Scientists have found the "switch" that allows a firefly to light up its body. The beetle flashes the "lantern" on its abdomen to attract a mate.
Great, now if they wonder if they could turn their attention to the "switch" that would allow us to turn the light off in Bill Gates's body. That "lantern", or whatever it is he has shoved up his abdomen, is obviously fuelling his anti-social, monopolistic behaviour. And that's something that most people don't find very attractive.
Using a step-by-step by-the-numbers guide published by someone on the Internet to connect two bits of hardware together just so that you can get something that you would otherwise have to pay for isn't hacking. It isn't even remotely close to hacking.
What it is is theft, but because this is Slashdot, and because making money is bad but stealing from the big guys is good, this kind of behaviour is applauded.
Any DirecTV "hackers" have anything to say to justify their actions?
(Please don't give me that "it's my airwaves crap". You're going out of your way here to tap into someone else's legitimate broadcasts just so that you can get free TV. I don't see you making as much of an effort to tap into your neighbour's cellular phone conversations though.)
Re:You mean they use real guns with real bullets?!
on
MilSpec Biotech
·
· Score: 1
How stupid are you? Let's see shall we?
The problem is that in major conflicts it seems that the outcome is always worse when the US doesn't intervene.
Oh yeah, you're so right. I guess I just imagined Korea and Vietnam then.
The first world war was extended by several years because the US did not want to be the worlds police.
The US played 'see no evil, hear no evil' for almost four years before it got involved in WWI. Even when it did decide to get off its apathetic butt it was slow to commit troops and resources to the field, and arrived in just in time to hear the final whistle. Way to go Uncle Sam.
The second one was caused because the US could no longer support a country being distroyed by the French.
And which country would that be? France, like Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. The French didn't destroy anyone, they were the ones being destroyed.
And the US involvement in WWII didn't come about because of any humanitarian sentiments felt by the American people towards their oldest allies (the French provided the fledgling US with a lot of military aid during the US War of Independence) but because of a certain butt-kicking by Japan at Pearl Harbour. Germany declaring war on the US shortly after Japan kind of sealed the deal.
If you must insist on spouting so much revisionist crap, at least make it sound plausible
Just as soon as it begins to make a profit Red Hat decides that it wants to branch out into developing applications.
Am I the only one who thinks that this might be a bad idea right now and that the company is looking to run before it can walk?
Red Hat has built a reputation for itself by putting together a top-notch Linux distribution and related support services, markets that still have much room for expansion, so why tie up valuable resources (man hours, cash, etc) in this venture? The database market is already heavily saturated and Red Hat doesn't have the clout to play with Oracle, SAP, etc who already have more mature products in the market place (and deeper pockets to boot).
Is this part of a wider plan at Red Hat? Is it trying to make itself the Microsoft of the Linux world? Will we see Red Hat word processors, spreadsheets and PIMs? If so, how will the open source community view such developments.
One look at the economic forecasts for the next 24 months will tell you that tough times are coming. Hopefully, in choosing to broaden its horizons rather than batten down the hatches Red Hat won't run financially aground like Be, BSD et al.
1) Aliens discover DNA bank probe travelling through space (aka needle in a haystack); or,
2) Aliens find Earth after having received over 100 years of beacon-like EM communication (radio, tv, etc).
I know which I think is the more likely scenario. (Hint: even number.)
A novel gift idea? Maybe. Valuable science? Definitely not.
Well, at least the writing will be top-notch...
on
Shadowmarch Launched
·
· Score: 1
Live or die, succeed or fail, Shadowmarch will at least be an original well-written tale. Anyone who has read the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy or the Otherland stories will be able to testify to that.
I find it interesting that the two authors who have invested time and effort in online interactive publishing (Tad Williams and Stephen King) are two writers who both are guaranteed best seller success in print format. That they are passing up the opportunity of a sure thing elsewhere to try something new and different on the web should be commended and they deserve all of our support.
I will be looking in on Shadowmarch and I hope many other/.ers interested in novel novels will too.
Disturbingly, Pearl Harbor continues Hollywood's trend of sacrificing historical accuracy for dramatic fiction in it's neverending quest to put more bums on seats.
That Ben Affleck's character has just returned from Europe having fought in the Battle of Britain and incarceration in a prisoner of war camp is completely laughable, just as the idea that Ralph Fiennes injured character in The English Patient would be transported back home to Britain via war-torn Italy.
And the list doesn't end there.
U-571 is an absolute joke: American sailor's boarding a German U-boat to capture a Enigma cypher machine is how Hollywood tells the story. History, on the other hand, tells us that the first Enigma was captured by the British before the US even entered the war!
There are other transgressors: Saving Private Ryanforgets that even the landing craft delivering US soldiers to the D-Day beaches were piloted by the men of the Royal Navy, and even Schindler's List strays from the truth in it's depiction of Oscar Schindler.
There are countless other examples. History is being bastardised left, right and centre and 99.9% of the audience is none the wiser. Worse still, many of these movies are used as teaching aids and are held up as being 100% historically accurate by people who should know better. And all so that some fat executive sitting in some plush studio office can make an extra buck.
I know that history is written by the victors but where does is say that it should be rewritten 50 years later in the name of greed? Is this what they fought for?
