clean when I was tested last year.", etc) but it's a positive act in and of itself. It's a very attractive, desirable act. It's something, basically, that people WANT to do, regardless of whether or not they understand the ultimate reprecussions of their actions. Murder isn't something that people want to do because it's fun, generally. I mean yes, there are serial killers and the like, but they're few and far between and GTA isn't going to make that problem any worse.
I'll ask you this: In all these sex scenes, does anyone get pregnant? How about an STD? "Sorry, you can't play today, your gave your character syphilis. Come back in four days after it's cleared up." -- no? No consequences? Go around, have meaningless sex because it's fun, never see the negative consequences for it...?
It isn't that sex is more damaging to the mind of a 17 year old than violence. It's that meaningless, promiscuous sex with strangers without any acknowledgement of negative consequences is destructive to America as a whole. Divorce rate is up, number of fatherless children is up, lots of selfish guys out there are just after one good lay and then they're on to the next "bitch." (seriously, there are people out there who refer to the women they sleep with as their "bitches" -- in every-day conversation)
Do you still not see why people are afraid? They're afraid for the same reason they're so afraid of drugs: They're fun, but some of the time they carry very negative consequences. So the appeal is there to do something fun, incognizant of the fact that the consequences aren't that fun. Do too much cocaine and your heart might just up and stop without warning. Do too much methamphetamine and you'll be awake for 14 days straight and all you'll be able to think about is the goblins living in the walls who are listening to you all the time (ie, you'll go insane). Do too much opium and you can get severe constipation problems which can necessitate a trip to the ER to get cleared up (or you can sit at home, constipated, until one of your intestines bursts and you bleed to death internally). But thoughts of these consequences don't ever enter the mind of the user. All they're thinking about is the pleasurable act they're about to engage in and how oh-so-good it's going to feel.
IOW, the fear of sex isn't fear of sex itself, but of the unacknowledged negative consequences that promiscuous sex causes.
Maybe he was dealing with sensitive information? Work that needed to be done ASAP because he just got a call on his cellphone from his boss. Maybe he was indeed looking at pornography, but there's nothing inherently wrong about pornography itself. Perhaps he was shy and embarrassed? Why would he hide? Plenty of people hide from others even when they're not breaking the law. Maybe he was a black man having a pornographic webcam session with a white girl and he feels racially insecure. Maybe he was sending a personal e-mail to his wife in Cambodia and he considered that e-mail to be nobody's business but his and his wife's.
I'll put it to you this way: do you care what I'm doing inside my car? If so, why? Are you the kind of person who is going to look over my backyard fence, too? The guy with the wireless router could've just gone inside and turned it off if he was so afraid that his bandwidth was being "stolen."
(You can't steal something which isn't tangibly quantifiable in a unique and exclusive way. Also, "stolen" implies a sort of possession that you can't really have over a communication medium. "stealing" bandwidth would be when somebody is using their internet connection and a third party somehow comes and uses up all the bandwidth, preventing the owner of the connection from using any bandwidth. That would be "stealing" bandwidth. But a wireless router will by its very nature load-balance the connection so everybody shares the same amount. So it isn't stealing so much as sharing, but I digress, this parenthetical remark is now much larger than I intended...)
Mr. WAPOperator could just go inside and turn the WAP off. Instead, he's prying into Mr. Thirdparty's personal business which Mr. Thirdparty isn't happy about. When Mr. Thirdparty realises that his personal business is being spied upon, he makes an attempt to obscure his personal business. I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see something wrong with is that Mr. WAPOperator is more interested in what Mr. Thirdparty's personal business than he is with the security of his WAP. That, to me, is the number one worst thing about all of this.
I've got a better question: If you're in a computer lab (where it's normal and accepted for people to use computers and the internet) would you like somebody standing behind you, reading everything you do over your shoulder? I mean, regardless of what it is you're doing (e-mails to grandma, uploading pictures from your vacation, etc), will you feel comfortable being observed/"monitored" by a complete stranger while you use the internet?
I went back and read the article. "It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft," said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando. "Just because a crime may be undetectable doesn't make it right."
