As a related matter, I've found myself wondering why encrypted email has not become far more popular - or encrypted IM for that matter. I downloaded and installed PGPMail myself a few years back, but could never get any of my friends to install it as well. This strikes me as strange considering that I know that were I given a choice between an email client with encryption and without, I would choose the former. I assume most people would. So why hasn't this been offered as an automatic part of Outlook or Thunderbird? Why haven't market pressures led to this? Is it technical difficulties? Or is it something else?
I just spent 2 hours on the phone yesterday with customer service and ended up angry both at the lack of any resolution to my problem and the complete and utter waste of an hour and a half.
According to one of the 6 people I talked to during my wonderful adventure, yesterday was the day on which Lenovo took over customer supoort in form, if not in practice. The call (4 calls in truth) I made was still routed to IBM's call center in Atlanta, but my problem was given a Lenovo tracking number. Also, new procedures of a nebulous sort had just been put in effect. While no one I talked to was willing to admit any substantive change, it became clear to me during the course of the 2 hours that something had changed.
To be fair, this is a bit of a rant. My computer, a thinkpad T40, lost the ability to display useful images at about 9 am yesterday, and instead award me with a rainbow of vertical strips immediately upon power on. As it turns out, I needed to have the system board replaced as the graphics chip had stopped working. I am a student and finals are several days away and I needed my laptop in order to take one of the finals so I was distressed.
I called IBM at 1800IBMSERV and my fears were quelled immediately when I was told that I would simply need to upgrade my existing "depot" (send-it-in) warranty to a "on-site" (they come and fix it) warranty. The cost was 120 (later, when I paid it was dropped to 98) and it was worth it to me to have a computer in time for my final. So I was transferred to sales where I had to explain everything again, I paid for the upgrade and was told to call 1800IBMSERV again to schedule my maitenance for the next day. The sales person told me that because I wanted immediate service I would have to talk to "endowment" (an ethereal branch of the IBM hierarchy that turned out to be the devil incarnate) and explain my situation but that it would not be a problem. I called back, waited on hold for not too long (5 minutes) and then explained my situation yet again. After spending 10 minutes explaining everything, I was transferred to the mysterious "endowment" department. I explained everything once again and at that point the entire experience disintegrated. I was told that I, in fact, would have to wait for up to 3 days for my warranty upgrade to "invoice" and then anohter 5 days for that upgrade to be applied to my computer.
At first I couldn't believe this. I had been told that I could get service the next day by two people. I had purchased the upgrade on that understanding. I insisted to this "endowment" demon that she must be mistaken. After quite a bit of insistence on my part, she told me that I might be able to get this to work if I called back sales and got the "information (unspecified)" she needed to put this directly through.
So I called sales, waited on hold for about 40 minutes with a woman's voice repeating every minute or so "please be stay on the line and your call will be answered shortly." That phrase repeated so often was the worst part of the whole experience.
I finally got a salesman, he told me that the voice on high of endowment was correct and that I was simply out of luck (read - had been misinformed for 1.5 hours). I asked if this was due to the changeover to Lenovo, and he said no. Later, after a bit of "discussion," he mentioned that under the old policies this could have been fasttracked, but under the new, I was out of luck. This chnage seems to have just happened to coincide with the changeover.
Now, perhaps all of this is just a kink that will be worked out. I have loved my thinkpad, and I have loved the alacrity at which IBM service has always leaped to help. At the moment, I am deeply disheartened and fear for the future.
First, I'll apologize. I haven't read the rest of the comments, so this may well be redundant. Second, this is late in the commenting process for this and so I doubt anyone will read it. I'm writing for myself. I need to purge my sorrow.
I don't follow LOTR news and so while it may have been common knowledge to most that the scourging of the shire was not part of the movie, I had no idea. I think it is an egregious error on the part of Peter Jackson to leave that key section of the book out. I realize that the movies are long and choices have to be made, but I think that it is the journey home and the scourging that helps the books transcend the greatest other fantasy novels. Needless to say, it is my favorite part of the books.
I don't know how PJ will end the movies, and I am happy with the job he has done so far, but I just don't see how he can communicate the profound change that has come over the characters without the pivotal ending of the book. For those of you who have read the books, the denoumouet (forgive the spelling) is not short - it is a long and drawn out. I guess that is kind of irrelevant, I just think it shows that even Tolkien saw it is a key part of the series.
Seeing how the hobbits, especially Frodo but also contrasting Merry and Pippin (Samwise seems fairly static), have changed...