Today's kids are no smarter than those of the previous generation. If anything, they are less intelligent than their predecessors.
Sure, far more kids nowadays (born in the developed world) are fortunate enough to have access to a PC and the Internet but does knowing how to switch on a device and access information equate to intelligence?
Kid 2001 may be able to look up who fought who in World War II, the colours of the spectrum or the name of the first man in space, but Kid 1981 would most probably know the information of the top of his or her head.
Put simply, know-how has replaced knowledge. And, in this new information age, where almost anyone can access any information instantaneously, know-how isn't much of an advantage. Being able to understand, interpret and use that information in a proper and relevant manner, that's the real advantage. And because of the tap-tap-click method they use to find their information, today's kids have very little idea about it's value (let alone how to sort the wheat from the chaff).
Being able to program your VHS recorder doesn't make you smart. Using it to your advantage (whether to tape something off of The Discovery Channel or just The Simpsons) does.
P.S. Today's techno-savvy kids are far less literate, numerate, communicative and active than we were at their age. Want to know who to blame? Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft and IBM. Nuff said.
OK, so we are all agreed that genetic testing of this nature is, for the most part, unacceptable behaviour from a current or potential employer seeking solely to protect itself from litigation down the line. But are there any circumstances under which it becomes palatable?
Take for example the armed forces. If the Air Force could genetically screen trainee combat pilots at an early stage for degenerative diseases that affect eye sight, motor control, etc, would it be right to do so? After all, combat pilots must have 20/20 vision, sharp reflexes, etc, to maintain their service. A pilot who fails the strict medical criteria for the job won't have his wings for long (as he is a potential risk to himself and his colleagues in a combat situation).
Given that training a pilot takes millions of tax payers dollars, should a person who science can accurately predict will develop a medical condition that will stop him/her doing their job and perhaps place lives in jeopardy be filtered out from the process sooner rather than later? Hang the money, is the right of that individual today more important than the potential risk to the safety of others tomorrow?
And that's just one example. Astronauts: should NASA send someone on a three year mission to Mars before first checking all the bases medically? Another extreme perhaps, but society is littered with good examples.
Sure, in today's money-driven society with its ambulance-chasing lawyers, the risk to the employer is often a great call to action than the rights, concerns and wellbeing of the employee. But employees can benefit from screening too - someone suceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome can take precautions to minimise the risks to their health. They might choose to use a trackball instead of a mouse, to have regular massages, or to persue another career path entirely.
More than likely, they will only look at the options if faced with the problem (after all, we are all at risk from CTS but how many of us have ditched their mice because they are potentially dangerous to our health?) so knowing before is much more advantageous than knowing after. After all, prevention is much better than a cure.
Genetic testing is here. It isn't suddenly going to disappear so isn't it a good idea to learn how to use it effectively and to our maximum advantage?
Here in Britain, the minimum cost of making a call from a Brtish Telecom (the major telco) payphone rose at the beginning of the year from 10 pence (around 15 cents) to 20 pence (30 cents).
Of course, BT didn't announce this hike with the fanfare it makes when it's announcing some well overdue service (like affordable broadband - still waiting on that) but it did raise two points in its defence:
1) The increase in the minimum charge was the first for about a generation; and
2) It's takings from payphones (and hence its profits) had dropped by about a third in a very short period (a year I think), mainly due to the large increase in mobile phone ownership.
Fortunately, under its operating rules (BT was formerly publicly owned, is almost a monopoly and is regulated by an albeit sycophantic regulator), the company is legally bound to maintain many public phone boxes, especially those in remote areas that tend to be amongst the least profitable.
Our phone boxes won't be disappearing overnight, but it is inevitable that the cost of using them will increase in the coming years whilst the cost of telephony in general falls. Not an ideal situation by any means but at least calling 999 (our equivalent of 911 and also a free call) in an emergency won't be affected by the decline in payphone usage.
Windows CE, of course, isn't a straight port of Windows 9x or NT code but it is a port of the interface. And while this interface is fine for a 800 by 600 or greater desktop, it's far too clunky for a handheld display a fraction of that size - the Start menu, dialog boxes, the whole windowing metaphor are all inappropriate for something that small. This is where Microsoft has fundementally got it wrong and Palm has got it right.
Yes, it might not be too difficult for a development house to replace the traditional WinCE GUI with something nicer-looking, but such changes require time and money to develop. Have you ever worked in a design process that involves GUIs and usability testing? It's not as easy as it sounds.
And what about the factthat every UI change makes a device harder to sell (because reviewers, salespeople and purchasers have to learn how to do something or other a whole different way)?
The most important part of any OS as far as the average user is concerned is the UI. Us techheads might go ga-ga over kernels and hardware abstraction layers, but Joe Average is only interested in getting the job done as easily as possible. PDAs are far more personal than PCs - hell, some people would "die" without their Palm - so a fast, usable and recognisable UI is often the deciding factor in a PDA purchase. That's why few manufacturers tinker with the Windows CE front-end and make the best of the bad GUI had that Microsoft has dealt them.
If Microsoft had truly wanted to develop a new modular OS for embedded systems it would have started with a truly clean slate and given us a new OS suitable for the task. It chose not to do so because protecting Windows was a higher priority than creating the best product avaiable.
