I know it's fun to burn the school down but then you're left wondering what will replace it?
This isn't "having fun burning down the school"... schools serve a useful purpose. The (slow but eventual) death of the current music industry will be more like the tearing down of the Berlin wall.
I would be quite upset if airport security *weren't* trained to look for these things.
A question: can these mindreaders detect the difference between "I'm scared of being found out about something illegal" vs "I'm surly and evasive because I don't feel I should have to impress secret police with my joviality"?
The article says that 70,000 people were referred for further screening, of which 700 were booked for some offense like drug possession, weapons charges, or outstanding warrants. So by those numbers, 99% of the people hassled by the program were innocent.
So this super duper collection of fear-detection techniques is (a) inconveniencing the sh*t out of a ton of innocents, and (b) producing results that a blind monkey could produce just as well through sheer statistical accident.
Color me impressed. Don't beat me, I'll smile! Go Amerikka!
I would have to choose the Corolla becuase the extra $15,000 is the current equivilant of 5,000 gallons of gas or about 150,000 miles of driving. If I drove my Corolla 100,000 miles I would pay $25,000 (car + gas) if I drove the Typ-1 e 100,000 miles I would have paid $32,500. If I got the Typ-1 h I would pay 31,000 to go the same distance (assuming it costs $30,000).
Over that 100,000 miles, the Corolla would burn 3,000 gallons of gas, whereas the Typ-1 would burn 300. So look at it this way: by paying $7.5k ($32.5k-$25k), you'd take $8,000 ($3 * 2,700) out of the pockets of big oil, reducing your gas consumption by 90%. Might not be worth it to you or me, but to a lot of people the prospect of shaking up the oil cartel is somewhere between a delightful proposition and a moral imperative.
Point being that it's kind of stupid to say that all RIAA music sucks just because we find their business practices abhorrent and unethical.
Nobody asserts that the RIAA music sucks because their business practices are abhorrent/repugnant/unethical. Instead, the general assertion is that
(a) the fact that the majority of RIAA music sucks, and
(b) the fact that many find the RIAA's biz practices repellent
are not causal of each other in either direction, but are both symptomatic of (i.e. caused by)
(c) The RIAA's biz practices are emergent from and driven by blind greed, the soulessness of which is -- functionally speaking -- a terrible fit for the goal of producing artistic works of value, due to some of the intrinsic properties of artistry itself
Researchers found a way to clone pet cats five years ago. Now they can play a trick on their genes to change their color.
Not rocket science. Unless I totally mis-understand quantum physics, the Heisenberg-Schrodinger principle tells us that the mere act of observing these cats will change their color.
However, I only rarely hear someone say something like: "I could reduce my carbon emissions by moving to the city, but doing so is less important to me than living away from the noise of the city and having a larger home and yard for my kids to play in." I'd like to hear that from time to time.
What I usually hear, though, is: "I could reduce emissions by moving to the city, but I have to live in a lower-crime area, and I have 2 kids, so I have to have at least 1600 sq. ft. in my home, so I really couldn't possibly live in the city." And that, I take issue with.
Thanks for your response. I'm not trying to sound combative or malicious, and I acknowledge that I may not be doing well in trying to meet that goal. Please rest assured that the below comes from genuine curiosity.
The phrase "have to" is relative to some arbitrary baseline, usually implied. For example, a lot of people would take as a given the truth of the statement "I have to eat", but in fact it's only true relative to the baseline "in order to live". Which seems self-evident and redundant until we consider people who don't necessarily want to live. (And such people do exist, albeit often for limited times.)
If someone asserted "I have to eat", it would seem pedantic to insist they rephrase it as, "I could choose to die, but remaining alive is important to me and so it's really impossible for me to give up food." It might be justifiable to seek the latter elaboration out of sheer curiosity, if the person was open to discussing it, but I wouldn't say that I had an issue with the former phrasing.