I can't put it into words. I can only say again that I am heart-broken. I'll see the movie, and I hope that PJ does not end it on a triumphant note. I doubt he will, but I don't think that any other ending could possibly communicate the bittersweet, broadening experience that the quest has been for all the hobbits - and in different ways for each. I'll just have to trust my idol and "wait and hope".
The one time that I have had a large amount of trouble is when I am searching for something that I have seen before. Sometimes, when I am bouncing from link to link I come across something that is really interesting but due to my lack of foresight I forget to make a note of it. Then later, when I actually use a search engine to try to find the site, I have a lot of trouble.
I once found this math site that had a proof that I really needed, but for the life of me, when I inputted the name of the proof and other relevant information into several search engines, I could not find the same site again. I found the proof elsewhere, but I couldn't find the exact site again.
Perhaps this is a sign that it is the information that matters and not the specific presentation. Then again, maybe I should just have a better memory.
This is kind of a question, kind of a statement, kind of a proposition. Like everything in my life, it can not be clearly quantified. Basically, it is this: are geeks suited for marraige? I am not asking if geeks get married for that is an obvious fact, but in fact, whether or not those marraiges are successful.
Now please realize that I am not commenting one way or the other. For all I know, geek marraiges could be twice as successful as "normal folks" weddings (hey cleetus, where's that woman?). What I am wondering is if geeks do better, if so, why? If not why? And if you have no clue, what do you predict?
To start things off, my theory. I predict that geeks do just as well as anyone else - no better no worse. There are those that succeed because two highly reclusive people fit well togethor and an equal amount that fail based on the same reasoning. I have absolutely NO hard data to back this up, but that's the point.
This is what proponents of capitalism envisioned when they promoted a free market. For a long time, Intel was able to do just about whatever they wanted and still maintain their stranglehold on the personal computing processor market. Now, AMD and other corporations like it are challenging Intel's dominance.
In a lot of ways, it is like the time when Japanese cars quickly replaced those produced by complacent American car companies. Maybe now, the processor market will see a jump in quality and a dip in price.
Then again, its just as likely that we will just see a rise in quality along with a corresponding rise in price. But hey, I guess supply and DEMAND is part of capitalism too.
How can we allow this to stand? I say we attempt to destroy this tool as quickly as we can. Why you ask? Well listen here my people:
Where have the great inventions of the world come from. Have they come in an expensive lab equipped with expensive equipment? No, while these inventions may have been improved there, the fact of the matter is that it is the tinkerer that has done the most to advance technology.
But if we allow devilish tools such as this, the age of the tinkerer is brought even closer to the edge. And that is a future that I don not want to live in. Could I like in a future that requires more than a roll of ducktable and an all-purpose bendable iron wire to live? Could you?
It is time to start the backlash. Time to return to the day when the freedom of invention was available to more than the select few in a lab. Fight with me my brethren! We'll fight, and we'll win!
N.B. - Actually, I think the tool looks pretty cool
For those who are interested, I happen to know a little about Mr. Singer. Regardless of my disagreement with this article, Mr. Singer is a very ethical man. He believes that we should give everything not absolutely necessary for our own existence to the hungry, starving and dying. And unlike many who believe this, he actually follows through. He lives a very modest life and provides the majority of his salary to charity each year.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I would not be surprised if Mr. Singer did advocate not only killing disabled children but also feeding them to the hungry. In a book he wrote (can't think of the name, might have been Rich and Poor?) he argued for the absolutely affluent giving everything they possible could to the absolutely poor. In this case, it would probably include any meat. And it would make some sense. Is it not more sensical to allow the meat to go to use to feed the hungry? Is it any different than organ donation?
In the end, Mr. Singer keeps to his ethics very closely. While I, more conservative than liberal do not agree with many of his points, I do respect that he acts upon his beliefs.
I would refer agreeing readers too a wonderful piece written by Thomas Swift called a Modest Proposal. In it, Mr. Swift recommends that instead of simply killing and wasting infants, that in fact the most ethical thing to do is recycle them. In other words, kill them, and eat them. If there are starving people in the world, then why should this meat go to waste? Others can use it? Is it not wrong not to use it?
Thomas Swift was being sarcastic, sadly enough, our esteemed bio"ethics" professor is not. The fact of the matter is that there are some things that just seem wrong to us. Without any use of logic, it just seems wrong that retarded children should not have the chance to live simply because they are severely disabled. In cases such as this, the basic instict we have is often correct. However, I'll admit, that there may be a logical point behind Singer's argument.