And do you know what Microsoft call this? They call in innovation.
Is Linux really the OS you want on your handheld?
on
Agenda VR3 Review
·
· Score: 3
Handhelds have smaller displays, less memory and are put to different uses than desktop or notebook PCs. Because of this, porting over a desktop OS to a handheld isn't always the great idea that it originally seems - Windows CE anyone?
The two OSes that have done well in handhelds have been PalmOS (used by Palm, IBM, Handspring, Sony, etc) and EPOC (used by Psion and its licensees). Both of these were designed from the ground up with handheld usage in mind.
Linux functionality in a handheld might cool but is it any more beneficial to a handheld user than the other OSes already in the market place?
This discussion could go on forever. Neither of us is wrong per se, but this is because the facts being presented to us aren't always black and white.
1) "US Crime and violence has not increased. In fact it is at it's lowest levels in reporting history. See: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Yep. The US Department of Justice's statistics."
True, the DOJ statistics do seem to show a decline in violent crime year on year but consider how these figures are being reported.
First of all, the DOJ's figures are adjusted, showing crimes per 1,000 people aged 12 and over have declined from around 50 to 35 between 1980 and 1999. But over that same period, the population has increased, it has got older (people aged 12 and over make up a greater proportion of the population) and more violent crimes go unreported. Also, the DOJ's methodology for gathering this data changed in 1993, which makes a true comparison of the imformation before and after that date more difficult.
These figures also bunch together different types of crime and do not take into account their varying degrees of severity. Muggings and assaults are treated the same as rapes and murders even though the former are by definition less violent than the latter.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, and that overall crime hasn't decreased, just that these massaged figures by themselves aren't exactly the best evidence for you case. Like I said before, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Give a statistician enough data and he'll be able to prove just about anything.
2) "I'm sorry. Where's the evidence? I didn't realize Britain had so many problems with terrorism. And didn't Britain put cameras in banks long before this? So why has bank robberies decreased all of a sudden? And pickpocketing and car theft? What? A good pickpocket isn't going to be deterred by a camera. Their techniques can be done in broad daylight on a busy street with nobody knowing. Car thefts? In the US property crimes (such as theft) have been going down as well, all without the aid of cameras everywhere.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the IRA? The terrorist group responsible for the murder of hundreds of British citizens in Northern Ireland and the mainland including soldiers, policemen, politicians, members of the royal family and ordinary members of the public? Or about extremist Islamic groups that occasionally decide to wage their war against Israel on foreign soil?
Many CCTV cameras installed in London are around prominent terrorist targets (the royal palaces, the Houses of Parliament, the City of London, the US Embassy) and have acted as a major deterrent to terrorist cells. Why risk planting a car bomb somewhere where you know you will be photographed? Similarly, the introduction of CCTV surveillance in Oxford Street (London's major shopping precinct) has reduced the number of street crimes reported there. And car parks that have cameras have less thefts of and from vehicles than those without. Evidence enough that CCTVs can help against crime?
And as for voting, opening a bank account, using your credit card, etc, my point was to show that there are methods of surveillance and spying that involve a camera. Just as cookies can track your browsing behaviour online, companies can track your movements and behaviour offline by examining when, where and what you purchase.
The whole concept that a CCTV in a public place is somehow an invasion of privacy is a complete joke. After all, if someone can see you, your hardly enjoying privacy are you?
The future potential downside of CCTVs must be weighed against their current proven upside. For now, I firmly believe that their use is justified. You obviously don't. Perhaps when someone suggests putting one in my own home "for my own safety" then I'll start to worry.
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
1) Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived (sic) record levels.
Gee, the level of violent crime is rising in Britain. Shock. Horror.
Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
As a famous politician once said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" and you just proved the point.
Far more important than your groundbreaking discovery is what society does to try to halt and reverse this trend. Should it sit on its collective arse or should it take proactive measures to improve the situation. Gee, that's a real tough one...
2) The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft.
What it hasn't been able to do is convince pissed up idiots that Saturday night isn't alright for fighting and that going home peacefully would be preferential to picking a pointless fight or smashing in a shop window. Mind you, few things do work in such circumstances, but at least a well placed CCTV can bring the police's attention to such incidents more rapidly than any phone call and also offer some evidence should criminal proceedings arise. Case in point: the high profile trial of Leeds' footballers currently in the balance.
3) Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date.
Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now).
Perhaps societies like the US that permit gun ownership should clampdown on that too. After all, a handgun can be used for self-defence but it can also be used to perform "even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date." Shock. Horror.
4) The/. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
The public only cares about the perception of security?
"Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not.
I could go on. Suffice to say that more people have had their lives saved or have been brought to justice by the use of CCTV footage than will ever read this thread.
Why don't you grow up and grow a brain while you're at it?
Presumably you're 100% Anglo-Saxon with not a single drop of Norman, Teutonic, Scandinavian or other blood in your in your bones. And as you fit this genetically impossible profile, you obviously have a God-given right to demand the "purification" of our diverse, multi-cultural society, and the repatriation of everyone with even a sniff of Johnny Foreigner about them.