This logic is totally flawed. It's actually more like somebody bought a Microsoft program and then set up Terminal Services and let everyone in the neighborhood connect over terminal services and start their own instance of, say, MS Word (multiple instances of the same program can be run on the same physical computer if each instance is started by a different user). There's nothing tangible being moved around. Use of the network by a third party isn't precluding the network's owner from using it. There is no "loss of service" or "loss of property" which is required for something to be "stolen." It's more that things are being shared at a single point of service which is able to invite users from many points to that single point. It would be the rough equivalent of having a computer in a lobby at an apartment complex that anybody can use for anything. 500 people using that one copy of word on that one computer, SHARING it. And you know what? THAT is perfectly legal.
Nobody is "stealing" the internet connection, here. Nobody is depriving somebody else of se
Although just because I forget to lock my car doors and forget my keys in the ignition it's NOT an invitation to steal my vehicle!
True. An unmanned vehicle makes for a bad analogy, because there's a system of identification and authorization that happens in a WAP that doesn't happen in an automobile. That is, you know the WAP is unsecured/public before you ever try to utilize it. This would be akin to a sign on a car that said "FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" while having the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition. When you attempt to get an IP address via DHCP, there's an authorization scheme that occurs. I can't think of anything akin to this in a car, really. Maybe that the car says "Welcome to this car." when you open the door..?
Also, internet bandwidth can be shared between many users going to different websites. But if somebody were to take your car, they can only really go to one place at one time with it. Even if it could be shared, everybody would have to be going to the same place. Logistically, the resources consumed or restricted by either operation are vastly different. One necessitates exclusivity of use (the car) and the other is by its very nature a platform for resource sharing (the WAP).
I think that building reasonable car-WAP or door-WAP analogies will be essential to explaining this technical matter to the laypeople who keep setting up WAPs.
Yes, of course it will (eventually, once the DRM is cracked) make it easier to pirate movies.
But it will also make it easier for people to legitimately buy movies.
No irritating crying children. No people who smell bad. No waiting. No hassle. No lines. No fuss.
Given the choice, I think that most people would like to compensate the actors, directors and producers of a movie. What that price point is, remains to be seen.
If it would be computer-tethered and non-portable, I personally wouldn't shell out more than $5.00 (matinee ticket price).
Presumably, google will use their massive server farm to parse the "1.00 Is Bill Clinton the President of the United States." into something that more resembles an answer to a question.
Temporal things, like "who is the president right now" or "how is the weather" need to be updated more often. It is entirely possible that when that question was entered into the truth table, however, the answer to the question was indeed true.
No idea about the semantic spectrum bit. I could use an explanation there too.
That's a very poor analogy (and I criticised those using the door analogies for precisely this kind of reasoning.) Even if we take it at face value, all we know is that there is a door. Under most circumstances, seeing a door in a wall somewhere at random isn't something we'd assume we have access to. Where does the door lead? Is it private property on the other side? Why would you even consider turning the handle under normal circumstances?
But a wireless access point is not akin to just "a random door" but a specific kind of door which leads TO THE INTERNET, much like the specific kind of door that leads to a porta-potty. If we take it at face value as you suggest, then there's no real question about where that door leads. So we don't simply know that there's a door. We know that there's a door that communicates on a standard protocol and opens up to a specific location. We know, actually, that when we ring the doorbell (request an IP address via DHCP) they can choose to either answer the door and invite us in (by providing that IP address and IP connectivity) or not (by not responding at all).
The WAP is not broadcasting a signal that says "Hey, anyone, connect! My owner welcomes connections!" It's no more inviting "all" connections than a door with no notice on it. Would you pee in a closet simply because it has a door handle?
That's actually exactly what a WAP does, which is what makes it so easy for people to sit down and have their laptop automatically connect to the strongest available access point. No "Do you have permission to access this WAP?" dialog boxes are presented. The computer just searches, finds, connects to the first available public access point.
It is a required part of a WAP's operation that it negotiate with incoming connections, much as a door handle's operation requires it negotiate with the hand gripping it. To stretch this further and suggest that because it performs this negotiation stage, the owner is automatically inviting strangers to use it is absurd.
It is possible to assess the publicity or security of a WAP without attempting access. Without "negotiating" as it were. The WAP broadcasts a signal, and that signal identifies the access point and its security level, the same way the VACANT/OCCUPIED label on a porta-potty identifies its publicity level.