It is hard to watch someone die. Often we say that it is kinder to pull the plug than watch the suffering. Now I am an agnostic who does not find anything inherently wrong with physician-assisted suicide. However, I think there is a clear difference. One person has had a chance to lead a full life while the other has not. Whatever that life may be, isn't it true that there is at least some moral imperative to giving a child the best life possible.
What if this is all that there is? If there is no heaven or hell or afterlife? Then is it fair to the child to kill it and deprive it of everything. Existence is precious, we should treasure it for ourselves and for others. Pain tells us that we are alive. While it may be hard to watch, until a child can choose for his or herself whether or not to end his/her existence, we have an obligation to preserve that obligation.
I agree. But this is one problem that there is very little we can do to solve. There have to be hard lines and they have to be stretching distances too long to be defendable.
This in fact is a question I have grappled with (don't read that as overly dramatic) when recently reading Tad Williams Outland series. Albeit, I'm only half way through the third book, but I don't understand how the Grail Brotherhood hopes to live in VR in perfect safety as Gods. Regardless of whatever they create, they will still be vulnerable to attacks on there bodies in the real world.
However, to come back to my point, what I was trying to look at in my comment was a plausible future. While there may be groups that destroy various phonelines/datalines for whatever reason (anti-tech, anti-phone, wireodestroyomaniacs) but they will not have the same motive of power and control that I see governments and corp.s having.
But then again, that might just be another tool they use. In general, however, it all comes down to the stunning conclusionary theme in War Games. In a nuclear war, no one can win. If the war becomes the destruction of the hardware supporting the internet, then in the end, we just destory what we have created without gaining anything in the process.
But again, these are governments and corporations we are referring to. For them, too often it seems that a mutual loss is an acceptable goal.
I think that it is slight ironic how this article and the last go together to prove my point, which of course you do not know yet.
So, to begin, where is the future of cracking (hacking/whatever it is GC (geek chic) to call attempts to trespass into electronic information spaces and either gather or disrupt data) heading in the next century? The fact of the matter is that it is heading away from the majority of us. Computer security systems (real computer security systems) are becoming harder than even to break.
While movies like War Games inspired us all to crack to the launch mechanisms of the U.S. nuclear missile defense, those days are gone. Truly secure systems are only available for acces locally, while important national systems are better protected than ever by the crackers of yesteryear.
What this all leads up to is that the only people left will truly be able to wreak havoc are the government and big corporations. Only they have the computing power and the money to be able to work past strong defense systems.
And at the same time, I see this electronic power becoming more and more important. So what kind of future do we have to look forward to? Well, I believe that electronic terrorism (or government/corporate action, when it comes down to it, there is really little difference beyod perspective) will bring the world to a standstill. My question, is will that bring about a world like that seen in Rollerball (great movie) with Corporations splitting up the world between them, or a 1984 scenario with Big Brother becoming all powerful because all of our lives can be catalogued electronically.
When I think of conferences like DEF CON, I wonder if there purpose should not be to prevent futures like this. So while I am not in support a violently breaking the law, or causing others intentional hurt, I so long live the hackers and even the crackers, for they may be the only hope for a medium between two horrible futures.
There is one and really only one reason that commercial software is buggy: it's more profitable that way. Let's face it, no matter how much we whine and complain about the software being buggy, if it is even reasonably workable we buy it. And this is slashdot readers. Think about the general public. Most of them just assume that is the only way software can be written.
I was talking to my sister recently (not a master computer user by any means) and she asked me why Windows crashes so often. I tried to explain about the bugs and conflicts between the various pieces of software she has, but she could not grasp the idea that a flawed product would be released intentionally.
Why? Because it what other industry is it done? None. The fact is that consumers at large have just accepted the necessity of software bugs. Because of this, the software companies have little or no incentive to release a clean product.
It would take much more money and man hours to realease a clean product and that is time that it is simply not worth it to spend. This is capitalism at its high point. Often it works to bring a higher standard about, but in the case where the buggier product makes more money, it can do the reverse as well.
A solution? I don't know if there really is one... perhaps make it so that a bug causes a computer explosion. Then, just the chips in our airplanes, companies would have to release quality software. Just a thought.
Sometimes I feel like the war against cryptography exportation is a lot like the war on drugs. The American government fights and fights against it on the grounds that it could fall into the hands of terrorists or hostile governments, just as in the war on drugs, the government fights to stop drugs from entering the marketplace as a whole.
