Three channels doesn't seem like much. It's a bit disturbing to realize that a city-wide WiFi network such as what Google proposes (or like the ones set up and operated by the cities themselves) could become a kind of near-monopoly (unless you're willing to harm network performance), where the first-comer sets the rules of access (pricing, terms of use, etc.).
Yes, I meant an access point. I called it a router because that's the I've seen people use when referring to the device that provides access to the network.
I haven't been keeping up with new technologies, so here are some naive questions:
1. Is it possible for more than one WiFi router to cover a given hotspot? 2. If so, how would the client choose which router to use? 3. How many routers could occupy a hotspot before service is seriously harmed?
I'm wondering about the implications of Google offering free WiFi service along with a paid premium service. Would a different provider be able to provide competing services for the same area?
People who like porn can throw in the.xxx and know they are getting what they want. People who don't like can throw in the.com and know they won't be subjected to any porn. EVERYONE WINS!
That's a bullshit argument. How often do you encounter porn by accident after typing a URL directly into your browser? You won't usually find any porn on mainstream websites, so unless you're searching for "Warez" or illegal MP3 downloads I doubt you'll encounter porn by accident very often.
People who like porn can throw in the.xxx and know they are getting what they want. People who don't like can throw in the.com and know they won't be subjected to any porn. EVERYONE WINS!
I sure hope so, because then I won't have to worry about porn appearing on my computer the next time I type cumdrinkingsluts.com into my web browser.
Forcing pornography to reside onto a TLD of.xxx is not obstruction of freedom of speech. How would it be? It would be accessible via your web browser or any other retrieval method capable of entering a www.sexwebsite.xxx wouldn't it?
Dear idiot. Forcing pornography to reside in an *.xxx TLD is an obstruction of speech insofar as it prevents the holder of a non *.xxx domain from including pornographic content in an otherwise non-pornographic website.
Exactly! It's easy to avoid responsibility for one's actions by blaming them on external factors. The fact is that watching pornography is a choice, and all this bullshit about "porn addiction" is nothing more than a lousy cop-out.
Oh, and on another note - is it just me or is the invocation of Child Porn becoming a new Godwin's Law? Is there an epidemic of people stealing library cards to surf for child porn in public or something?;)
I was about to suggest the same thing! As far as I'm concerned, if you bring up child porn in an attempt to justify some idiotic measure, the argument in its favor is automatically lost. The same thing goes for "will somebody think of the children!".
I've had to remove spyware programs myself and I agree they can cause lots of damage to the system, but such damage is motivated by the desire to hide the software's existence, and the desire to hide the software stems from the fact that it's meant to collect and ultimately transfer information without the user's permission.
Software is often bundled with other software and the user won't know this unless he opts for a "custom" install. This shouldn't be illegal unless it causes damage to the user such as intentionally messing up your system (like viruses and trojans, already illegal) or hijacking system files to do things it shouldn't be doing (like collect information from your system).
I should have clicked on the preview button. Here's another attempt...
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but the sending of information without user intervention or at least his implied permission according to the software's intended purpose.
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but rather with the sending of information without user intervention or at his implied permission according to the software's clear intended function.
You've been far more condescending than I have been, except perhaps for my last post. Nevertheless, the fact that you're not even familiar with these "gurus" suggests that you don't really know that much about critical thinking.
Why don't you tell me what you've done to promote critical thinking?
And your statements seem to me like an insult to anyone trying to apply those theories.
Why is that? Because I don't adopt a defeatist attitude? Because I think it's possible to teach children -- lots of children -- to think critically? Because I think a good teacher can help kids to be less vulnerable to the bullshit around them?
You use the word "theories" to diminish the practical value of these people's contributions, but without those "theories" all you have is a catchphrase: Critical Thinking (tm).
Followed their example and wrote theory books? Most of the time such authors are no example of actual teaching, which doesn't mean one should not learn their theories, but one should be cautious that actual implementation of a theory might prove a lot more difficult than expected.
I mentioned James Randi, whose website is at www.randi.org, a man who has devoted a great deal of time and effort to educating people, including children, about critical thinking. It's easy to claim that certain authors don't know what it's like in the Real World(tm), but to me that's just shows how arrogant you are.