The "negotiation" stage that you refer to (attempting to turn the handle) is what happens when my laptop says "I would like an IP address please." and then the access point says "OK, here you go. Welcome to the Smith Family's network, 22.14.13.94"
So an open WAP is like a door to a known location that says "OPEN TO ALL" and when you knock on that door to request entry (an IP address/network access), the WAP opens the door and invites you in. A closed WAP is like a door to a known location that says "CLOSED TO ALL BUT XYZ" and when you knock on that door to request entry (an IP address/network access), the WAP says "Who are you and what's the secret code?" and if you can't provide the proper credentials, you are not provided with access.
This, frankly, is irrelevent. The fact that the owner left it open is a technical detail. It means the owner shouldn't be surprised if someone creeps in and makes a mess of their network, though the hacker who does should still be prosecuted. It means that if the owner has some configuration that means someone else's private network can be accessed via their own, they should take on some of the blame if a hacker is able to access the private network via their's because of an insecure WAP.
The courts operate WHOLLY on technicalities. The difference between negligent inaction and intentional action is clearly defined in the laws, and technical detail is crucially important. You know the hubbub over software patents in Europe? It's all over two words: "as such." at the e
This makes the more technologically aware part of the population quickly lose all faith in their legal system.
I have a serious question to pose, since you seem to be sufficiently intelligent enough to respond to it as a serious question.
Do you ever get the impression that the technologically aware part of the population is becoming disenchanted enough with the legal system to take matters into their own hands? Put bluntly: do you think the next civil war will be a Cyberwar between the technological elite and the "dumb masses?" We all know what open source has done for software; what could open source do for next-gen weapons technology?
I don't think it's anything like that to be quite honest, and I think the technical analogies are way off. For example, those arguing that the WAP "invited access" might just as well argue that an unlocked door "invites access" ("But, your honour! The door handle turned when my hand made a request to enter, responding by opening the door. I was clearly invited in")
Not really. Turning the handle is like testing the security of the system. If it is locked, you could be said to be attemping to force entry by turning the handle once or more. Approaching a door that you have no previous knowledge of the security of and attempting to open that door is completely different from, say, a door on a porta-potty that says "VACANT" or "OCCUPIED" and therefore notifies you of the publicity of access/entry BEFORE you even try to access/enter it. A WAP functions like such a door: you know whether it's locked or unlocked before you ever attempt to utilize it.
A WiFi hotspot does not invite unauthorized connections by virtue of broadcasting its existance.
You're right, it doesn't. However, an open WiFi hotspot does invite all connections by virtue of broadcasting its existence--whether explicitly or implicitly authorized, or not. It's like the porta-potty that says "VACANT" -- Would you, at some kind of festival, stare at the long rows of VACANT porta-potties and not make use of one to relieve yourself, because they lack signs that explicitly say either "FOR PUBLIC USE" or "NOT FOR PUBLIC USE"? It's kind of assumed that vacant porta-potties are used for relieving yourself unless otherwise indicated. (out-of-order signs, "employees only" signs, etc)
With Wifi using radio spectrum, it's a necessary part of its operation that requires that it transmit its existance so that authorized nodes can connect to it.
With radio stations using radio spectrum, it's a necessary part of their operation that requires that they transmit their existence so that anyone can connect to it. Radio being probably the most common and familiar form of wireless information communication (and oldest, too), the nature of implied openness and not needing to be a "member" of some club or organization is implied when receiving a radio broadcast. Speaking of radio broadcasts, any "sensitive" radio broadcasts (military, for example) are scrambled or use some kind of spread-spectrum technology to make them impossible for the public to intercept. But radio as a technology has long been considered to be public tunable for receiving purposes. Discounting that a wifi hotspot functions bidirectionally (upload/download) and a radio transmission tower functions unidirectionally (download), I think it is explicitly implied that any unencrypted wireless broadcast is usable by any member of the public. Given the "predominantly downloading" nature of an internet connection (you do way more downloading than uploading, generally), the wifi hotspot can be seen as similar to a radio transmission tower, thusly.
However, as most, if not all, WAPs are sold in a default configuration where they are unlocked and broadcasting an SSID, it's a stretch to argue that the owner of the WAP has deliberately opened their network to all.