But in both cases, it is completely ineffectual. Let's face it, we are doing as good a job keeping our cryptography methods secret as we are preventing drugs from crossing the border. In both cases, we are going about it the wrong way. In the case of drugs, the government causes an increase in crime, inflates the prices of drugs, and spends billions of dollars while only stopping a small percentage of the actual trafficking. In the war against crypto exportation, yes, the government is keeping our "secrets" from falling into the hands of the world at large, but is it keeping it from those that it claims are the problem?
Do any of us really believe that just because there is no official exportation, that anything on the U.S. market is still secure from high-powered foriegn organizations, be they countries or terrorists? In fact, they are the ones most likely to get whatever the software they want. Hell, if they can smuggle American missiles out of the country from "secure" military bases, how hard is it to steal software?
Once again, the U.S. government is costing the American cryptography industry a phenomenal amount of money by not allowing exportation (even though they do now, this is in the case of the ruling being overturned) while still not keeping the information from the "enemies." It is a backwards approach to the problem.
While it is nice to be moral and an upright country (relatively), the majority of the world is not. Those who want the crypto information can get it, and those who can pay for it can not. Is that really the solution?
Thus, as does the majority of Slashdot, I hope that this ruling stands.
I always like the demand of slashdot readers that the sites always keep a wall between themselves and their sponsor. Or even more generally that publications keep a wall between themselves and their sponsors. Do I agree? Of course.
However, my question is why Do the sponsors keep a wall between themselves and the publication? Here I always read the arguments that in order for the public to respect the publication as a legitimate source, there must be the "wall".
Let's face it though. Maybe I'm understimating the American people, but I don't think it matters. Often, I think that the sponsors would make a hell of lot more money if they did not keep themselves separated from the publication.
In reality, the majority of readers would not notice the omissions of the blurbs saying that "Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC news."
Eh, I'm tired. I know I didn't finish this thought, but hey, I guess you can probably tell where it was going.
For those of you who started off with the wrong impression, no this is not some off topic Robert Jordan post. However, I think that the incredibly cliche idea of the wheel of time actually applies in this case.
The twentieth century has been the century of statistics. Never before have we more classified just how much time machines save or cost us each day or record it so definitively. What we are doing is externalizing. What I mean by that is this: we are disassociating our actions with ourselves. It is not an overt phenomenon in which people claim lack of responsibility, but a much more subtle syndrome.
By cataloging what "devices" cost us or how they "hurt" us, detriment the quality of our lives, etc., what we are doing is giving those devices power over ourselves. I hate to sound overly Heiddegarian, but we may be losing our Being (I'm not even going to begin to clarify).
The key is that it is not the devices which could cause our downfall, it is ourselves. It is the power we choose to give these devices that worries us. We simply need to make a different choice. Unlike Heiddegar, I am strongly against giving up technology. I think it is very useful, however, it must be our choice when to use it. It is when we let it determine our lives instead of vice versa that the problems begin to occur.
Arthur C. Clarke was wrong when he said that we should worry about machines unpluggin us for they will never be able to do that if we choose not to let them. This is an amazing age where we are determining, perhaps more than ever, what direction the development of all this technology will take. We must simply make sure not to unplug ourselves.
What I would like to see is a bet on what percentage of Windows computers will go down on Jan. 1, 2000. While I know there would have to be quite a bit of padding for the normal millions of crashes, it would still be interesting to see if the number of total crashes increases in any noticeable degree.
To go further on this point, I wonder which operating system will whether the year 2000 the best? I'm not sure how exactly you could measure this, but it certainly seems to be an intersting question. Perhaps even a good Slashdot poll on which OS is most (or least (though that might be a foregone conclusion)) reliable.
Whoops, that link will only work with the websites own search engine. Well, it is pointless anway, anything beyond this little blurb costs you 1.95:
Published on 09/24/99, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS FACE-RECOGNITION ATMS BEING OFFERED BY S.F. FIRM You can see the future of automated teller machines inside a refurbished brick warehouse here -- and it can see you too. A new cash-machine company is producing a line of ATMs that uses cutting-edge biometric technology, which scans a users' face to determine identity, eliminating the need for bank cards or personal identification numbers during a transaction. Your search terms appear 2 times in this article. Complete Article, 199 words ( $1.95 )
While I think the article on IBM's missed opportunity is a very informative one, at the same time I was really looking forward to an article on face recognition... Well, too bad. Sorry I'm not enterprising enough to find the correct link. Translation of humorous sarcasm: I think this is the wrong link.