The problem isn't "the niggers and wogs" as you so eloquently argue, but mindless, xenophobic idiots like you who more often than not hide their racism behind white collar respectability. I notice you lack the guts (perhaps because you're not man enough?) to post under your name?
Anonymous Coward? Plain, vanilla coward if you ask me.
Why don't you do the/. community (and the human race at large) a favour and crawl back under the rock that you came from?
Craig Charles (aka Lister from Red Dwarf) is the host of Robot Wars.
The commentator is Jonathan Pearce, best known for his football (sorry, soccer) commentary on Capital Radio 1548AM and on Channel 5.
Personally, I think his colour commentating adds to the programme (sorry, show). But hey, what would I know? I've only been watching it since it first aired...
The word 'robot' was invented by a Czech playwrights Karel and Josef Capek and first appeared in Karel's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots). It is derived from the Czech word 'robota', which means "servitude, forced labor".
In the play, humanoid worker robots rise up and destroy their human masters.
Ironically, Josef died as a slave himself, in one of Hitler's concentration camp in 1945. Mercifully, his brother died before the war but not before the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.
I've seen "All your base are belong to us" and variants all over the place but (perhaps because I'm not an American immersed in US culture) I don't know the original source of this quote.
Is it from a TV show or something? Someone want to point me in the right direction?
When will Microsoft finally realise that integrating their browser into their OSes is not a good idea until it can guarantee security (ie, never)?
The biggest threat to 99.99% of PCs isn't fire, theft or a badly written application but malicious code. And the number one method of delivery of malicious code is now the Internet. Email worms like the ILOVEYOU and Melissa attack via your email and vulnerabilities like this one attack via your browser. Giving applications like Outlook Express and Internet Explorer access other elements of the operating system is like posting the combination to your safe on your open front door.
Microsoft's browser/OS integration strategy was designed to protect it from accusations that it killed off Netscape unfairly - "gee, IE isn't an application, it's a core part of the OS" - but this has always been a poor defence for the company's actions. I mean, can you name any part of any OS that is available on a rival platform like IE is for the MacOS?
Given that Microsoft has all but lost its legal battles with the US government et al isn't it time it abandoned this browser/OS integration policy that only serves to make Windows more vulnerable to attack? Wouldn't such a move be in the best interests of its customers? Or would such a move be a bitter blow for "innovation"?
Since when were global diseases the fault of one continent?
Foot and mouth is a global problem and the current outbreak started in the Indian subcontinent (which was not in Europe the last time I checked).
The infection got into Europe via contaminated products from South America (also not in Europe), which I practically on your doorstep.
The reason why the US is (relatively) free of many diseases and viruses that infect popular farm crops and herds is its draconian border policies, which prohibit visitors (and returning tourists) from bringing just about any food, drink or plant product into the US.
Such a facist policy from a country that espouses liberty and freedom at every opportunity? Tut, tut. Sounds like the kind of thing you would expect those "nasty" Europeans to do.
The real irony of course is that such border control will soon be rendered useless by NAFTA as the free progress of goods from Canada and Mexico is guaranteed by that agreement. And, believe it or not, you can get to the US from South America via Mexico!
Enjoy the view your high horse for now kiddo, because when the problem hits you (and it will hit you), the fall is gonna fucking hurt.
Fact: Foot and mouth disease has been around for centuries. The last major outbreak in Britain was almost two generations ago.
Fact: The current outbreak of the disease has been traced back to the Indian sub-continent. It most likely got into Britain (and from there, Europe) via a consignment of animal feed from South America. Foot and mouth is as much a European problem as the common cold.
Fact: Modern intensive farming methods (using pesticides, growth stimulants, genetically modified crops, etc) are just as common in the Americas as they are in Europe. But as foot and mouth is a disease, there is no way for even the most ethical farmer to protect his herds against infection (short of putting them in a well filtered biosphere).
Fact: Europe is NOT one nation. The European Union is a federation of sovereign states that determine some basic common social, economical and political policies together, just like NAFTA, OPEC or NATO. Some of these sovereign member states are moving towards a single currency, but that's nothing new on the world scene. The EU is definitely NOT a government in the sense that you seem to imply and the presidency is best described as a rotating chairman rather than a singular position of power.
Fact: Contrary to some reports in the American press, foot and mouth CANNOT be contracted by humans. It only affects animals with split hooves, such as cows, sheep and pigs. Mind you, as you're obviously an ignorant jackass, I'd be scared if I were you.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists have found the "switch" that allows a firefly to light up its body. The beetle flashes the "lantern" on its abdomen to attract a mate.
Great, now if they wonder if they could turn their attention to the "switch" that would allow us to turn the light off in Bill Gates's body. That "lantern", or whatever it is he has shoved up his abdomen, is obviously fuelling his anti-social, monopolistic behaviour. And that's something that most people don't find very attractive.
Using a step-by-step by-the-numbers guide published by someone on the Internet to connect two bits of hardware together just so that you can get something that you would otherwise have to pay for isn't hacking. It isn't even remotely close to hacking.
What it is is theft, but because this is Slashdot, and because making money is bad but stealing from the big guys is good, this kind of behaviour is applauded.
Any DirecTV "hackers" have anything to say to justify their actions?
