Hmm, you could replace the board where the chip sits with a board that looks identical to the chip, except rather than have it output to an LCD matrix, make it go a piece of custom hardware that reconstructs the pixels into a single bitstream.
I imagine any decent computer engineer could pull this off. The expensive part is designing the board and getting it manufactured, but probably within the budget of most criminal piracy operations.
But then again, IANAEE, so there may stuff I'm overlooking.
Why is that every time someone alludes to being moderated down, their score goes up? On an off-topic post at that!
But since you brought it up... Those who commited the Inquisition truly did believe believe in the divinity of Jesus, even if they did ignore most of his teachings. This leads me to conclude that belief in Jesus is not necessary to evaluate moral decisions, and in fact may even hinder the ability, since it has failed so many people before. While this does not necessarily invalidate *your* belief in Jesus, it does invalidate one of the major reasons people think *I* should belive in Jesus.
More likely they valued their safety and wealth more than their power. They probably remembered what happened to the "not so great" monarchies of Europe in the previous two centuries.
The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the real war - it's not one of politics or <b>mimes</b>.</em>
Damn straight, those mimes are even more annoying than politicians.:)
That's a nice manafesto you've got going, but I'm left wondering which "hacker ethic" you're referring to. Is it the free sharing of information, or the "liberation" of secret or proprietary information?
Of course, after this DeCSS fiasco, I'm no so sure there's much of a difference anymore. When a collection of facts can become property, when encryption can destroy fair use rights, and when stupid ideas like UCITA are passed unaminously because politicians are in the pockets of big corporations, a great deal of civil disobedience may be the only option. I'm just afaid it will lead the world into something like some cyberpunk novel, where you're either a corporate shill or a criminal.
Take it a little further: that we when buy a ticket we shouldn't be required to buy an officially licensed seat from the seat-selling cartel in order to view the movie we just payed for.
The MPAA guy seems to like analogies, I'd like to see him respond to that one.
And that all assumes that you are able to convice the powers that be that something happened. There are many, many horror stories floating around about "identity theft"
Which widespread encryption will make an ever greater hell: "Whadda mean you did buy this stuff, send this threat, etc. It was cryptographically signed by you. Oh, secret keys stoken? Prove it."
All problems with identity theft occur because businesses and government are lazy, cheap, or stupid (choose at least two). You think the use of encryption is going to prevent them from screwing up? Without consumer protection laws and the ability to repudiate transactions, they'd be even more sloppy, because then they could get away with it.
That's what I've been wondering too. I don't know why people are so outraged by this, unless the UK law skirts around the traditional means of judicial oversight. What has been the standard practice of dealing with keys to physical locking devices, such as safes or safe-deposit boxes?
Don't you mean it is a confirmation of TANSTAAFL? Ford certainly isn't doing this because it loves all its employees.
This could have far reaching consequences if more companies start doing this. It's like those free PCs where you have to look at ads all the time.
Except now, XYZ corporation gives you a free PC, to use with XYZ corp's ISP. And since it still owns the computer and is paying for the access, it has legal rights to snoop on you. The really nefarious part of all this is that those people who would most need a free computer, because they are unable to afford one, are just the kind of people they'd want to keep tabs on.
Yes, but the RIAA is a cartel, and like all cartels, it controls the distribution of the product you need. Your mp3 player is useless if you can no longer rip CDs and it can't play the music you buy off the web.
Think of it this way. How useful is a DVD player that can't decrypt the CCS encryption?
the IQ test only tests one - basically math and spatial visualization.
Ironic, considering your example, because I consider these skills probably the most important part of natural programming ability. I bet standardized tests are pretty good at finding programmers.
Um, what do think is going to fix that? Government propoganda, or selling out their resources to western interests? What the hell do think "telecom infrastructures" are for if not economic development?
Linux helps unindustrialized countries develop their own infrastracture, without going into debt to foreign corporations.
(And geez man, get an education. You seem to think India is some big shanty town. It's the largest democracy in the world and its software industry is huge, probably second to the US).
I imagine many slashdot readers and most people who consider themselves libertarians would agree with those quotes.
So consider this: if you concede that ultimate responsiblity always ends with the individual, then how does one hold people accountable for their actions when encryption technology makes it impossible to determine who is responsible for them?
We detest the secrecy and lack of accountability of the NSA, but at the same time trumpet the idea that the solution to their tyranny is to emulate them. How do you reconcile that?
Actually they probably do have a monoply for high-speed net access in the campus dorms. Where else do think they are capable of blocking outbound connections?