As the article states, electron orbital clouds have long been used to explain chemical reactions mathematically. Now, it says, they have a physical application as well. However (while not a physics major) I believe the key philisophical question is still unanswered. For those of us who do not believe in any sort of God (or do not feel the idea of God is necessary), materialists, the question we are left with is what governs our everyday activity. Is there free will? Is everything cause and effect? With enough understanding can we eventually be able to determine everyone's future?
The answer for me has always been found in Heisenberg's (sp?) uncertainty principle. He states that you can never know the velocity and the position of an electron at the same moment. What this means to me is that no matter how deep or how complete our physical understanding is, there will always be some bit of uncertainty, if only on the minutest level, that allows us to operate as if we had free will. To me, free will is necessary for me to view my life as a worthwhile pursuit.
Thus, while we can now picture the movements of electrons physically, in doing so, we disturb their velocity and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle is still valid. Therefore, while this may have increased our understanding of the universe, it has not destroyed what I feel is the basic necessity for the pursuit of life: free will.
Be careful what you tell me. Some things are just not meant for humanity to know. Please, let me go on living in my nice fantasy world while you "bearers of light" can find the dark truth for yourself.
Next thing I know, you're going to be telling me that George Lucas is Elton John. The buck stops here.
Slashdot Mirror
As a related matter, I've found myself wondering why encrypted email has not become far more popular - or encrypted IM for that matter. I downloaded and installed PGPMail myself a few years back, but could never get any of my friends to install it as well. This strikes me as strange considering that I know that were I given a choice between an email client with encryption and without, I would choose the former. I assume most people would. So why hasn't this been offered as an automatic part of Outlook or Thunderbird? Why haven't market pressures led to this? Is it technical difficulties? Or is it something else?
I just spent 2 hours on the phone yesterday with customer service and ended up angry both at the lack of any resolution to my problem and the complete and utter waste of an hour and a half.
According to one of the 6 people I talked to during my wonderful adventure, yesterday was the day on which Lenovo took over customer supoort in form, if not in practice. The call (4 calls in truth) I made was still routed to IBM's call center in Atlanta, but my problem was given a Lenovo tracking number. Also, new procedures of a nebulous sort had just been put in effect. While no one I talked to was willing to admit any substantive change, it became clear to me during the course of the 2 hours that something had changed.
To be fair, this is a bit of a rant. My computer, a thinkpad T40, lost the ability to display useful images at about 9 am yesterday, and instead award me with a rainbow of vertical strips immediately upon power on. As it turns out, I needed to have the system board replaced as the graphics chip had stopped working. I am a student and finals are several days away and I needed my laptop in order to take one of the finals so I was distressed.
I called IBM at 1800IBMSERV and my fears were quelled immediately when I was told that I would simply need to upgrade my existing "depot" (send-it-in) warranty to a "on-site" (they come and fix it) warranty. The cost was 120 (later, when I paid it was dropped to 98) and it was worth it to me to have a computer in time for my final. So I was transferred to sales where I had to explain everything again, I paid for the upgrade and was told to call 1800IBMSERV again to schedule my maitenance for the next day. The sales person told me that because I wanted immediate service I would have to talk to "endowment" (an ethereal branch of the IBM hierarchy that turned out to be the devil incarnate) and explain my situation but that it would not be a problem. I called back, waited on hold for not too long (5 minutes) and then explained my situation yet again. After spending 10 minutes explaining everything, I was transferred to the mysterious "endowment" department. I explained everything once again and at that point the entire experience disintegrated. I was told that I, in fact, would have to wait for up to 3 days for my warranty upgrade to "invoice" and then anohter 5 days for that upgrade to be applied to my computer.
At first I couldn't believe this. I had been told that I could get service the next day by two people. I had purchased the upgrade on that understanding. I insisted to this "endowment" demon that she must be mistaken. After quite a bit of insistence on my part, she told me that I might be able to get this to work if I called back sales and got the "information (unspecified)" she needed to put this directly through.
So I called sales, waited on hold for about 40 minutes with a woman's voice repeating every minute or so "please be stay on the line and your call will be answered shortly." That phrase repeated so often was the worst part of the whole experience.
I finally got a salesman, he told me that the voice on high of endowment was correct and that I was simply out of luck (read - had been misinformed for 1.5 hours). I asked if this was due to the changeover to Lenovo, and he said no. Later, after a bit of "discussion," he mentioned that under the old policies this could have been fasttracked, but under the new, I was out of luck. This chnage seems to have just happened to coincide with the changeover.
Now, perhaps all of this is just a kink that will be worked out. I have loved my thinkpad, and I have loved the alacrity at which IBM service has always leaped to help. At the moment, I am deeply disheartened and fear for the future.