(Please don't give me that "it's my airwaves crap". You're going out of your way here to tap into someone else's legitimate broadcasts just so that you can get free TV. I don't see you making as much of an effort to tap into your neighbour's cellular phone conversations though.)
How stupid are you? Let's see shall we?
The problem is that in major conflicts it seems that the outcome is always worse when the US doesn't intervene.
Oh yeah, you're so right. I guess I just imagined Korea and Vietnam then.
The first world war was extended by several years because the US did not want to be the worlds police.
The US played 'see no evil, hear no evil' for almost four years before it got involved in WWI. Even when it did decide to get off its apathetic butt it was slow to commit troops and resources to the field, and arrived in just in time to hear the final whistle. Way to go Uncle Sam.
The second one was caused because the US could no longer support a country being distroyed by the French.
And which country would that be? France, like Poland, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. The French didn't destroy anyone, they were the ones being destroyed.
And the US involvement in WWII didn't come about because of any humanitarian sentiments felt by the American people towards their oldest allies (the French provided the fledgling US with a lot of military aid during the US War of Independence) but because of a certain butt-kicking by Japan at Pearl Harbour. Germany declaring war on the US shortly after Japan kind of sealed the deal.
If you must insist on spouting so much revisionist crap, at least make it sound plausible
Just as soon as it begins to make a profit Red Hat decides that it wants to branch out into developing applications.
Am I the only one who thinks that this might be a bad idea right now and that the company is looking to run before it can walk?
Red Hat has built a reputation for itself by putting together a top-notch Linux distribution and related support services, markets that still have much room for expansion, so why tie up valuable resources (man hours, cash, etc) in this venture? The database market is already heavily saturated and Red Hat doesn't have the clout to play with Oracle, SAP, etc who already have more mature products in the market place (and deeper pockets to boot).
Is this part of a wider plan at Red Hat? Is it trying to make itself the Microsoft of the Linux world? Will we see Red Hat word processors, spreadsheets and PIMs? If so, how will the open source community view such developments.
One look at the economic forecasts for the next 24 months will tell you that tough times are coming. Hopefully, in choosing to broaden its horizons rather than batten down the hatches Red Hat won't run financially aground like Be, BSD et al.
1) Aliens discover DNA bank probe travelling through space (aka needle in a haystack); or,
2) Aliens find Earth after having received over 100 years of beacon-like EM communication (radio, tv, etc).
I know which I think is the more likely scenario. (Hint: even number.)
A novel gift idea? Maybe. Valuable science? Definitely not.
Live or die, succeed or fail, Shadowmarch will at least be an original well-written tale. Anyone who has read the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy or the Otherland stories will be able to testify to that.
I find it interesting that the two authors who have invested time and effort in online interactive publishing (Tad Williams and Stephen King) are two writers who both are guaranteed best seller success in print format. That they are passing up the opportunity of a sure thing elsewhere to try something new and different on the web should be commended and they deserve all of our support.
I will be looking in on Shadowmarch and I hope many other /.ers interested in novel novels will too.
So when can we expect genetically modified screens? They can't be far behind...
Disturbingly, Pearl Harbor continues Hollywood's trend of sacrificing historical accuracy for dramatic fiction in it's neverending quest to put more bums on seats.
That Ben Affleck's character has just returned from Europe having fought in the Battle of Britain and incarceration in a prisoner of war camp is completely laughable, just as the idea that Ralph Fiennes injured character in The English Patient would be transported back home to Britain via war-torn Italy.
And the list doesn't end there.
U-571 is an absolute joke: American sailor's boarding a German U-boat to capture a Enigma cypher machine is how Hollywood tells the story. History, on the other hand, tells us that the first Enigma was captured by the British before the US even entered the war!
There are other transgressors: Saving Private Ryan forgets that even the landing craft delivering US soldiers to the D-Day beaches were piloted by the men of the Royal Navy, and even Schindler's List strays from the truth in it's depiction of Oscar Schindler.
There are countless other examples. History is being bastardised left, right and centre and 99.9% of the audience is none the wiser. Worse still, many of these movies are used as teaching aids and are held up as being 100% historically accurate by people who should know better. And all so that some fat executive sitting in some plush studio office can make an extra buck.
I know that history is written by the victors but where does is say that it should be rewritten 50 years later in the name of greed? Is this what they fought for?
Today's kids are no smarter than those of the previous generation. If anything, they are less intelligent than their predecessors.
Sure, far more kids nowadays (born in the developed world) are fortunate enough to have access to a PC and the Internet but does knowing how to switch on a device and access information equate to intelligence?
Kid 2001 may be able to look up who fought who in World War II, the colours of the spectrum or the name of the first man in space, but Kid 1981 would most probably know the information of the top of his or her head.
Put simply, know-how has replaced knowledge. And, in this new information age, where almost anyone can access any information instantaneously, know-how isn't much of an advantage. Being able to understand, interpret and use that information in a proper and relevant manner, that's the real advantage. And because of the tap-tap-click method they use to find their information, today's kids have very little idea about it's value (let alone how to sort the wheat from the chaff).
Being able to program your VHS recorder doesn't make you smart. Using it to your advantage (whether to tape something off of The Discovery Channel or just The Simpsons) does.