Make up your mind, are they are not-for-profit, or are they a business? Your "you do not have a right to choice" rhetoric means squat if Clemson receives public money or the special tax status that non-profits usually recieve. Whose interests is it suppost to be serving, the students or its owners? Does Clemson even have owners?
The movie, on the other hand, is a grievous insult to any sentient being.
The movie is the cleverest sf satire ever made with a big budget. It was a comic book that mocked war movies as propoganda, bad scifi movies, 90210 and its ilk, and the fascist ideology of the original novel.
And the great thing was, like the book, it was still subtle enough that a lot of people didn't get it. Some critics wrote it off as just another stupid scifi monster movie (which it is to the kind of people who actually watch 90210, and what drove most of its sales), while others trashed it as being the very kind of propoganda that it mocked.
Generalize "wealth" to be all things one may posess, both physical or abstract, and I'd say it motivates most of human behavior. All your examples are abstract types of wealth.
Envy is a large feature of rightist ideology, as I see it, at least in the "rational" libertarian element of it. People are motivated by self interest, and wealth is generally in everyone's self interest, therefore everyone wants to aquire more wealth.
Problem is, it is usually a fixed resource, so more wealth for your neighbor means less wealth for you. It becomes a game motivated by envy and jealousy, because to achieve your goals, you need what your neighbor has.
The opposite of egalitarianism is the concept of "might makes right". And since, by your own admission, you nazi kooks are getting spanked left and right by the "New World Order", I guess that justifies its censorship of your whiny hate speech.
The sole purpose of corporate IT is to enable and support management objectives. It serves no purpose otherwise, and wouldn't even exist.
And managment objectives exist to enhance shareholder/owner value, which is done by bringing products to market in the most efficient manner possible. So you could say that technology is driven by the market's needs, and that managers who misdirect the development of technology to satisfy their own unpractical whims (ie, buzzword compliance, irrational attachment to specific languages/platforms/etc) are in fact causing a problem, which is what I think the original poster meant by that statement.
And remember, a lot of developers aren't in corporate IT, they are themselves developing a product, and most likely understand the product and related technologies far better than management.
So get off your authoritarian high horse, management can in fact be fallable.:-)
If the programmers think they could manage the company better, there's nothing stopping them moving into management themselves.
Except politics, glass ceilings, an aversion to pretentious clothing, etc. I should quit now, their spy programs are watching...
A person who writes a 20-line C++ program is a programmer (they have written a program; the very act of doing so defines them as one)
I once used a timing circuit to make a group of LEDs blink in sequence. Therefore I'm an electrical engineer. I think I'll put that title on my business cards...
I think you're confusing GUI design and the design of software. People in this thread should be using "software architect" when they're saying "designer".
A software architect's target audience is the programmer. If this person does not understand programming, and does cater to the programmer's needs and the limitations of the systems involved, then this person will design crap. It's that simple. No magic software engineering methodology will make happy little worker ants of programmers implementing the designer's grand vision.
If you need encryption to hide secrets from your government, you're already screwed. They'll simply steal the keys off your machines, or coerce the information out of you.
The original poster made no such claim that the skeleton should be confiscated by the government, he simply mocked the system that enabled an idiot to lay claim to a scientific and historical treasure.
Any large university or museum of natural history would have quite gladly eaten the cost of excavating this skeleton for the rights to display and study it. And the grad students doing the excavating would be more skilled and careful with the thing than this guy and his workers, because they actually understand its value beyond a quick buck on ebay. I mean, what the hell do you think museums do?
OH, but that's right, in your free market religion the value of everything can be quantified by who ever is willing and capable of paying for it. It's worth 5.8 million as a status symbol in some parasite's mansion, never mind the fact that it's value would be greater if it were accessable to all in a public museum. Money is the token of decision making authority, and the basis of all ethical behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
The American public (fools that they are)...
<i>...your candidate turn this wonderful country into a socialist worker's paradise</i>
A wonderful country made up of fools? Do you include yourself among this group?
It's no wonder people turn to socialism, when it's opponents call them idiots and fools unable to lead themselves.
Hmm, you could replace the board where the chip sits with a board that looks identical to the chip, except rather than have it output to an LCD matrix, make it go a piece of custom hardware that reconstructs the pixels into a single bitstream.
I imagine any decent computer engineer could pull this off. The expensive part is designing the board and getting it manufactured, but probably within the budget of most criminal piracy operations.