An 8*8 (ft.) dorm room that I pay 700 dollars a month for because it is in downtown Boston.
First, I'll apologize. I haven't read the rest of the comments, so this may well be redundant. Second, this is late in the commenting process for this and so I doubt anyone will read it. I'm writing for myself. I need to purge my sorrow.
I don't follow LOTR news and so while it may have been common knowledge to most that the scourging of the shire was not part of the movie, I had no idea. I think it is an egregious error on the part of Peter Jackson to leave that key section of the book out. I realize that the movies are long and choices have to be made, but I think that it is the journey home and the scourging that helps the books transcend the greatest other fantasy novels. Needless to say, it is my favorite part of the books.
I don't know how PJ will end the movies, and I am happy with the job he has done so far, but I just don't see how he can communicate the profound change that has come over the characters without the pivotal ending of the book. For those of you who have read the books, the denoumouet (forgive the spelling) is not short - it is a long and drawn out. I guess that is kind of irrelevant, I just think it shows that even Tolkien saw it is a key part of the series.
Seeing how the hobbits, especially Frodo but also contrasting Merry and Pippin (Samwise seems fairly static), have changed...
I can't put it into words. I can only say again that I am heart-broken. I'll see the movie, and I hope that PJ does not end it on a triumphant note. I doubt he will, but I don't think that any other ending could possibly communicate the bittersweet, broadening experience that the quest has been for all the hobbits - and in different ways for each. I'll just have to trust my idol and "wait and hope".
Might have scored better if not for the blatant mispelling. "Hiro Protanonist" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
The one time that I have had a large amount of trouble is when I am searching for something that I have seen before. Sometimes, when I am bouncing from link to link I come across something that is really interesting but due to my lack of foresight I forget to make a note of it. Then later, when I actually use a search engine to try to find the site, I have a lot of trouble. I once found this math site that had a proof that I really needed, but for the life of me, when I inputted the name of the proof and other relevant information into several search engines, I could not find the same site again. I found the proof elsewhere, but I couldn't find the exact site again. Perhaps this is a sign that it is the information that matters and not the specific presentation. Then again, maybe I should just have a better memory.
Now please realize that I am not commenting one way or the other. For all I know, geek marraiges could be twice as successful as "normal folks" weddings (hey cleetus, where's that woman?). What I am wondering is if geeks do better, if so, why? If not why? And if you have no clue, what do you predict?
To start things off, my theory. I predict that geeks do just as well as anyone else - no better no worse. There are those that succeed because two highly reclusive people fit well togethor and an equal amount that fail based on the same reasoning. I have absolutely NO hard data to back this up, but that's the point.
In a lot of ways, it is like the time when Japanese cars quickly replaced those produced by complacent American car companies. Maybe now, the processor market will see a jump in quality and a dip in price.
Then again, its just as likely that we will just see a rise in quality along with a corresponding rise in price. But hey, I guess supply and DEMAND is part of capitalism too.
Where have the great inventions of the world come from. Have they come in an expensive lab equipped with expensive equipment? No, while these inventions may have been improved there, the fact of the matter is that it is the tinkerer that has done the most to advance technology.
But if we allow devilish tools such as this, the age of the tinkerer is brought even closer to the edge. And that is a future that I don not want to live in. Could I like in a future that requires more than a roll of ducktable and an all-purpose bendable iron wire to live? Could you?
It is time to start the backlash. Time to return to the day when the freedom of invention was available to more than the select few in a lab. Fight with me my brethren! We'll fight, and we'll win!
N.B. - Actually, I think the tool looks pretty cool
As I mentioned in a previous post, I would not be surprised if Mr. Singer did advocate not only killing disabled children but also feeding them to the hungry. In a book he wrote (can't think of the name, might have been Rich and Poor?) he argued for the absolutely affluent giving everything they possible could to the absolutely poor. In this case, it would probably include any meat. And it would make some sense. Is it not more sensical to allow the meat to go to use to feed the hungry? Is it any different than organ donation?
In the end, Mr. Singer keeps to his ethics very closely. While I, more conservative than liberal do not agree with many of his points, I do respect that he acts upon his beliefs.
Thomas Swift was being sarcastic, sadly enough, our esteemed bio"ethics" professor is not. The fact of the matter is that there are some things that just seem wrong to us. Without any use of logic, it just seems wrong that retarded children should not have the chance to live simply because they are severely disabled. In cases such as this, the basic instict we have is often correct. However, I'll admit, that there may be a logical point behind Singer's argument.
