Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." -- Gospel of Thomas 77
Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and rest.'" -- Gospel of Thomas 50
Almost all cell phones now are connected to the internet, even the very cheap ones.
Thus, the year it says we will see the first murder via an internet connected device likely has already happened.
What they mean to say is the first murder via an internet connected device that uses the internet itself to commit the murder.
But really, some of those cell phones go off when sent a text. It really is barely different for them to go off when receiving an email and more modern phones like the iPhone's texts go over the internet anyway. Even though these people are using much cheaper models, it could easily have already happened.
I work with writers on press releases as part of my job and I can tell you that if you publish a press release with your name appearing it in many times, there is a good chance that you could push his website off the front page of Google or at least far down the list. Part of the reason for this is when you seed a press release it goes out to multiple sources who are in good standing with Google, and so these links tend to propagate toward the top of the list for low-volume terms. Most people's names fall into this category and the name we are talking about here certainly does or this guys website would have never even appeared on the list. If your name was Michael Jordan, for example, you would never have this problem.
So my recommendation is to get a press release out. If you already have a business or other important news item that it may be valuable to communicate about on the Internet, you may be able to kill two birds with one stone here. You could earn a little karma on the Internet for your business or writing product while at the same time drowning out the message you don't want to see when your name is googled.
As a professional writer you may even have a fair grasp on how to proceed in this direction on your own once suggested, but if you need help with it, as I said I do it as part of my job, so you could check out elephantwriters.com if more assistance is needed.
__
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. My original sig was raptured. Details at 11.
Yes. (The U.S. government can do anything. Your only recourse if they do something wrong is to sue them. Suing them typically takes years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. Thus, in a practical sense no one really has any firm rights any longer because the system in charge of correcting breaches to those rights is not accessible or swift for an average citizen using it.)
It may not cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you can get the EFF or the ACLU on your side, but you are basically correct. Do you have any advice about how to secure data loaded into the cloud? Obviously, encryption comes to mind, but it would be helpful to have some discussion about techniques. If you are using compute instances allocated by a cloud (e.g., Amazon EC2 or Rackspace, etc.) then the means of decryption may also exist in the cloud which doesn't provide you any protection. Got any tricks to share?
You are sort of personalizing the question to me, whereas I'm just using common sense. I don't have a particular care for security myself. For example, unlike most others around me (who are often completely untechnical) I don't even bother with a passcode on my smartphone. Well, that's not entirely true. I have enough of a care for security that I don't want to get a virus or malware, but I already use a minority operating system, so I don't get them. I also don't want people to gain easy access to my systems, so I use a decent password on them. Problem solved for me, but I'm just doing the equivalent of locking a door. The poster has a whole different level of security in mind.
So, again, I don't have any personal tricks, only ideas. If you want to encrypt data in the cloud used for computing one option would be homomorphic encryption, but it is more of an idea itself than a workable product. Slashdot ran an article on it previously:
A more practical idea would be messing with the encryption key in clever ways. For example, you could store a encrypted key on a 3rd party site and only allow access to it from a specified IP range. Therefore, even if your application was stolen and all its data, that application run on another machine still couldn't access the key.
Truly, there aren't any great solutions because someone getting access to your cloud data is like someone rooting your home computer if your data was on your home computer. It's like saying "How can I secure my home data while a hacker has remote root access to my computer." Really, you can't.
Use FreeBSD or other extreme minority operating system.
I've seen numerous people recommend FreeBSD. What's so special about FreeBSD that makes it more secure than anything else? Keep in mind that OSX is based on FreeBSD so the "extreme minority" concept may not apply to it.
Most OS X hacks rely on the stuff built on top of BSD, not BSD itself. One of the big ones this year used Java vulnerabilities. That said, FreeBSD is a fairly security-conscious operating system and is a minority operating system. Hackers, both professional and script kiddies, tend to use known toolkits and so using a computing environment that is not mainstream is generally advantageous for security. It doesn't need to be FreeBSD.
Not any, but likely most
Do you have any detail to back up your assertion that it is safe to buy a PC from any manufacturer? From what I've seen, DELL and HP and Gateway and various other PC builders load every system up with crapware -- that
Does Windows supply a backdoor for the U.S. or other governments?
Yes.
Should you really trust your Linux multiverse repository?
No.
Do Google and Apple data mine your private mobile phone data for private information?
Yes.
Does Ubuntu's sharing of my data with Amazon compromise my privacy?
Yes.
Can the U.S. Government seize your cloud data without a warrant?