Tell me, as somebody who claims to know what it's like in the Real World, what have you done to teach children to think critically? How do you, as a "soon-to-be" teacher, know how difficult it is to teach children critical thinking?
It seems to me you're talking out of your ass in order to feel better about yourself. Blaming the kids for not learning is a great way for an incompetent teacher to avoid responsibility for his lousy performance.
A chosen title is part of the books "message" and I happen to dislike some implications of this one (title).
It's such a small part of the book's message that it doesn't do any good to try to draw conclusions from it.
Theory is good, but applying it to practice is usually very hard.
Who the heck said it was easy? There are lots of people who work very hard at teaching others to think critically (James Randi, for example), and it seems to me that your statements are an insult to all they have accomplished. Their efforts are not wasted, and if more teachers followed their example there would be much fewer kids accepting at face value what they see all around them.
As far As I see, I didn't ask you, but the original poster, but let's see anyway, shall we?
It's a public forum, and in any case your question was more of a statement than a question.
I'm not sure I'll enjoy any book titled "How to Think...", but should I stumble upon them I probably will.
Rather than dismiss the book for its title, how about reading the book and reviewing it accordingy?
Try as hard as you can, but you probably won't reach them all. Anyone who claims it's easily possible should either share his wisdom or just has a big mouth.
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was suggesting that it's possible to teach all kids to think critically. You don't have to reach them all to contribute significantly to their overall ability to tell the difference between fact and bullshit.
Do I have to trust your personal judgement?
No, but how can you claim to know how difficult it is to teach children to think critically if you're not familiar with some of the best books on critical thinking?
How, exactly, does your infallible way of teaching kids critical thinking work?
There is no "infallible way" to do that, but the lack of an ideal should not stop you from striving toward that ideal and achieving results that are as close to ideal as possible.
If you're serious about teaching kids critical thinking you should begin by reading "How to Think About Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age" (by Schick and Vaughn) and "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" (by Shermer).
Or was that just wishful thinking? Then I'd have to say, STFU.
STFU? I'm sure you'll make a great teacher telling people to shut the fuck up when they claim something different from what you believe.
"Look at what we have been using to identify ourselves: driver licenses and social security numbers. These are both inadequate systems for checking one's identity."
And now we'll be using drivers licenses to identify ourselves, which I'm sure will be much more adequate. Right? I mean... right?
If I create an application that allows me to engage in voice communications with another person on the Internet, such an application would probably not fall under the authority of telco regulations. If that is the case, then why should attaching a phone-like device to such an application suddenly make it subject to regulation?
Those who support regulation of VoIP often say that interaction with POTS as the reason why regulation is warranted. On that line of thinking, if some company created a VoIP system that does not interact with POTS, should it still be subject to regulation? Likewise, if POTS should become obsolete an be replaced by VoIP systems, would regulation still be justified?
Their not-so-low profile thier sponsorship of open source stuff, releasing all of their patents to OSS projects and their professed patent protection (that was IBM right?) leads me to think they are attempting to woo certain crowds. These same crowds who are a bit fearful of patent issues with OSS perhaps?
Exactly! Whether it's true or not, I'm surprised that nobody else has brought this up. Once upon a time the OSS crowd believed that software patents were categorically wrong, yet now we see a bunch of posts being marked as "Insightful" for welcoming IBM's approach to patents. If they're willing to license their patents to OSS developers and are willing to accept a stricter licensing system, then surely -- they believe -- there's nothing wrong with that.
I once proposed to Richard Stallman that software patents were undesirable enough that the FSF should not create a GPL-like license for patented algorithms. Surprisingly, he actually agreed!
Once OSS and Free Software developers accept software patents there will be fewer voices opposing them. Lets stick to patenting material inventions instead of ones and zeros.
I agree it's a shame this material will become scattered all around, but the thing that bothers me the most is that much of this stuff will end up in a bunch of different private collections. Stuff like this should be kept together in a safe place after making digital copies and publishing them on the internet to be shared with everybody.
What about Lawrence Lessig's comments? He's not the type of person to misinterpret a law, and yet he says that "I reported a hold [McCain] had placed on H.R. 4077 because of valid concerns about whether the freedoms it granted (to enable parents to filter "smut" from films) would be read to deny fair use in other cases."