It is hard to watch someone die. Often we say that it is kinder to pull the plug than watch the suffering. Now I am an agnostic who does not find anything inherently wrong with physician-assisted suicide. However, I think there is a clear difference. One person has had a chance to lead a full life while the other has not. Whatever that life may be, isn't it true that there is at least some moral imperative to giving a child the best life possible.
What if this is all that there is? If there is no heaven or hell or afterlife? Then is it fair to the child to kill it and deprive it of everything. Existence is precious, we should treasure it for ourselves and for others. Pain tells us that we are alive. While it may be hard to watch, until a child can choose for his or herself whether or not to end his/her existence, we have an obligation to preserve that obligation.
Sorry Mr. Singer, but you are wrong.
This in fact is a question I have grappled with (don't read that as overly dramatic) when recently reading Tad Williams Outland series. Albeit, I'm only half way through the third book, but I don't understand how the Grail Brotherhood hopes to live in VR in perfect safety as Gods. Regardless of whatever they create, they will still be vulnerable to attacks on there bodies in the real world.
However, to come back to my point, what I was trying to look at in my comment was a plausible future. While there may be groups that destroy various phonelines/datalines for whatever reason (anti-tech, anti-phone, wireodestroyomaniacs) but they will not have the same motive of power and control that I see governments and corp.s having.
But then again, that might just be another tool they use. In general, however, it all comes down to the stunning conclusionary theme in War Games. In a nuclear war, no one can win. If the war becomes the destruction of the hardware supporting the internet, then in the end, we just destory what we have created without gaining anything in the process.
But again, these are governments and corporations we are referring to. For them, too often it seems that a mutual loss is an acceptable goal.
So, to begin, where is the future of cracking (hacking/whatever it is GC (geek chic) to call attempts to trespass into electronic information spaces and either gather or disrupt data) heading in the next century? The fact of the matter is that it is heading away from the majority of us. Computer security systems (real computer security systems) are becoming harder than even to break.
While movies like War Games inspired us all to crack to the launch mechanisms of the U.S. nuclear missile defense, those days are gone. Truly secure systems are only available for acces locally, while important national systems are better protected than ever by the crackers of yesteryear.
What this all leads up to is that the only people left will truly be able to wreak havoc are the government and big corporations. Only they have the computing power and the money to be able to work past strong defense systems.
And at the same time, I see this electronic power becoming more and more important. So what kind of future do we have to look forward to? Well, I believe that electronic terrorism (or government/corporate action, when it comes down to it, there is really little difference beyod perspective) will bring the world to a standstill. My question, is will that bring about a world like that seen in Rollerball (great movie) with Corporations splitting up the world between them, or a 1984 scenario with Big Brother becoming all powerful because all of our lives can be catalogued electronically.
When I think of conferences like DEF CON, I wonder if there purpose should not be to prevent futures like this. So while I am not in support a violently breaking the law, or causing others intentional hurt, I so long live the hackers and even the crackers, for they may be the only hope for a medium between two horrible futures.
I was talking to my sister recently (not a master computer user by any means) and she asked me why Windows crashes so often. I tried to explain about the bugs and conflicts between the various pieces of software she has, but she could not grasp the idea that a flawed product would be released intentionally.
Why? Because it what other industry is it done? None. The fact is that consumers at large have just accepted the necessity of software bugs. Because of this, the software companies have little or no incentive to release a clean product.
It would take much more money and man hours to realease a clean product and that is time that it is simply not worth it to spend. This is capitalism at its high point. Often it works to bring a higher standard about, but in the case where the buggier product makes more money, it can do the reverse as well.
A solution? I don't know if there really is one... perhaps make it so that a bug causes a computer explosion. Then, just the chips in our airplanes, companies would have to release quality software. Just a thought.
But in both cases, it is completely ineffectual. Let's face it, we are doing as good a job keeping our cryptography methods secret as we are preventing drugs from crossing the border. In both cases, we are going about it the wrong way. In the case of drugs, the government causes an increase in crime, inflates the prices of drugs, and spends billions of dollars while only stopping a small percentage of the actual trafficking. In the war against crypto exportation, yes, the government is keeping our "secrets" from falling into the hands of the world at large, but is it keeping it from those that it claims are the problem?
Do any of us really believe that just because there is no official exportation, that anything on the U.S. market is still secure from high-powered foriegn organizations, be they countries or terrorists? In fact, they are the ones most likely to get whatever the software they want. Hell, if they can smuggle American missiles out of the country from "secure" military bases, how hard is it to steal software?