But then again, IANAEE, so there may stuff I'm overlooking.
Why is that every time someone alludes to being moderated down, their score goes up? On an off-topic post at that!
But since you brought it up...
Those who commited the Inquisition truly did believe believe in the divinity of Jesus, even if they did ignore most of his teachings. This leads me to conclude that belief in Jesus is not necessary to evaluate moral decisions, and in fact may even hinder the ability, since it has failed so many people before. While this does not necessarily invalidate *your* belief in Jesus, it does invalidate one of the major reasons people think *I* should belive in Jesus.
More likely they valued their safety and wealth more than their power. They probably remembered what happened to the "not so great" monarchies of Europe in the previous two centuries.
The hacker ethic is antitheical to this New World Order of information control... this is the
:)
real war - it's not one of politics or <b>mimes</b>.</em>
Damn straight, those mimes are even more annoying than politicians.
That's a nice manafesto you've got going, but I'm left wondering which "hacker ethic" you're referring to. Is it the free sharing of information, or the "liberation" of secret or proprietary information?
Of course, after this DeCSS fiasco, I'm no so sure there's much of a difference anymore. When a collection of facts can become property, when encryption can destroy fair use rights, and when stupid ideas like UCITA are passed unaminously because politicians are in the pockets of big corporations, a great deal of civil disobedience may be the only option. I'm just afaid it will lead the world into something like some cyberpunk novel, where you're either a corporate shill or a criminal.
Take it a little further: that we when buy a ticket we shouldn't be required to buy an officially licensed seat from the seat-selling cartel in order to view the movie we just payed for.
The MPAA guy seems to like analogies, I'd like to see him respond to that one.
And that all assumes that you are able to convice the powers that be that something happened. There are many, many horror stories floating around about "identity theft"
Which widespread encryption will make an ever greater hell: "Whadda mean you did buy this stuff, send this threat, etc. It was cryptographically signed by you. Oh, secret keys stoken? Prove it."
All problems with identity theft occur because businesses and government are lazy, cheap, or stupid (choose at least two). You think the use of encryption is going to prevent them from screwing up? Without consumer protection laws and the ability to repudiate transactions, they'd be even more sloppy, because then they could get away with it.
That's what I've been wondering too. I don't know why people are so outraged by this, unless the UK law skirts around the traditional means of judicial oversight. What has been the standard practice of dealing with keys to physical locking devices, such as safes or safe-deposit boxes?
Don't you mean it is a confirmation of TANSTAAFL? Ford certainly isn't doing this because it loves all its employees.
This could have far reaching consequences if more companies start doing this. It's like those free PCs where you have to look at ads all the time.
Except now, XYZ corporation gives you a free PC, to use with XYZ corp's ISP. And since it still owns the computer and is paying for the access, it has legal rights to snoop on you. The really nefarious part of all this is that those people who would most need a free computer, because they are unable to afford one, are just the kind of people they'd want to keep tabs on.
Yes, but the RIAA is a cartel, and like all cartels, it controls the distribution of the product you need. Your mp3 player is useless if you can no longer rip CDs and it can't play the music you buy off the web.
Think of it this way. How useful is a DVD player that can't decrypt the CCS encryption?
the IQ test only tests one - basically math and spatial visualization.
Ironic, considering your example, because I consider these skills probably the most important part of natural programming ability. I bet standardized tests are pretty good at finding programmers.
Rest assured that provided you use them properly, it is VERY hard for someone to add your digital signature to another document
Unless they have your private key without your knowledge, in which case it is a simple case of bits being copied easily.
And since your signed certificate expires, wouldn't that imply that your digital signatures expire too, rendering your fears moot?
Um, what do think is going to fix that? Government propoganda, or selling out their resources to western interests? What the hell do think "telecom infrastructures" are for if not economic development?
Linux helps unindustrialized countries develop their own infrastracture, without going into debt to foreign corporations.
(And geez man, get an education. You seem to think India is some big shanty town. It's the largest democracy in the world and its software industry is huge, probably second to the US).
Great quotes!
I imagine many slashdot readers and most people who consider themselves libertarians would agree with those quotes.
So consider this: if you concede that ultimate responsiblity always ends with the individual, then how does one hold people accountable for their actions when encryption technology makes it impossible to determine who is responsible for them?
We detest the secrecy and lack of accountability of the NSA, but at the same time trumpet the idea that the solution to their tyranny is to emulate them. How do you reconcile that?
Actually they probably do have a monoply for high-speed net access in the campus dorms. Where else do think they are capable of blocking outbound connections?