If you take issue with the "have to" phrasing because on a semantic level you prefer precise terminology (i.e. you'd be happy with the words "I strongly dislike a high-crime area, so I don't want to live in the city"), then I'd simply say: you're fighting a losing battle, in fact a battle that was lost a long time ago and was never winnable.
If instead your motivation is to empower people with the knowledge that they have choices so that they can improve their own lives, I could relate to that.
Looking back on the dialog, I see the possibility that your focus might be specifically in the realm of driving and emissions (both your posts have made use of related examples). If that's the case, then I confess to just having now realized it, and would have responded on a less philosophical and more pragmatic level, if at all.
My wife and I, for example, moved into an 800-square-foot house in the city -- the cost of which would have bought us almost 2000 sq. feet in a reasonable suburb. We did this because it:
1. dramatically reduced my wife's commute
2. provided carpool opportunities for my wife
3. eliminated my need to drive to work (I walk or bike except in bad weather)... I don't like it when people pretend they're forced to [live as they are].
The reasons you give for your decision don't indicate you're raising a family. Raising a family doesn't force me into the choices I've made any more than you're being forced to keep your job instead of becoming homeless, but the factors I have to take into account include more than just the cost of adequate space. I have to think about school districts, neighborhood safety, the costs of food, medical attention, utitlities, and a whole lot more.
The strawman argument that I'm not being forced to think about these things is misleading. It's not about being forced. It's about wanting a life that isn't a rat race from dawn til dusk, and doesn't have your kids dodging bullets and pedophiles. Granted, some people live beyond their means, but I would hate to think anyone is implying that the gap between reasonable desires and reality is just being imagined by everyone who happens to complain.
Third, at the outset of negotiations, Midler's lawyer asked, "Is it a commercial?" was told yes, and responded, "We are not interested." Clearly Midler did not want her vocals to be considered an endorsement of an advertised product. Perhaps she was opposed to Ford's labor practices or simply preferred BMWs. The point is that a listener might reasonably infer that Midler was endorsing the prodcut through her vocals, and might form an untrue opinion of her character. The Romantics' (apparent) performance in GH does not imply any endorsement of a specific commercial product, and therefore it's possible a court will decide that it is not a misappropriation of their identity, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude.
Agreed. To me, this third point is the most damning to whatever case the Romantics might have.
I find myself wondering: what damages do the Romantics suppose they have endured? Given that they were prepared to have their song covered in the game, the only motivation for suing that I can think of is that the Romantics don't like the idea the world might think that the actual Romantics participated in the making of the game... because (and I'm grabbing at straws here) that might mean the Romantics are washed up? But if game players assume they're hearing the Romantics, I don't think game players would notice or care, at least not to the Romantics' detriment. The songs making it onto the game are arguably the greats/classics... GH isn't looking to include crap, for obvious reasons. And there's no reason to suppose that the Romantics played the song again instead of simply giving access to the originally recorded tracks anyhow.
I just don't get where the Romantics are coming from on this. It's what I dislike about them. Won't keep me home at night though.
the second implication is both completely true, and makes perfect sense. I don't really understand how you could claim otherwise. It is unlike the other three, just as the other three are all unlike each other. It uses elliptic curves, where the other three don't, and the attack is specific to elliptic curves.
I think I mistakenly came away from the article thinking that the NSA had created all 4 discussed algorithms. A quick re-skimming of the article didn't yield that assertion, so I agree that the other three are immune to the idea that the NSA rigged them like the main one discussed.
Note that if the NSA *had* designed all 4 algorithms, the fact that the described attack is specific only to one of them would not particulary calm my suspicions.
How do you back door an Open algorithm you didn't design and don't distribute?
Huh? You seem to be implying either that the algorithm criticized by Bruce is in fact secure, or that the insecure algorithm is unlike the other three in some way that renders the other three immune to a similar insecurity. Neither implication makes any sense.
Whoa, he-llo? [Claiming that jvms have fragmented is] a rather interesting (and bold!) statement to be making there. I don't know if Google has noticed, but J2ME phones all run the same code and the same APIs.