In other words, the bill does not prohibit commercial skipping but could, conceivably, be interpreted as such in light of other laws that interact with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info.
PS - It seems that WiFi security hasn't been given as much attention by WiFi vendors as the problem deserves.
Three channels doesn't seem like much. It's a bit disturbing to realize that a city-wide WiFi network such as what Google proposes (or like the ones set up and operated by the cities themselves) could become a kind of near-monopoly (unless you're willing to harm network performance), where the first-comer sets the rules of access (pricing, terms of use, etc.).
Yes, I meant an access point. I called it a router because that's the I've seen people use when referring to the device that provides access to the network.
Thanks for the info.
I haven't been keeping up with new technologies, so here are some naive questions:
1. Is it possible for more than one WiFi router to cover a given hotspot?
2. If so, how would the client choose which router to use?
3. How many routers could occupy a hotspot before service is seriously harmed?
I'm wondering about the implications of Google offering free WiFi service along with a paid premium service. Would a different provider be able to provide competing services for the same area?
People who like porn can throw in the .xxx and know they are getting what they want. People who don't like can throw in the .com and know they won't be subjected to any porn. EVERYONE WINS!
That's a bullshit argument. How often do you encounter porn by accident after typing a URL directly into your browser? You won't usually find any porn on mainstream websites, so unless you're searching for "Warez" or illegal MP3 downloads I doubt you'll encounter porn by accident very often.
People who like porn can throw in the .xxx and know they are getting what they want. People who don't like can throw in the .com and know they won't be subjected to any porn. EVERYONE WINS!
I sure hope so, because then I won't have to worry about porn appearing on my computer the next time I type cumdrinkingsluts.com into my web browser.
Forcing pornography to reside onto a TLD of .xxx is not obstruction of freedom of speech. How would it be? It would be accessible via your web browser or any other retrieval method capable of entering a www.sexwebsite.xxx wouldn't it?
Dear idiot. Forcing pornography to reside in an *.xxx TLD is an obstruction of speech insofar as it prevents the holder of a non *.xxx domain from including pornographic content in an otherwise non-pornographic website.
Exactly! It's easy to avoid responsibility for one's actions by blaming them on external factors. The fact is that watching pornography is a choice, and all this bullshit about "porn addiction" is nothing more than a lousy cop-out.
Oh, and on another note - is it just me or is the invocation of Child Porn becoming a new Godwin's Law? Is there an epidemic of people stealing library cards to surf for child porn in public or something? ;)
I was about to suggest the same thing! As far as I'm concerned, if you bring up child porn in an attempt to justify some idiotic measure, the argument in its favor is automatically lost. The same thing goes for "will somebody think of the children!".
If this ever makes it to market I hope it goes the way of the dinosaur, just like DivX (the DVD technology, not the codec).
I've had to remove spyware programs myself and I agree they can cause lots of damage to the system, but such damage is motivated by the desire to hide the software's existence, and the desire to hide the software stems from the fact that it's meant to collect and ultimately transfer information without the user's permission.
Software is often bundled with other software and the user won't know this unless he opts for a "custom" install. This shouldn't be illegal unless it causes damage to the user such as intentionally messing up your system (like viruses and trojans, already illegal) or hijacking system files to do things it shouldn't be doing (like collect information from your system).
I should have clicked on the preview button. Here's another attempt...
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but the sending of information without user intervention or at least his implied permission according to the software's intended purpose.
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but rather with the sending of information without user intervention or at his implied permission according to the software's clear intended function.
You've been far more condescending than I have been, except perhaps for my last post. Nevertheless, the fact that you're not even familiar with these "gurus" suggests that you don't really know that much about critical thinking.
Why don't you tell me what you've done to promote critical thinking?
Are those crickets I hear, breaking the silence?
And your statements seem to me like an insult to anyone trying to apply those theories.
Why is that? Because I don't adopt a defeatist attitude? Because I think it's possible to teach children -- lots of children -- to think critically? Because I think a good teacher can help kids to be less vulnerable to the bullshit around them?
You use the word "theories" to diminish the practical value of these people's contributions, but without those "theories" all you have is a catchphrase: Critical Thinking (tm).