Yes. (The U.S. government can do anything. Your only recourse if they do something wrong is to sue them. Suing them typically takes years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. Thus, in a practical sense no one really has any firm rights any longer because the system in charge of correcting breaches to those rights is not accessible or swift for an average citizen using it.)
Can McAfee or Kaspersky really be trusted?
No.
Naturally, the question arises of how to establish and maintain an ironclad workstation or laptop for the purpose of handling sensitive information or doing security research. DARPA has approached the problem by awarding a $21.4M contract to Invincea to create a secure version of Android. What should we do if we don't have $21.4M USD?
Use FreeBSD or other extreme minority operating system.
Is it safe to buy a PC from any manufacturer?
Not any, but likely most.
Is it even safe to buy individual computer components and assemble one's own machine?
Again, usually it would be. It seems like software is typically the vector of attack. Hardware much less often comes with built-in vulnerabilities.
Or might the motherboard firmware be compromised?
Less likely than the OS, but remotely possible from some manufacturers.
What steps can one take to ensure a truly secure computing environment? Is this even possible?
Don't connect your computer to the Internet. Even if the OS is hacked, the motherboard firmware is hacked and the hardware itself is hacked, it doesn't matter if nobody can access it but you.
Can anyone recommend a through checklist or suggest best practices?
I agree with you entirely. The problem is, you are one of those nutjobs for spouting that old line. How many of those 22 stabbings would have survived because stabbings are not as lethal as shootings? I bet at least one. That's one more future for some kid. Isn't that worth it?
I'm almost sick at myself, for spouting another old line "think of the children," but for once I think this is a time we should think of them.
Ultra Wide Monitor? That seems a strange title for this guy. This is a 30" panel with the top chopped off. It says it is 699.7 mm wide in the stats. That's 27.5 inches wide, the same with as a standard 30" monitor (they measure diagonally). It is also has the same horizontal resolution value as many 30 inch monitors, 2560.
So, it is a 30 inch monitor with about 500 pixels chopped off the top.
But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.
Talk about a bad argument. Nothing that was expensive can ever be done more cheaply, because if it could it would already be done. It's like saying in the late 90's "I am deeply skeptical about Intel's business plan. If you could make 386-level processors cheap, someone would have already done it."
First, it is not a complaint. People who said that technically the sun doesn't have to go around the earth, weren't complaining about astrophysical principles. They were suggesting that perhaps the universe doesn't work in the way we are assuming.
Second, your watermelon analogy doesn't apply because we aren't watermelons. The problem with our habitable zone is it is anthropocentric. If you want to make an analogy it is more like a species of fish, who do a survey of life on their planet and never bother to look on the land for it because the land isn't part of the "habitable zone" (for fish).
Finally, I'm not disagreeing with any of the stuff about the habitable zone as being a good place to look. I'm just saying that with as little as we know about xenobiology the concept of the habitable zone should be taken with a grain of salt.
The habitable zone is not a fine line; it's a nonexistent line. It is a misnomer that is far too anthropocentric.
First, we don't know enough about life to know that life based on chemistry unlike our chemistry is not possible or prevalent. The habitable zone only applies to carbon-based life-as-we-know it. Life could easily be possible using alternative chemistries that can exist on radically different planetary situations.
Then, even taking that into account even life-as-we-know it can exist beyond the habitable zone. For example, one could dream up or even view examples in our own solar system where earthly life could exist that are not in the habitable zone, namely on the moons of gas giants, which are warmed primarily through forces other than our sun. Even parts of planets could have persistent habitable areas for microbial life outside the habitable zone.
Really, all the habitable zone tells us is an area where we are likely to find planets that are close twins to our own. It tells us about potential human habitability. It truly tells us little about actual alien habitability.
I think you are onto something here. Clearly, we have to introduce gripping story-lines into EULAs to make them into a new art form worthy of taking the time to read:
"Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user," Samantha said, stripping off her blouse. A voice echoed back to her through the open window on the street below, "UNLESS YOU HAVE ANOTHER AGREEMENT DIRECTLY WITH ADOBE THAT CONTROLS AND ALTERS YOUR USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ADOBE PRODUCTS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BELOW APPLY TO YOU." She gasped and lunged for the pistol.
"But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"
You can use someone else's code in two perfectly legal ways in this scenario. First, you could copy it and alter it to the point it no longer bears enough resemblance to the original to cause any trouble, even though it still works great. Second, you could simply study it and learn how it works and then start from scratch yourself.
Well I guess we are alone in the universe. If no aliens found us in the 80's it's not looking good.
Plenty of aliens found us in the 80's. However, they did so using microscopic-sized nano-probes, extremely powerful telescoping cameras and the second and third track titles of Duran Duran's self-titled album, so we never noticed.