Each time I've developed for a particular phone, I've had to visit the website of the manufacturer and download one or more jars that specify what subset of j2me is supported on the phone. Does this not qualify as having different APIs for different phones?
Issues between phones almost always come down to working around JVM implementation bugs.
Don't jvm implementation bugs indicate that there's different -- and potentially incompatible -- code in the jvms?
In general, rumours abound that submarines are now operating at close to the ambient noise level of the ocean. If genuinely operated so quietly, and given the difficult acoustic environment of the underwater world, it remains difficult to understand just how one might actually detect a submarine. Certainly, passive detection is difficult, and active detection only gives your own position away.
What comes to mind is the idea of doing active detection from remotely deployed mini robots which radio the data back to the main ship.
Even if they make an open phone, most providers won't allow you to use it, and the networks are incompatible anyway.
How exactly will the providers prevent their usage? I buy and use unlocked phones now. And switch at will between AT&T and TMobile, which have compatible networks, by the way.
I wonder how many others have decided to do the same.
I too have decided not to touch Sony products if there's any alternative at all. Even the lack of an alternative will generally not get me to buy Sony anymore, I'll just do without. Wither and die, Sony.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't "having fun burning down the school"... schools serve a useful purpose. The (slow but eventual) death of the current music industry will be more like the tearing down of the Berlin wall.
A question: can these mindreaders detect the difference between "I'm scared of being found out about something illegal" vs "I'm surly and evasive because I don't feel I should have to impress secret police with my joviality"?
The article says that 70,000 people were referred for further screening, of which 700 were booked for some offense like drug possession, weapons charges, or outstanding warrants. So by those numbers, 99% of the people hassled by the program were innocent.
So this super duper collection of fear-detection techniques is (a) inconveniencing the sh*t out of a ton of innocents, and (b) producing results that a blind monkey could produce just as well through sheer statistical accident.
Color me impressed. Don't beat me, I'll smile! Go Amerikka!
1980 called, it wants its question back.
Over that 100,000 miles, the Corolla would burn 3,000 gallons of gas, whereas the Typ-1 would burn 300. So look at it this way: by paying $7.5k ($32.5k-$25k), you'd take $8,000 ($3 * 2,700) out of the pockets of big oil, reducing your gas consumption by 90%. Might not be worth it to you or me, but to a lot of people the prospect of shaking up the oil cartel is somewhere between a delightful proposition and a moral imperative.
Ironic. You'd think that their embracement of evolution would lead them to regard any problem with gays as one that would solve itself, no?
Nobody asserts that the RIAA music sucks because their business practices are abhorrent/repugnant/unethical. Instead, the general assertion is that
- (a) the fact that the majority of RIAA music sucks, and
- (b) the fact that many find the RIAA's biz practices repellent
are not causal of each other in either direction, but are both symptomatic of (i.e. caused by)Not rocket science. Unless I totally mis-understand quantum physics, the Heisenberg-Schrodinger principle tells us that the mere act of observing these cats will change their color.
Why does it matter whether format xyz supports DRM? Can't DRM be overlaid on any arbitrary format with the simple use of encryption?
Hey anonymous reader, why don't you write down allllll your thoughts on this matter and mail them to five years ago when I might have cared.
Thanks for your response. I'm not trying to sound combative or malicious, and I acknowledge that I may not be doing well in trying to meet that goal. Please rest assured that the below comes from genuine curiosity.
The phrase "have to" is relative to some arbitrary baseline, usually implied. For example, a lot of people would take as a given the truth of the statement "I have to eat", but in fact it's only true relative to the baseline "in order to live". Which seems self-evident and redundant until we consider people who don't necessarily want to live. (And such people do exist, albeit often for limited times.)
If someone asserted "I have to eat", it would seem pedantic to insist they rephrase it as, "I could choose to die, but remaining alive is important to me and so it's really impossible for me to give up food." It might be justifiable to seek the latter elaboration out of sheer curiosity, if the person was open to discussing it, but I wouldn't say that I had an issue with the former phrasing.