Once again, the U.S. government is costing the American cryptography industry a phenomenal amount of money by not allowing exportation (even though they do now, this is in the case of the ruling being overturned) while still not keeping the information from the "enemies." It is a backwards approach to the problem.
While it is nice to be moral and an upright country (relatively), the majority of the world is not. Those who want the crypto information can get it, and those who can pay for it can not. Is that really the solution?
Thus, as does the majority of Slashdot, I hope that this ruling stands.
However, my question is why Do the sponsors keep a wall between themselves and the publication? Here I always read the arguments that in order for the public to respect the publication as a legitimate source, there must be the "wall".
Let's face it though. Maybe I'm understimating the American people, but I don't think it matters. Often, I think that the sponsors would make a hell of lot more money if they did not keep themselves separated from the publication.
In reality, the majority of readers would not notice the omissions of the blurbs saying that "Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC news."
Eh, I'm tired. I know I didn't finish this thought, but hey, I guess you can probably tell where it was going.
For those of you who started off with the wrong impression, no this is not some off topic Robert Jordan post. However, I think that the incredibly cliche idea of the wheel of time actually applies in this case.
The twentieth century has been the century of statistics. Never before have we more classified just how much time machines save or cost us each day or record it so definitively. What we are doing is externalizing. What I mean by that is this: we are disassociating our actions with ourselves. It is not an overt phenomenon in which people claim lack of responsibility, but a much more subtle syndrome.
By cataloging what "devices" cost us or how they "hurt" us, detriment the quality of our lives, etc., what we are doing is giving those devices power over ourselves. I hate to sound overly Heiddegarian, but we may be losing our Being (I'm not even going to begin to clarify).
The key is that it is not the devices which could cause our downfall, it is ourselves. It is the power we choose to give these devices that worries us. We simply need to make a different choice. Unlike Heiddegar, I am strongly against giving up technology. I think it is very useful, however, it must be our choice when to use it. It is when we let it determine our lives instead of vice versa that the problems begin to occur.
Arthur C. Clarke was wrong when he said that we should worry about machines unpluggin us for they will never be able to do that if we choose not to let them. This is an amazing age where we are determining, perhaps more than ever, what direction the development of all this technology will take. We must simply make sure not to unplug ourselves.
To go further on this point, I wonder which operating system will whether the year 2000 the best? I'm not sure how exactly you could measure this, but it certainly seems to be an intersting question. Perhaps even a good Slashdot poll on which OS is most (or least (though that might be a foregone conclusion)) reliable.
Just food for thought.
Published on 09/24/99, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS FACE-RECOGNITION ATMS BEING OFFERED BY S.F. FIRM You can see the future of automated teller machines inside a refurbished brick warehouse here -- and it can see you too. A new cash-machine company is producing a line of ATMs that uses cutting-edge biometric technology, which scans a users' face to determine identity, eliminating the need for bank cards or personal identification numbers during a transaction. Your search terms appear 2 times in this article. Complete Article, 199 words ( $1.95 )
http://newslibrary.krmediast ream.com/cgi-bin/search/sj
While I think the article on IBM's missed opportunity is a very informative one, at the same time I was really looking forward to an article on face recognition... Well, too bad. Sorry I'm not enterprising enough to find the correct link. Translation of humorous sarcasm: I think this is the wrong link.
As the article states, electron orbital clouds have long been used to explain chemical reactions mathematically. Now, it says, they have a physical application as well. However (while not a physics major) I believe the key philisophical question is still unanswered. For those of us who do not believe in any sort of God (or do not feel the idea of God is necessary), materialists, the question we are left with is what governs our everyday activity. Is there free will? Is everything cause and effect? With enough understanding can we eventually be able to determine everyone's future?
The answer for me has always been found in Heisenberg's (sp?) uncertainty principle. He states that you can never know the velocity and the position of an electron at the same moment. What this means to me is that no matter how deep or how complete our physical understanding is, there will always be some bit of uncertainty, if only on the minutest level, that allows us to operate as if we had free will. To me, free will is necessary for me to view my life as a worthwhile pursuit.
Thus, while we can now picture the movements of electrons physically, in doing so, we disturb their velocity and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle is still valid. Therefore, while this may have increased our understanding of the universe, it has not destroyed what I feel is the basic necessity for the pursuit of life: free will.
Be careful what you tell me. Some things are just not meant for humanity to know. Please, let me go on living in my nice fantasy world while you "bearers of light" can find the dark truth for yourself.
Next thing I know, you're going to be telling me that George Lucas is Elton John. The buck stops here.