One planet is almost entirely sugar...Life could be present in these odd places...
I imagine a long dead civilization rotating around a familiar looking star. Thousands of years later when their radio messages get to us, we will be puzzled by their repeated SOS messages sent into the void. What killed them? It wasn't an ecological disaster, a virulent plague or a nuclear war -- it was diabetes.
"An anonymous reader writes 'For the first time, blind people could read street signs with a device that translates letters into Braille and beams the results directly onto a person's eye.'"
Actual Article:
"The technology, used primarily for patients with retinal pigmentosis which causes patients to lose the use of their retina but to still have working neurons, can take up to 10 seconds to convert a single letter and minutes to read a single word, and can only be used with words that are printed in a large font and held up close to a person's face. Street signs, for example, cannot be read."
This is a sort of Ayn Rand-ish argument. The problem with this sort of argument is it sort of dissolves the whole concept of selfishness and altruism. Just because being altruistic can have selfish rewards, does not mean altruism does not exist and everything is selfishness.
Yes, the world is a rather selfish place and most people are rather selfish. That doesn't mean they are ENTIRELY selfish. Non-selfish acts do occur. People help others expecting nothing in return and sometimes getting nothing in return as well.
So, because this occurs, people are not entirely selfish.
Secondly, just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
Buddhism is not about ignorance. To make a computing analogy, Buddhism is about a method of programing to allow supercomputing while never using more than 0% of the CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." -- Gospel of Thomas 77
Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and rest.'" -- Gospel of Thomas 50
Clearly you didn't read the Bible well enough. There were no mentions of crypt(3) in Genesis. Adam's punishment was serpent.
__
Too late.
In 2012 Pakistan shut down their cell phone networks for a period of time . The reason they did this was to prevent bombings, which often use a cell phone as their trigger.
Almost all cell phones now are connected to the internet, even the very cheap ones.
Thus, the year it says we will see the first murder via an internet connected device likely has already happened.
What they mean to say is the first murder via an internet connected device that uses the internet itself to commit the murder.
But really, some of those cell phones go off when sent a text. It really is barely different for them to go off when receiving an email and more modern phones like the iPhone's texts go over the internet anyway. Even though these people are using much cheaper models, it could easily have already happened.
SEO is actually a great idea.
I work with writers on press releases as part of my job and I can tell you that if you publish a press release with your name appearing it in many times, there is a good chance that you could push his website off the front page of Google or at least far down the list. Part of the reason for this is when you seed a press release it goes out to multiple sources who are in good standing with Google, and so these links tend to propagate toward the top of the list for low-volume terms. Most people's names fall into this category and the name we are talking about here certainly does or this guys website would have never even appeared on the list. If your name was Michael Jordan, for example, you would never have this problem.
So my recommendation is to get a press release out. If you already have a business or other important news item that it may be valuable to communicate about on the Internet, you may be able to kill two birds with one stone here. You could earn a little karma on the Internet for your business or writing product while at the same time drowning out the message you don't want to see when your name is googled.
As a professional writer you may even have a fair grasp on how to proceed in this direction on your own once suggested, but if you need help with it, as I said I do it as part of my job, so you could check out elephantwriters.com if more assistance is needed.
__
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. My original sig was raptured. Details at 11.
Marxist AGW scientists? #include "irony.h"
error: conflicting declaration or overloaded equality operator /usr/include/logic/irony.h
I like the tone of this post. Some nits to pick:
Yes. (The U.S. government can do anything. Your only recourse if they do something wrong is to sue them. Suing them typically takes years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. Thus, in a practical sense no one really has any firm rights any longer because the system in charge of correcting breaches to those rights is not accessible or swift for an average citizen using it.)
It may not cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you can get the EFF or the ACLU on your side, but you are basically correct. Do you have any advice about how to secure data loaded into the cloud? Obviously, encryption comes to mind, but it would be helpful to have some discussion about techniques. If you are using compute instances allocated by a cloud (e.g., Amazon EC2 or Rackspace, etc.) then the means of decryption may also exist in the cloud which doesn't provide you any protection. Got any tricks to share?
You are sort of personalizing the question to me, whereas I'm just using common sense. I don't have a particular care for security myself. For example, unlike most others around me (who are often completely untechnical) I don't even bother with a passcode on my smartphone. Well, that's not entirely true. I have enough of a care for security that I don't want to get a virus or malware, but I already use a minority operating system, so I don't get them. I also don't want people to gain easy access to my systems, so I use a decent password on them. Problem solved for me, but I'm just doing the equivalent of locking a door. The poster has a whole different level of security in mind.