Followed their example and wrote theory books? Most of the time such authors are no example of actual teaching, which doesn't mean one should not learn their theories, but one should be cautious that actual implementation of a theory might prove a lot more difficult than expected.
I mentioned James Randi, whose website is at www.randi.org, a man who has devoted a great deal of time and effort to educating people, including children, about critical thinking. It's easy to claim that certain authors don't know what it's like in the Real World(tm), but to me that's just shows how arrogant you are.
Tell me, as somebody who claims to know what it's like in the Real World, what have you done to teach children to think critically? How do you, as a "soon-to-be" teacher, know how difficult it is to teach children critical thinking?
It seems to me you're talking out of your ass in order to feel better about yourself. Blaming the kids for not learning is a great way for an incompetent teacher to avoid responsibility for his lousy performance.
A chosen title is part of the books "message" and I happen to dislike some implications of this one (title).
It's such a small part of the book's message that it doesn't do any good to try to draw conclusions from it.
Theory is good, but applying it to practice is usually very hard.
Who the heck said it was easy? There are lots of people who work very hard at teaching others to think critically (James Randi, for example), and it seems to me that your statements are an insult to all they have accomplished. Their efforts are not wasted, and if more teachers followed their example there would be much fewer kids accepting at face value what they see all around them.
As far As I see, I didn't ask you, but the original poster, but let's see anyway, shall we?
It's a public forum, and in any case your question was more of a statement than a question.
I'm not sure I'll enjoy any book titled "How to Think...", but should I stumble upon them I probably will.
Rather than dismiss the book for its title, how about reading the book and reviewing it accordingy?
Try as hard as you can, but you probably won't reach them all. Anyone who claims it's easily possible should either share his wisdom or just has a big mouth.
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that the original poster was suggesting that it's possible to teach all kids to think critically. You don't have to reach them all to contribute significantly to their overall ability to tell the difference between fact and bullshit.
Do I have to trust your personal judgement?
No, but how can you claim to know how difficult it is to teach children to think critically if you're not familiar with some of the best books on critical thinking?
How, exactly, does your infallible way of teaching kids critical thinking work?
There is no "infallible way" to do that, but the lack of an ideal should not stop you from striving toward that ideal and achieving results that are as close to ideal as possible.
If you're serious about teaching kids critical thinking you should begin by reading "How to Think About Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age" (by Schick and Vaughn) and "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" (by Shermer).
Or was that just wishful thinking? Then I'd have to say, STFU.
STFU? I'm sure you'll make a great teacher telling people to shut the fuck up when they claim something different from what you believe.
Read those books. You need them.
"Look at what we have been using to identify ourselves: driver licenses and social security numbers. These are both inadequate systems for checking one's identity."
And now we'll be using drivers licenses to identify ourselves, which I'm sure will be much more adequate. Right? I mean... right?
If I create an application that allows me to engage in voice communications with another person on the Internet, such an application would probably not fall under the authority of telco regulations. If that is the case, then why should attaching a phone-like device to such an application suddenly make it subject to regulation?
Those who support regulation of VoIP often say that interaction with POTS as the reason why regulation is warranted. On that line of thinking, if some company created a VoIP system that does not interact with POTS, should it still be subject to regulation? Likewise, if POTS should become obsolete an be replaced by VoIP systems, would regulation still be justified?
I once proposed to Richard Stallman that software patents were undesirable enough that the FSF should not create a GPL-like license for patented algorithms. Surprisingly, he actually agreed!
Once OSS and Free Software developers accept software patents there will be fewer voices opposing them. Lets stick to patenting material inventions instead of ones and zeros.
I can see the point of suing the manufacturers, but the stores? What did they do wrong?
They made enough money to be worth suing.
I agree it's a shame this material will become scattered all around, but the thing that bothers me the most is that much of this stuff will end up in a bunch of different private collections. Stuff like this should be kept together in a safe place after making digital copies and publishing them on the internet to be shared with everybody.
What about Lawrence Lessig's comments? He's not the type of person to misinterpret a law, and yet he says that "I reported a hold [McCain] had placed on H.R. 4077 because of valid concerns about whether the freedoms it granted (to enable parents to filter "smut" from films) would be read to deny fair use in other cases."
In other words, the bill does not prohibit commercial skipping but could, conceivably, be interpreted as such in light of other laws that interact with it.