P.S. Today's techno-savvy kids are far less literate, numerate, communicative and active than we were at their age. Want to know who to blame? Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft and IBM. Nuff said.
Great. Soon we will be getting spammed, cybersquatted, defaced and DoS attacked from all over the solar system.
Ain't progress grand?
OK, so we are all agreed that genetic testing of this nature is, for the most part, unacceptable behaviour from a current or potential employer seeking solely to protect itself from litigation down the line. But are there any circumstances under which it becomes palatable?
Take for example the armed forces. If the Air Force could genetically screen trainee combat pilots at an early stage for degenerative diseases that affect eye sight, motor control, etc, would it be right to do so? After all, combat pilots must have 20/20 vision, sharp reflexes, etc, to maintain their service. A pilot who fails the strict medical criteria for the job won't have his wings for long (as he is a potential risk to himself and his colleagues in a combat situation).
Given that training a pilot takes millions of tax payers dollars, should a person who science can accurately predict will develop a medical condition that will stop him/her doing their job and perhaps place lives in jeopardy be filtered out from the process sooner rather than later? Hang the money, is the right of that individual today more important than the potential risk to the safety of others tomorrow?
And that's just one example. Astronauts: should NASA send someone on a three year mission to Mars before first checking all the bases medically? Another extreme perhaps, but society is littered with good examples.
Sure, in today's money-driven society with its ambulance-chasing lawyers, the risk to the employer is often a great call to action than the rights, concerns and wellbeing of the employee. But employees can benefit from screening too - someone suceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome can take precautions to minimise the risks to their health. They might choose to use a trackball instead of a mouse, to have regular massages, or to persue another career path entirely.
More than likely, they will only look at the options if faced with the problem (after all, we are all at risk from CTS but how many of us have ditched their mice because they are potentially dangerous to our health?) so knowing before is much more advantageous than knowing after. After all, prevention is much better than a cure.
Genetic testing is here. It isn't suddenly going to disappear so isn't it a good idea to learn how to use it effectively and to our maximum advantage?
Here in Britain, the minimum cost of making a call from a Brtish Telecom (the major telco) payphone rose at the beginning of the year from 10 pence (around 15 cents) to 20 pence (30 cents).
Of course, BT didn't announce this hike with the fanfare it makes when it's announcing some well overdue service (like affordable broadband - still waiting on that) but it did raise two points in its defence:
1) The increase in the minimum charge was the first for about a generation; and
2) It's takings from payphones (and hence its profits) had dropped by about a third in a very short period (a year I think), mainly due to the large increase in mobile phone ownership.
Fortunately, under its operating rules (BT was formerly publicly owned, is almost a monopoly and is regulated by an albeit sycophantic regulator), the company is legally bound to maintain many public phone boxes, especially those in remote areas that tend to be amongst the least profitable.
Our phone boxes won't be disappearing overnight, but it is inevitable that the cost of using them will increase in the coming years whilst the cost of telephony in general falls. Not an ideal situation by any means but at least calling 999 (our equivalent of 911 and also a free call) in an emergency won't be affected by the decline in payphone usage.
Windows CE, of course, isn't a straight port of Windows 9x or NT code but it is a port of the interface. And while this interface is fine for a 800 by 600 or greater desktop, it's far too clunky for a handheld display a fraction of that size - the Start menu, dialog boxes, the whole windowing metaphor are all inappropriate for something that small. This is where Microsoft has fundementally got it wrong and Palm has got it right.
Yes, it might not be too difficult for a development house to replace the traditional WinCE GUI with something nicer-looking, but such changes require time and money to develop. Have you ever worked in a design process that involves GUIs and usability testing? It's not as easy as it sounds.
And what about the factthat every UI change makes a device harder to sell (because reviewers, salespeople and purchasers have to learn how to do something or other a whole different way)?
The most important part of any OS as far as the average user is concerned is the UI. Us techheads might go ga-ga over kernels and hardware abstraction layers, but Joe Average is only interested in getting the job done as easily as possible. PDAs are far more personal than PCs - hell, some people would "die" without their Palm - so a fast, usable and recognisable UI is often the deciding factor in a PDA purchase. That's why few manufacturers tinker with the Windows CE front-end and make the best of the bad GUI had that Microsoft has dealt them.
If Microsoft had truly wanted to develop a new modular OS for embedded systems it would have started with a truly clean slate and given us a new OS suitable for the task. It chose not to do so because protecting Windows was a higher priority than creating the best product avaiable.
And do you know what Microsoft call this? They call in innovation.
Handhelds have smaller displays, less memory and are put to different uses than desktop or notebook PCs. Because of this, porting over a desktop OS to a handheld isn't always the great idea that it originally seems - Windows CE anyone?
The two OSes that have done well in handhelds have been PalmOS (used by Palm, IBM, Handspring, Sony, etc) and EPOC (used by Psion and its licensees). Both of these were designed from the ground up with handheld usage in mind.
Linux functionality in a handheld might cool but is it any more beneficial to a handheld user than the other OSes already in the market place?
This discussion could go on forever. Neither of us is wrong per se, but this is because the facts being presented to us aren't always black and white.
1) "US Crime and violence has not increased. In fact it is at it's lowest levels in reporting history. See: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm Yep. The US Department of Justice's statistics."