So, again, I don't have any personal tricks, only ideas. If you want to encrypt data in the cloud used for computing one option would be homomorphic encryption, but it is more of an idea itself than a workable product. Slashdot ran an article on it previously:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/06/11/2056235/the-beginnings-of-encrypted-computing-in-the-cloud
A more practical idea would be messing with the encryption key in clever ways. For example, you could store a encrypted key on a 3rd party site and only allow access to it from a specified IP range. Therefore, even if your application was stolen and all its data, that application run on another machine still couldn't access the key.
Truly, there aren't any great solutions because someone getting access to your cloud data is like someone rooting your home computer if your data was on your home computer. It's like saying "How can I secure my home data while a hacker has remote root access to my computer." Really, you can't.
Use FreeBSD or other extreme minority operating system.
I've seen numerous people recommend FreeBSD. What's so special about FreeBSD that makes it more secure than anything else? Keep in mind that OSX is based on FreeBSD so the "extreme minority" concept may not apply to it.
Most OS X hacks rely on the stuff built on top of BSD, not BSD itself. One of the big ones this year used Java vulnerabilities. That said, FreeBSD is a fairly security-conscious operating system and is a minority operating system. Hackers, both professional and script kiddies, tend to use known toolkits and so using a computing environment that is not mainstream is generally advantageous for security. It doesn't need to be FreeBSD.
Not any, but likely most
Do you have any detail to back up your assertion that it is safe to buy a PC from any manufacturer? From what I've seen, DELL and HP and Gateway and various other PC builders load every system up with crapware -- that
Do Windows, OSX, and Linux have security holes?
Yes.
Does Windows supply a backdoor for the U.S. or other governments?
Yes.
Should you really trust your Linux multiverse repository?
No.
Do Google and Apple data mine your private mobile phone data for private information?
Yes.
Does Ubuntu's sharing of my data with Amazon compromise my privacy?
Yes.
Can the U.S. Government seize your cloud data without a warrant?
Yes. (The U.S. government can do anything. Your only recourse if they do something wrong is to sue them. Suing them typically takes years of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars for you. Thus, in a practical sense no one really has any firm rights any longer because the system in charge of correcting breaches to those rights is not accessible or swift for an average citizen using it.)
Can McAfee or Kaspersky really be trusted?
No.
Naturally, the question arises of how to establish and maintain an ironclad workstation or laptop for the purpose of handling sensitive information or doing security research. DARPA has approached the problem by awarding a $21.4M contract to Invincea to create a secure version of Android. What should we do if we don't have $21.4M USD?
Use FreeBSD or other extreme minority operating system.
Is it safe to buy a PC from any manufacturer?
Not any, but likely most.
Is it even safe to buy individual computer components and assemble one's own machine?
Again, usually it would be. It seems like software is typically the vector of attack. Hardware much less often comes with built-in vulnerabilities.
Or might the motherboard firmware be compromised?
Less likely than the OS, but remotely possible from some manufacturers.
What steps can one take to ensure a truly secure computing environment? Is this even possible?
Don't connect your computer to the Internet. Even if the OS is hacked, the motherboard firmware is hacked and the hardware itself is hacked, it doesn't matter if nobody can access it but you.
Can anyone recommend a through checklist or suggest best practices?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=secure+hardware+and+software+computing+checklist
__
I agree with you entirely. The problem is, you are one of those nutjobs for spouting that old line. How many of those 22 stabbings would have survived because stabbings are not as lethal as shootings? I bet at least one. That's one more future for some kid. Isn't that worth it?
I'm almost sick at myself, for spouting another old line "think of the children," but for once I think this is a time we should think of them.
Ultra Wide Monitor? That seems a strange title for this guy. This is a 30" panel with the top chopped off. It says it is 699.7 mm wide in the stats. That's 27.5 inches wide, the same with as a standard 30" monitor (they measure diagonally). It is also has the same horizontal resolution value as many 30 inch monitors, 2560.
So, it is a 30 inch monitor with about 500 pixels chopped off the top.
And not just old news, old news already covered by slashdot.
__
Sig: A short personalized message at the end of an internet post.
But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.
Talk about a bad argument. Nothing that was expensive can ever be done more cheaply, because if it could it would already be done. It's like saying in the late 90's "I am deeply skeptical about Intel's business plan. If you could make 386-level processors cheap, someone would have already done it."
Some companies are the first to do things.
__
I don't disagree. What I said is not at all incompatible with what you said.