Yes, that's a stretch. However it isn't a stretch to say that the manual describes how to secure the system. It also isn't a stretch to say that the onus is on the user to secure their device, and by not doing so and broadcasting the signal on a public unregulated frequency, they are implicitly allowing access to the WAP. By their INACTION, they have LEFT IT OPEN, but they did not OPEN IT. It's not their actions which are at fault here, but their inaction. They did not deliberately open it, but rather they deliberately chose to let it remain open.
Let's stop being nerds with bad analogies and look at the real world.
I think it's more about the dumb look on peoples' faces when they have their mouth permanently agape. I believe "mouth breathers" implies "stupid people who are so dumb that they can't shut their filthy mouth". People with moderate to severe Down Syndrome often prefer this particular choice of lip positioning, relatedly.
Slashdot Mirror
150 kilowatts is 201 horsepower. (conversion link; 1 horsepower = approximately 745.7 watts)
F-16 Aircraft use a powerplant ranging from 15,000 to 19,000 (28,000 to 32,000 with afterburner) pounds force of thrust.
To convert between thrust and horsepower, use this formula: [(Thrust in lbs x Speed in mph) / 550] x 1.47 = horsepower (formula link)
So let's assume an airspeed of 400 miles per hour.
Without afterburners:
Low: ((15,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 16,036.3636
High: ((19,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 20,312.7273
And with afterburners:
Low: ((28,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 29,934.5455
High: ((32,000 * 400) / 550) * 1.47 = 34,210.9091
So let's say about 18,000 horsepower on average regularly and 32,000 horsepower on average with afterburners.
A 150 kilowatt laser requires 1.1% of the total engine power produced (on average) by an F-16 turbofan engine, and 0.6% of the engine's power with afterburners engaged.
In other words, I think they've got all the power they need.
A whole building? Nah, they only get the third floor of building 114.
You wouldn't become a level 60 zergling. You'd evolve into a hydralisk, then a mutalisk...
I think that the real irony here is that an invention of Texas Instruments was invented in India. That little bit of outsourcing should hit the ol' G-dubber close to home, no? Probably won't wake his ass up, though...
but also in rooms where you don't want to get stuck if the power goes out, like a storage room or a kitchen. ...or a public restroom.
"but one can't help but wonder if such a device will breed less assertive graduates who lack the will to stand up and voice their opinion on sensitive issues."
I don't think this device can do anything worse than what forced, mandatory public schooling has done. Think about this from the point of view of government as a general concept. At home, a child is familiar with one form of government: dictatorship--do what you're told, or else. At school, what form of government do we have? Dictatorship as well, but on a much more massive scale with a hierarchy that is more similar to that of a corporation (hey, wait...). For the first 18ish years of most peoples' lives, they are "kept down" by somebody, whether their parents or their school, and they're only "kept up" by their friends around them. Then we give them the "right" to vote and wonder why they don't use it. Perhaps it's because we have this long history of totally denying children the right to, well, anything, and it takes them a good four years in college and four to six more years after that to un-learn all the damage the oppression of public schooling has provided so that they can get out and finally voice their opinion. Of course, if they skip college, they're perfect little unquestioning factory-worker automatons, just like the public school experiment wanted them to be. (ponder for a moment that our factory jobs are being shipped overseas and the notion of forced schooling is many decades out of fashion because it trains people for jobs and social environments which are rapidly dwindling in number)
I really don't think giving people a clicker so they can answer sensitive questions is a bad thing. I think the entire environment where 30 people mindlessly follow a single adult (that's what a classroom is in a modern public school. 1 commander, 30 soldiers...) is what totally ruins our children.
This is nothing but Linux serving a humanitarian purpose because it's the right thing to do.
Laptop screens are not friendly to gaming.
Laptop RAM capabilities are usually limited at 1GB or 2GB.
Laptop CPUs cannot generally be upgraded.
Those are probably the big reasons.
I'll take your offtopic and raise you one more...
The government knows the people can COUNT and that's why they've prohibited the viewing and photography of flag-draped caskets.
I've heard a rumor that the figure of 1,700 (or whatever the running total is at) includes only those who are killed in active duty. The figure doesn't include those who die outside of Iraq or on the way out of Iraq (at the war hospitals in Germany for example) as a result of injuries sustained within Iraq itself. See here: http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a1622.htm Take it with a grain of salt...but still, it makes you wonder...