If you take issue with the "have to" phrasing because on a semantic level you prefer precise terminology (i.e. you'd be happy with the words "I strongly dislike a high-crime area, so I don't want to live in the city"), then I'd simply say: you're fighting a losing battle, in fact a battle that was lost a long time ago and was never winnable.
If instead your motivation is to empower people with the knowledge that they have choices so that they can improve their own lives, I could relate to that.
Looking back on the dialog, I see the possibility that your focus might be specifically in the realm of driving and emissions (both your posts have made use of related examples). If that's the case, then I confess to just having now realized it, and would have responded on a less philosophical and more pragmatic level, if at all.
Hey, I *liked* bend-her.
The reasons you give for your decision don't indicate you're raising a family. Raising a family doesn't force me into the choices I've made any more than you're being forced to keep your job instead of becoming homeless, but the factors I have to take into account include more than just the cost of adequate space. I have to think about school districts, neighborhood safety, the costs of food, medical attention, utitlities, and a whole lot more.
The strawman argument that I'm not being forced to think about these things is misleading. It's not about being forced. It's about wanting a life that isn't a rat race from dawn til dusk, and doesn't have your kids dodging bullets and pedophiles. Granted, some people live beyond their means, but I would hate to think anyone is implying that the gap between reasonable desires and reality is just being imagined by everyone who happens to complain.
There's a joke in here about Richard Stalwarts, but I can't quite figure it out...
Agreed. To me, this third point is the most damning to whatever case the Romantics might have.
I find myself wondering: what damages do the Romantics suppose they have endured? Given that they were prepared to have their song covered in the game, the only motivation for suing that I can think of is that the Romantics don't like the idea the world might think that the actual Romantics participated in the making of the game... because (and I'm grabbing at straws here) that might mean the Romantics are washed up? But if game players assume they're hearing the Romantics, I don't think game players would notice or care, at least not to the Romantics' detriment. The songs making it onto the game are arguably the greats/classics... GH isn't looking to include crap, for obvious reasons. And there's no reason to suppose that the Romantics played the song again instead of simply giving access to the originally recorded tracks anyhow.
I just don't get where the Romantics are coming from on this. It's what I dislike about them. Won't keep me home at night though.
I think I mistakenly came away from the article thinking that the NSA had created all 4 discussed algorithms. A quick re-skimming of the article didn't yield that assertion, so I agree that the other three are immune to the idea that the NSA rigged them like the main one discussed.
Note that if the NSA *had* designed all 4 algorithms, the fact that the described attack is specific only to one of them would not particulary calm my suspicions.
With a name like Holmes, what did we all expect?
Huh? You seem to be implying either that the algorithm criticized by Bruce is in fact secure, or that the insecure algorithm is unlike the other three in some way that renders the other three immune to a similar insecurity. Neither implication makes any sense.
Don't tolerate incompetence.
Especially when the party involved should know better, and when there's a lot at stake.
LOL, in my mind I'm hearing a new variation of Thomas Dolby: "She blinded me with goatse..."
Each time I've developed for a particular phone, I've had to visit the website of the manufacturer and download one or more jars that specify what subset of j2me is supported on the phone. Does this not qualify as having different APIs for different phones?
Issues between phones almost always come down to working around JVM implementation bugs.
Don't jvm implementation bugs indicate that there's different -- and potentially incompatible -- code in the jvms?
What comes to mind is the idea of doing active detection from remotely deployed mini robots which radio the data back to the main ship.
How exactly will the providers prevent their usage? I buy and use unlocked phones now. And switch at will between AT&T and TMobile, which have compatible networks, by the way.
Wow, you'd have to be some kind of super-computing Einsteiny genius-wonder to remember even a fraction of Dvorak's accurate predictions!
I too have decided not to touch Sony products if there's any alternative at all. Even the lack of an alternative will generally not get me to buy Sony anymore, I'll just do without. Wither and die, Sony.
Can we please please PLEASE give Dvorak his own category on slashdot so I can f'ing block his bullshit out???