First, it is not a complaint. People who said that technically the sun doesn't have to go around the earth, weren't complaining about astrophysical principles. They were suggesting that perhaps the universe doesn't work in the way we are assuming.
Second, your watermelon analogy doesn't apply because we aren't watermelons. The problem with our habitable zone is it is anthropocentric. If you want to make an analogy it is more like a species of fish, who do a survey of life on their planet and never bother to look on the land for it because the land isn't part of the "habitable zone" (for fish).
Finally, I'm not disagreeing with any of the stuff about the habitable zone as being a good place to look. I'm just saying that with as little as we know about xenobiology the concept of the habitable zone should be taken with a grain of salt.
__
The habitable zone is not a fine line; it's a nonexistent line. It is a misnomer that is far too anthropocentric.
First, we don't know enough about life to know that life based on chemistry unlike our chemistry is not possible or prevalent. The habitable zone only applies to carbon-based life-as-we-know it. Life could easily be possible using alternative chemistries that can exist on radically different planetary situations.
Then, even taking that into account even life-as-we-know it can exist beyond the habitable zone. For example, one could dream up or even view examples in our own solar system where earthly life could exist that are not in the habitable zone, namely on the moons of gas giants, which are warmed primarily through forces other than our sun. Even parts of planets could have persistent habitable areas for microbial life outside the habitable zone.
Really, all the habitable zone tells us is an area where we are likely to find planets that are close twins to our own. It tells us about potential human habitability. It truly tells us little about actual alien habitability.
__
I think you are onto something here. Clearly, we have to introduce gripping story-lines into EULAs to make them into a new art form worthy of taking the time to read:
"Adobe products are not sold; rather, copies of Adobe products, including Macromedia branded products, are licensed all the way through the distribution channel to the end user," Samantha said, stripping off her blouse. A voice echoed back to her through the open window on the street below, "UNLESS YOU HAVE ANOTHER AGREEMENT DIRECTLY WITH ADOBE THAT CONTROLS AND ALTERS YOUR USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ADOBE PRODUCTS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LICENSE AGREEMENTS BELOW APPLY TO YOU." She gasped and lunged for the pistol.
___
"But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"
You can use someone else's code in two perfectly legal ways in this scenario. First, you could copy it and alter it to the point it no longer bears enough resemblance to the original to cause any trouble, even though it still works great. Second, you could simply study it and learn how it works and then start from scratch yourself.
By analogy, this would be like like Green Day copying Chicago copying Led Zeppelin.
As you can see here the aliens logically concluded "You're looking at planet earth. There's no sign of life." How this music video can be explained without recourse to alien communication is beyond me.
Well I guess we are alone in the universe. If no aliens found us in the 80's it's not looking good.
Plenty of aliens found us in the 80's. However, they did so using microscopic-sized nano-probes, extremely powerful telescoping cameras and the second and third track titles of Duran Duran's self-titled album, so we never noticed.
One planet is almost entirely sugar...Life could be present in these odd places...
I imagine a long dead civilization rotating around a familiar looking star. Thousands of years later when their radio messages get to us, we will be puzzled by their repeated SOS messages sent into the void. What killed them? It wasn't an ecological disaster, a virulent plague or a nuclear war -- it was diabetes.
PREVIOUS CURRENT CAN? I say, previous current cannot nor could it ever.
Slashdot Summary:
"An anonymous reader writes 'For the first time, blind people could read street signs with a device that translates letters into Braille and beams the results directly onto a person's eye.'"
Actual Article:
"The technology, used primarily for patients with retinal pigmentosis which causes patients to lose the use of their retina but to still have working neurons, can take up to 10 seconds to convert a single letter and minutes to read a single word, and can only be used with words that are printed in a large font and held up close to a person's face. Street signs, for example, cannot be read. "
__
Zeno's Paradox is about 98% of what it takes to invent differential calculus.
Sure, but the problem is that last 2% can never be reached, because there are an infinite amount of half-ways in the way.
This is a sort of Ayn Rand-ish argument. The problem with this sort of argument is it sort of dissolves the whole concept of selfishness and altruism. Just because being altruistic can have selfish rewards, does not mean altruism does not exist and everything is selfishness.
Yes, the world is a rather selfish place and most people are rather selfish. That doesn't mean they are ENTIRELY selfish. Non-selfish acts do occur. People help others expecting nothing in return and sometimes getting nothing in return as well.
So, because this occurs, people are not entirely selfish.
Secondly, just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
__
Buddhism is not about ignorance. To make a computing analogy, Buddhism is about a method of programing to allow supercomputing while never using more than 0% of the CPU.
For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."
Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.