Yes, this will work perfectly, because everybody knows that the populace loves giving out MORE personal information ONLINE.
Yeah, they love it all right...
Come on, really, who thinks of this shit? Why can't they just be three questions? I hate that about websites that mandate that you have some kind of "secret question" and it's from a drop-down list of "what was your mother's maiden name?" and "what is your favorite pet's name?" and so on. Why can't you just give me a field to type in my own question(s) and its (their) respective answer(s)? Then they can be totally nonsensical and ultimately more secure. "What color is a turnip?" "Bicycle!"
You don't find it informative to know which lights are left on most frequently? Think outside the box. Don't think about pointing the finger, think about problem resolution.
Lights being left on wastes energy. Perhaps that room needs timed light switches that switch off automatically after 4 hours' time? Perhaps that room needs Compact Fluorescent Lamps instead of Incandescant in order to save power when they do get left on? Maybe both? It isn't about arguing over who is using more power, it's acknowledging everyone's power usage and looking at ways to eliminate unneccessary consumption.
What's next, sensors that monitor peoples' position and only turn on lights / apply electricity to the devices near them? Hey, that's a thought...
It isn't about guilt or accountability, it's about getting a fuller picture of the scenario so that one can navigate that scenario responsibly. Finger-pointing and blame-placing does not a solution make.
The key is that they're parrots. Almost all variety of parrot are curious, playful birds.
When I was watching Animal Planet, they mentioned a couple varieties of wild parrot and how they destroy cars and buildings by taking them apart. They settled on Alex the African Grey as the #1 most intelligent creature, but they saluted all parrots for their unique intellect.
Chimps were #2.
Some variety of Snow Monkey was also on the list, at number 5 I think. One monkey of a particular group supposedly saw somebody bathing in a hot spring and then she tried it herself. Now her whole group stays warm in the heated spring year-round.
I don't know if the chimps that use a "hand language" are able to grasp logical concepts like counting.
I'm waiting for something that can do simple math. Grasping something as abstract as basic mathematics would demonstrate real intelligence and reasoning. Counting is a good start, but solving 2+2 would be better. That is, he can count the number of red blocks and he can count the number of blue blocks, so can he tell us how many blocks there are if we ask "how many red blocks?" and then "how many blue blocks?" and then cover up the table somehow and ask him "how many blocks total?"
The training of Alex is an experiment which is constantly in progress. This isn't "bad science" but "science in progress."
It's kind of like condemning an experiment by reading one progress report, decades before the final report is available. And I say decades because Alex is 28 and African Grey parrots can live to be 65+ years old.
I just saw something last night on Animal Planet on the "Most Extreme" intelligent animals. Parrots were #1, specifically this bird Alex, who has been in training for almost 20 years, I think it is.
My dad has an African Grey whose name is Max. Max is not as intelligent as Alex, but he demonstrates a limited intelligence. Simple things like saying "come here" when he wants attention or saying "whoops" when he drops a piece of food. It isn't on par with the counting and identifying that Alex can do.
If you see video of Alex, it's totally amazing. He can identify what objects are made of (wood, metal, wool), he can identify colors (red, blue, yellow, green) and even count up to five--now including zero. He can even flip you attitude: "wanna go sleep" or "wanna go home" or "hungry" -- all in the middle of a training session.
More on Alex can be found here: http://www.alexfoundation.org/
Alex's trainer for the past two decades, Dr. Irene M. Pepperberg, is a visiting professor at the MIT Media Lab, as well: http://web.media.mit.edu/~impepper/
Free in what context? There is more of value in life than simply dollars and cents. Self-respect, the respect and admiration of others, the ability to contribute to something that will positively change the lives of tens, hundreds, possibly thousands (or even millions) of people.
This man is a greedy bastard, and a foolish one at that. He only sees the bottom line in dollars and cents. Who respects him, who he is able to respect, and what goodwill he has demonstrated to his fellow man...these things don't even register in this guy's head.
It isn't that no one is going to work for free. It's that no one who believes that money is the only way to be paid, that wealth is only measured in dollars and cents--it's that no one who believes those things will work for free. And that's fine, because they're capitalists to the core and they don't even have the single shred of communism in them which is required to get behind open source. Fuck 'em, we don't want their "free" labor anyhow. The only free labor we want is that which is voluntary and comes from people who recognize that there's more to life than money.