True, the DOJ statistics do seem to show a decline in violent crime year on year but consider how these figures are being reported.
First of all, the DOJ's figures are adjusted, showing crimes per 1,000 people aged 12 and over have declined from around 50 to 35 between 1980 and 1999. But over that same period, the population has increased, it has got older (people aged 12 and over make up a greater proportion of the population) and more violent crimes go unreported. Also, the DOJ's methodology for gathering this data changed in 1993, which makes a true comparison of the imformation before and after that date more difficult.
These figures also bunch together different types of crime and do not take into account their varying degrees of severity. Muggings and assaults are treated the same as rapes and murders even though the former are by definition less violent than the latter.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, and that overall crime hasn't decreased, just that these massaged figures by themselves aren't exactly the best evidence for you case. Like I said before, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Give a statistician enough data and he'll be able to prove just about anything.
2) "I'm sorry. Where's the evidence? I didn't realize Britain had so many problems with terrorism. And didn't Britain put cameras in banks long before this? So why has bank robberies decreased all of a sudden? And pickpocketing and car theft? What? A good pickpocket isn't going to be deterred by a camera. Their techniques can be done in broad daylight on a busy street with nobody knowing. Car thefts? In the US property crimes (such as theft) have been going down as well, all without the aid of cameras everywhere.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the IRA? The terrorist group responsible for the murder of hundreds of British citizens in Northern Ireland and the mainland including soldiers, policemen, politicians, members of the royal family and ordinary members of the public? Or about extremist Islamic groups that occasionally decide to wage their war against Israel on foreign soil?
Many CCTV cameras installed in London are around prominent terrorist targets (the royal palaces, the Houses of Parliament, the City of London, the US Embassy) and have acted as a major deterrent to terrorist cells. Why risk planting a car bomb somewhere where you know you will be photographed? Similarly, the introduction of CCTV surveillance in Oxford Street (London's major shopping precinct) has reduced the number of street crimes reported there. And car parks that have cameras have less thefts of and from vehicles than those without. Evidence enough that CCTVs can help against crime?
And as for voting, opening a bank account, using your credit card, etc, my point was to show that there are methods of surveillance and spying that involve a camera. Just as cookies can track your browsing behaviour online, companies can track your movements and behaviour offline by examining when, where and what you purchase.
The whole concept that a CCTV in a public place is somehow an invasion of privacy is a complete joke. After all, if someone can see you, your hardly enjoying privacy are you?
The future potential downside of CCTVs must be weighed against their current proven upside. For now, I firmly believe that their use is justified. You obviously don't. Perhaps when someone suggests putting one in my own home "for my own safety" then I'll start to worry.
Talk about flame bait. Let's just examine your statements one by one shall we?
1) Recently the levels of violent crime in the streets of Britain have acheived (sic) record levels.
Gee, the level of violent crime is rising in Britain. Shock. Horror.
Perhaps I might point out that this has been the case throughout recorded history in every non-totalitarian society in the world? Britain, the US, France, Germany, Australia, and just about every place on the planet can share this dubious claim to fame, so why focus on just one nation? Ironically, Britain is far from the most violent society in the world - countries like the US and South Africa are the most notable overachievers in that category.
The world we live now in is inherently more violent than the one we lived in 20 years ago. The same will probably be true in 20 years time too.
As a famous politician once said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics" and you just proved the point.
Far more important than your groundbreaking discovery is what society does to try to halt and reverse this trend. Should it sit on its collective arse or should it take proactive measures to improve the situation. Gee, that's a real tough one...
2) The criminals don't care if there is surveillance video of their actions, successful prosecution requires more than just a grainy video.
Wrong again. CCTV footage has proven to be an effective deterrent against all forms of organised crime, from terrorism to bank robberies to pickpocketting to car theft.
What it hasn't been able to do is convince pissed up idiots that Saturday night isn't alright for fighting and that going home peacefully would be preferential to picking a pointless fight or smashing in a shop window. Mind you, few things do work in such circumstances, but at least a well placed CCTV can bring the police's attention to such incidents more rapidly than any phone call and also offer some evidence should criminal proceedings arise. Case in point: the high profile trial of Leeds' footballers currently in the balance.
3) Surveillance just allows greater control of the population at large, and will enable even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date.
Just about everything of significance we do is recorded in some way, from registering to vote to opening a bank account to joining a library. I don't hear people advocating that we stop using credit cards because our card issuers might be tracking our purchases (which btw, is going on right now).
Perhaps societies like the US that permit gun ownership should clampdown on that too. After all, a handgun can be used for self-defence but it can also be used to perform "even more nefarious actions by various groups (both government and private) at a later date." Shock. Horror.
4) The /. community is well aware of the dangers of the misuse of technology, but the average public only cares about the perception of security.
The public only cares about the perception of security?
"Gee Martha, I'm not worried about my kids being shot in their classrooms or being mugged in the streets, I'm only worried about the perception of them being shot or mugged."
The public isn't worried about perceptions of security. It's worried about security. All the more so when politicians, beaurocrats and lawyers tell them they are safe when they clearly are not.
I could go on. Suffice to say that more people have had their lives saved or have been brought to justice by the use of CCTV footage than will ever read this thread.