Make up your mind, are they are not-for-profit, or are they a business? Your "you do not have a right to choice" rhetoric means squat if Clemson receives public money or the special tax status that non-profits usually recieve. Whose interests is it suppost to be serving, the students or its owners? Does Clemson even have owners?
Yes! I was just thinking the same thing. Don't forget The Ganymede Club, set in the same history as Cold as Ice.
The movie, on the other hand, is a grievous insult to any sentient being.
The movie is the cleverest sf satire ever made with a big budget. It was a comic book that mocked war movies as propoganda, bad scifi movies, 90210 and its ilk, and the fascist ideology of the original novel.
And the great thing was, like the book, it was still subtle enough that a lot of people didn't get it. Some critics wrote it off as just another stupid scifi monster movie (which it is to the kind of people who actually watch 90210, and what drove most of its sales), while others trashed it as being the very kind of propoganda that it mocked.
Generalize "wealth" to be all things one may posess, both physical or abstract, and I'd say it motivates most of human behavior. All your examples are abstract types of wealth.
Envy is a large feature of rightist ideology, as I see it, at least in the "rational" libertarian element of it. People are motivated by self interest, and wealth is generally in everyone's self interest, therefore everyone wants to aquire more wealth.
Problem is, it is usually a fixed resource, so more wealth for your neighbor means less wealth for you. It becomes a game motivated by envy and jealousy, because to achieve your goals, you need what your neighbor has.
The opposite of egalitarianism is the concept of "might makes right". And since, by your own admission, you nazi kooks are getting spanked left and right by the "New World Order", I guess that justifies its censorship of your whiny hate speech.
The sole purpose of corporate IT is to enable and support management objectives. It serves no purpose otherwise, and wouldn't even exist.
:-)
And managment objectives exist to enhance shareholder/owner value, which is done by bringing products to market in the most efficient manner possible. So you could say that technology is driven by the market's needs, and that managers who misdirect the development of technology to satisfy their own unpractical whims (ie, buzzword compliance, irrational attachment to specific languages/platforms/etc) are in fact causing a problem, which is what I think the original poster meant by that statement.
And remember, a lot of developers aren't in corporate IT, they are themselves developing a product, and most likely understand the product and related technologies far better than management.
So get off your authoritarian high horse, management can in fact be fallable.
If the programmers think they could manage the company better, there's nothing stopping them moving into management themselves.
Except politics, glass ceilings, an aversion to pretentious clothing, etc. I should quit now, their spy programs are watching...
A person who writes a 20-line C++ program is a programmer (they have written a program; the very act of doing so defines them as one)
I once used a timing circuit to make a group of LEDs blink in sequence. Therefore I'm an electrical engineer. I think I'll put that title on my business cards...
I think you're confusing GUI design and the design of software. People in this thread should be using "software architect" when they're saying "designer".
A software architect's target audience is the programmer. If this person does not understand programming, and does cater to the programmer's needs and the limitations of the systems involved, then this person will design crap. It's that simple. No magic software engineering methodology will make happy little worker ants of programmers implementing the designer's grand vision.
Well over fifty posts, and no one has called him on such a blatant mispelling.
Oh well, I propose it be made a real word, in the context of computers, kind of like "mouses" is the plural of those pointing devices.
What, you don't think that's a real word either? Damn language nazis...
If you need encryption to hide secrets from your government, you're already screwed. They'll simply steal the keys off your machines, or coerce the information out of you.
ALL LINKS TO TIE-TANIC.COM BY EXTERNAL WEBMASTERS MUST BE APPROVED BY US. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS HERE.
;)
I wonder if slashdot got "permission" to link to them? Perhaps the slashdot effect is the very thing they are afriad off.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... lawyers.
The original poster made no such claim that the skeleton should be confiscated by the government, he simply mocked the system that enabled an idiot to lay claim to a scientific and historical treasure.
Any large university or museum of natural history would have quite gladly eaten the cost of excavating this skeleton for the rights to display and study it. And the grad students doing the excavating would be more skilled and careful with the thing than this guy and his workers, because they actually understand its value beyond a quick buck on ebay. I mean, what the hell do you think museums do?
OH, but that's right, in your free market religion the value of everything can be quantified by who ever is willing and capable of paying for it. It's worth 5.8 million as a status symbol in some parasite's mansion, never mind the fact that it's value would be greater if it were accessable to all in a public museum. Money is the token of decision making authority, and the basis of all ethical behavior.