What's causing this fear of sex? Maybe all the STDs you can get without knowing. Do you think your body lights up green when you contract HIV? No, you don't ever know until you get tested. The fact that one little pleasurable act can totally ruin your life is what causes fear of sex. The fear is so strong because it IS a pleasurable act! I mean, damn, sex is fun, that's why people do it so much (aside from the making babies part of things). It's a pleasurable act not to be committed promiscuously for the danger involved in doing so is unknown and potentially life-threatening.
If I hold a gun up to somebody's head and I blow their brains out, unless I was particularly angry at that person, I'm going to feel some remorse and it isn't going to be as pleasurable or attractive to me as, say, sex. Sex has many negative reprecussions (pregnancies that result in fatherless children and population growth, STDs, emotional trauma, learning for the first time that when she says "I'm clean" she means "I was clean when I was tested last year.", etc) but it's a positive act in and of itself. It's a very attractive, desirable act. It's something, basically, that people WANT to do, regardless of whether or not they understand the ultimate reprecussions of their actions. Murder isn't something that people want to do because it's fun, generally. I mean yes, there are serial killers and the like, but they're few and far between and GTA isn't going to make that problem any worse.
I'll ask you this: In all these sex scenes, does anyone get pregnant? How about an STD? "Sorry, you can't play today, your gave your character syphilis. Come back in four days after it's cleared up." -- no? No consequences? Go around, have meaningless sex because it's fun, never see the negative consequences for it...?
It isn't that sex is more damaging to the mind of a 17 year old than violence. It's that meaningless, promiscuous sex with strangers without any acknowledgement of negative consequences is destructive to America as a whole. Divorce rate is up, number of fatherless children is up, lots of selfish guys out there are just after one good lay and then they're on to the next "bitch." (seriously, there are people out there who refer to the women they sleep with as their "bitches" -- in every-day conversation)
Do you still not see why people are afraid? They're afraid for the same reason they're so afraid of drugs: They're fun, but some of the time they carry very negative consequences. So the appeal is there to do something fun, incognizant of the fact that the consequences aren't that fun. Do too much cocaine and your heart might just up and stop without warning. Do too much methamphetamine and you'll be awake for 14 days straight and all you'll be able to think about is the goblins living in the walls who are listening to you all the time (ie, you'll go insane). Do too much opium and you can get severe constipation problems which can necessitate a trip to the ER to get cleared up (or you can sit at home, constipated, until one of your intestines bursts and you bleed to death internally). But thoughts of these consequences don't ever enter the mind of the user. All they're thinking about is the pleasurable act they're about to engage in and how oh-so-good it's going to feel.
IOW, the fear of sex isn't fear of sex itself, but of the unacknowledged negative consequences that promiscuous sex causes.
Maybe he was dealing with sensitive information? Work that needed to be done ASAP because he just got a call on his cellphone from his boss. Maybe he was indeed looking at pornography, but there's nothing inherently wrong about pornography itself. Perhaps he was shy and embarrassed? Why would he hide? Plenty of people hide from others even when they're not breaking the law. Maybe he was a black man having a pornographic webcam session with a white girl and he feels racially insecure. Maybe he was sending a personal e-mail to his wife in Cambodia and he considered that e-mail to be nobody's business but his and his wife's.
I'll put it to you this way: do you care what I'm doing inside my car? If so, why? Are you the kind of person who is going to look over my backyard fence, too? The guy with the wireless router could've just gone inside and turned it off if he was so afraid that his bandwidth was being "stolen."
(You can't steal something which isn't tangibly quantifiable in a unique and exclusive way. Also, "stolen" implies a sort of possession that you can't really have over a communication medium. "stealing" bandwidth would be when somebody is using their internet connection and a third party somehow comes and uses up all the bandwidth, preventing the owner of the connection from using any bandwidth. That would be "stealing" bandwidth. But a wireless router will by its very nature load-balance the connection so everybody shares the same amount. So it isn't stealing so much as sharing, but I digress, this parenthetical remark is now much larger than I intended...)