Why don't you grow up and grow a brain while you're at it?
Presumably you're 100% Anglo-Saxon with not a single drop of Norman, Teutonic, Scandinavian or other blood in your in your bones. And as you fit this genetically impossible profile, you obviously have a God-given right to demand the "purification" of our diverse, multi-cultural society, and the repatriation of everyone with even a sniff of Johnny Foreigner about them.
The problem isn't "the niggers and wogs" as you so eloquently argue, but mindless, xenophobic idiots like you who more often than not hide their racism behind white collar respectability. I notice you lack the guts (perhaps because you're not man enough?) to post under your name?
Anonymous Coward? Plain, vanilla coward if you ask me.
Why don't you do the /. community (and the human race at large) a favour and crawl back under the rock that you came from?
Will there ever be a post on /. referring to some culture outside the U.S. that doesn't have a xenophobic thread on it?
"Translate their completely foreign language?"
Methinks you perhaps are confused as to who inherited the language from whom. (Hint: it's called English.)
Robot Wars is fine as it is. Leave well enough alone. Isn't enough that you bastardised Tellytubbies?
Craig Charles (aka Lister from Red Dwarf) is the host of Robot Wars.
The commentator is Jonathan Pearce, best known for his football (sorry, soccer) commentary on Capital Radio 1548AM and on Channel 5.
Personally, I think his colour commentating adds to the programme (sorry, show). But hey, what would I know? I've only been watching it since it first aired...
The word 'robot' was invented by a Czech playwrights Karel and Josef Capek and first appeared in Karel's 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots). It is derived from the Czech word 'robota', which means "servitude, forced labor".
In the play, humanoid worker robots rise up and destroy their human masters.
Ironically, Josef died as a slave himself, in one of Hitler's concentration camp in 1945. Mercifully, his brother died before the war but not before the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.
It must be nice to be the world's tallest two year old.
I've seen "All your base are belong to us" and variants all over the place but (perhaps because I'm not an American immersed in US culture) I don't know the original source of this quote.
Is it from a TV show or something? Someone want to point me in the right direction?
Thanks.
When will Microsoft finally realise that integrating their browser into their OSes is not a good idea until it can guarantee security (ie, never)?
The biggest threat to 99.99% of PCs isn't fire, theft or a badly written application but malicious code. And the number one method of delivery of malicious code is now the Internet. Email worms like the ILOVEYOU and Melissa attack via your email and vulnerabilities like this one attack via your browser. Giving applications like Outlook Express and Internet Explorer access other elements of the operating system is like posting the combination to your safe on your open front door.
Microsoft's browser/OS integration strategy was designed to protect it from accusations that it killed off Netscape unfairly - "gee, IE isn't an application, it's a core part of the OS" - but this has always been a poor defence for the company's actions. I mean, can you name any part of any OS that is available on a rival platform like IE is for the MacOS?
Given that Microsoft has all but lost its legal battles with the US government et al isn't it time it abandoned this browser/OS integration policy that only serves to make Windows more vulnerable to attack? Wouldn't such a move be in the best interests of its customers? Or would such a move be a bitter blow for "innovation"?
Since when were global diseases the fault of one continent?
Foot and mouth is a global problem and the current outbreak started in the Indian subcontinent (which was not in Europe the last time I checked).
The infection got into Europe via contaminated products from South America (also not in Europe), which I practically on your doorstep.
The reason why the US is (relatively) free of many diseases and viruses that infect popular farm crops and herds is its draconian border policies, which prohibit visitors (and returning tourists) from bringing just about any food, drink or plant product into the US.
Such a facist policy from a country that espouses liberty and freedom at every opportunity? Tut, tut. Sounds like the kind of thing you would expect those "nasty" Europeans to do.
The real irony of course is that such border control will soon be rendered useless by NAFTA as the free progress of goods from Canada and Mexico is guaranteed by that agreement. And, believe it or not, you can get to the US from South America via Mexico!
Enjoy the view your high horse for now kiddo, because when the problem hits you (and it will hit you), the fall is gonna fucking hurt.
Fact: Foot and mouth disease has been around for centuries. The last major outbreak in Britain was almost two generations ago.
Fact: The current outbreak of the disease has been traced back to the Indian sub-continent. It most likely got into Britain (and from there, Europe) via a consignment of animal feed from South America. Foot and mouth is as much a European problem as the common cold.
Fact: Modern intensive farming methods (using pesticides, growth stimulants, genetically modified crops, etc) are just as common in the Americas as they are in Europe. But as foot and mouth is a disease, there is no way for even the most ethical farmer to protect his herds against infection (short of putting them in a well filtered biosphere).
Fact: Europe is NOT one nation. The European Union is a federation of sovereign states that determine some basic common social, economical and political policies together, just like NAFTA, OPEC or NATO. Some of these sovereign member states are moving towards a single currency, but that's nothing new on the world scene. The EU is definitely NOT a government in the sense that you seem to imply and the presidency is best described as a rotating chairman rather than a singular position of power.
Fact: Contrary to some reports in the American press, foot and mouth CANNOT be contracted by humans. It only affects animals with split hooves, such as cows, sheep and pigs. Mind you, as you're obviously an ignorant jackass, I'd be scared if I were you.