Mr. WAPOperator could just go inside and turn the WAP off. Instead, he's prying into Mr. Thirdparty's personal business which Mr. Thirdparty isn't happy about. When Mr. Thirdparty realises that his personal business is being spied upon, he makes an attempt to obscure his personal business. I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see something wrong with is that Mr. WAPOperator is more interested in what Mr. Thirdparty's personal business than he is with the security of his WAP. That, to me, is the number one worst thing about all of this.
I've got a better question: If you're in a computer lab (where it's normal and accepted for people to use computers and the internet) would you like somebody standing behind you, reading everything you do over your shoulder? I mean, regardless of what it is you're doing (e-mails to grandma, uploading pictures from your vacation, etc), will you feel comfortable being observed/"monitored" by a complete stranger while you use the internet?
I went back and read the article.
"It's no different if I went out and bought a Microsoft program and started sharing it with everyone in my apartment. It's theft," said Kena Lewis, spokeswoman for Bright House Networks in Orlando. "Just because a crime may be undetectable doesn't make it right."
This logic is totally flawed. It's actually more like somebody bought a Microsoft program and then set up Terminal Services and let everyone in the neighborhood connect over terminal services and start their own instance of, say, MS Word (multiple instances of the same program can be run on the same physical computer if each instance is started by a different user). There's nothing tangible being moved around. Use of the network by a third party isn't precluding the network's owner from using it. There is no "loss of service" or "loss of property" which is required for something to be "stolen." It's more that things are being shared at a single point of service which is able to invite users from many points to that single point. It would be the rough equivalent of having a computer in a lobby at an apartment complex that anybody can use for anything. 500 people using that one copy of word on that one computer, SHARING it. And you know what? THAT is perfectly legal.
Nobody is "stealing" the internet connection, here. Nobody is depriving somebody else of se
True. An unmanned vehicle makes for a bad analogy, because there's a system of identification and authorization that happens in a WAP that doesn't happen in an automobile. That is, you know the WAP is unsecured/public before you ever try to utilize it. This would be akin to a sign on a car that said "FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC" while having the doors unlocked and the key in the ignition. When you attempt to get an IP address via DHCP, there's an authorization scheme that occurs. I can't think of anything akin to this in a car, really. Maybe that the car says "Welcome to this car." when you open the door..?
Also, internet bandwidth can be shared between many users going to different websites. But if somebody were to take your car, they can only really go to one place at one time with it. Even if it could be shared, everybody would have to be going to the same place. Logistically, the resources consumed or restricted by either operation are vastly different. One necessitates exclusivity of use (the car) and the other is by its very nature a platform for resource sharing (the WAP).
I think that building reasonable car-WAP or door-WAP analogies will be essential to explaining this technical matter to the laypeople who keep setting up WAPs.
Yes, of course it will (eventually, once the DRM is cracked) make it easier to pirate movies.
But it will also make it easier for people to legitimately buy movies.
No irritating crying children.
No people who smell bad.
No waiting.
No hassle.
No lines.
No fuss.
Given the choice, I think that most people would like to compensate the actors, directors and producers of a movie. What that price point is, remains to be seen.
If it would be computer-tethered and non-portable, I personally wouldn't shell out more than $5.00 (matinee ticket price).
Presumably, google will use their massive server farm to parse the "1.00 Is Bill Clinton the President of the United States." into something that more resembles an answer to a question.
Temporal things, like "who is the president right now" or "how is the weather" need to be updated more often. It is entirely possible that when that question was entered into the truth table, however, the answer to the question was indeed true.
No idea about the semantic spectrum bit. I could use an explanation there too.
But a wireless access point is not akin to just "a random door" but a specific kind of door which leads TO THE INTERNET, much like the specific kind of door that leads to a porta-potty. If we take it at face value as you suggest, then there's no real question about where that door leads. So we don't simply know that there's a door. We know that there's a door that communicates on a standard protocol and opens up to a specific location. We know, actually, that when we ring the doorbell (request an IP address via DHCP) they can choose to either answer the door and invite us in (by providing that IP address and IP connectivity) or not (by not responding at all).
That's actually exactly what a WAP does, which is what makes it so easy for people to sit down and have their laptop automatically connect to the strongest available access point. No "Do you have permission to access this WAP?" dialog boxes are presented. The computer just searches, finds, connects to the first available public access point.
It is possible to assess the publicity or security of a WAP without attempting access. Without "negotiating" as it were. The WAP broadcasts a signal, and that signal identifies the access point and its security level, the same way the VACANT/OCCUPIED label on a porta-potty identifies its publicity level.
The "negotiation" stage that you refer to (attempting to turn the handle) is what happens when my laptop says "I would like an IP address please." and then the access point says "OK, here you go. Welcome to the Smith Family's network, 22.14.13.94"
So an open WAP is like a door to a known location that says "OPEN TO ALL" and when you knock on that door to request entry (an IP address/network access), the WAP opens the door and invites you in. A closed WAP is like a door to a known location that says "CLOSED TO ALL BUT XYZ" and when you knock on that door to request entry (an IP address/network access), the WAP says "Who are you and what's the secret code?" and if you can't provide the proper credentials, you are not provided with access.
The courts operate WHOLLY on technicalities. The difference between negligent inaction and intentional action is clearly defined in the laws, and technical detail is crucially important. You know the hubbub over software patents in Europe? It's all over two words: "as such." at the e
I have a serious question to pose, since you seem to be sufficiently intelligent enough to respond to it as a serious question.
Do you ever get the impression that the technologically aware part of the population is becoming disenchanted enough with the legal system to take matters into their own hands? Put bluntly: do you think the next civil war will be a Cyberwar between the technological elite and the "dumb masses?" We all know what open source has done for software; what could open source do for next-gen weapons technology?
Not really. Turning the handle is like testing the security of the system. If it is locked, you could be said to be attemping to force entry by turning the handle once or more. Approaching a door that you have no previous knowledge of the security of and attempting to open that door is completely different from, say, a door on a porta-potty that says "VACANT" or "OCCUPIED" and therefore notifies you of the publicity of access/entry BEFORE you even try to access/enter it. A WAP functions like such a door: you know whether it's locked or unlocked before you ever attempt to utilize it.
You're right, it doesn't. However, an open WiFi hotspot does invite all connections by virtue of broadcasting its existence--whether explicitly or implicitly authorized, or not. It's like the porta-potty that says "VACANT" -- Would you, at some kind of festival, stare at the long rows of VACANT porta-potties and not make use of one to relieve yourself, because they lack signs that explicitly say either "FOR PUBLIC USE" or "NOT FOR PUBLIC USE"? It's kind of assumed that vacant porta-potties are used for relieving yourself unless otherwise indicated. (out-of-order signs, "employees only" signs, etc)
With radio stations using radio spectrum, it's a necessary part of their operation that requires that they transmit their existence so that anyone can connect to it. Radio being probably the most common and familiar form of wireless information communication (and oldest, too), the nature of implied openness and not needing to be a "member" of some club or organization is implied when receiving a radio broadcast. Speaking of radio broadcasts, any "sensitive" radio broadcasts (military, for example) are scrambled or use some kind of spread-spectrum technology to make them impossible for the public to intercept. But radio as a technology has long been considered to be public tunable for receiving purposes. Discounting that a wifi hotspot functions bidirectionally (upload/download) and a radio transmission tower functions unidirectionally (download), I think it is explicitly implied that any unencrypted wireless broadcast is usable by any member of the public. Given the "predominantly downloading" nature of an internet connection (you do way more downloading than uploading, generally), the wifi hotspot can be seen as similar to a radio transmission tower, thusly.
Yes, that's a stretch. However it isn't a stretch to say that the manual describes how to secure the system. It also isn't a stretch to say that the onus is on the user to secure their device, and by not doing so and broadcasting the signal on a public unregulated frequency, they are implicitly allowing access to the WAP. By their INACTION, they have LEFT IT OPEN, but they did not OPEN IT. It's not their actions which are at fault here, but their inaction. They did not deliberately open it, but rather they deliberately chose to let it remain open.
I think it's more about the dumb look on peoples' faces when they have their mouth permanently agape. I believe "mouth breathers" implies "stupid people who are so dumb that they can't shut their filthy mouth". People with moderate to severe Down Syndrome often prefer this particular choice of lip positioning, relatedly.
We don't need one another (humans and ants). Technology can and will replace everything in our lives which comes with annoying side effects.