The articles I've read on this point out that the UCS organized the open letter, but that most of the contributors are NOT members. (Not only that, a number of Republicans who served other Republican presidents)
Main Entry: 1censure
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin censura, from censEre
1 : a judgment involving condemnation
2 archaic : OPINION, JUDGMENT
3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly
4 : an official reprimand
Furthermore, it says clearly, in at least one case, that a U.S. scientist was blocked 11 times from being able to share his research with Dutch scientists who asked for it. That is *censorship*. And since the research dealt with bacterial emissions near hog farms, I highly doubt it was a matter of national security.
Finally, the scientists are not asserting that the Bush administration, or any administration, be required to take their advice. They are saying that the Bush administration is deliberately trying to suppress scientific data with which the administration disagrees. I for one have a much higher degree of confidence in the learned advice of a Nobel laureate than in man who once said that "even C students [like him] can become President of the United States."
Just tonight I was Googling for "number personnel U.S. military" and I was surprised to find many links along the lines of "How to find U.S. military personnel." The site with the most links to directories has a Netherlands domain name, which seemed odd. I tried to find some family members and did turn up some information. Some sites were DoD and had recognizable warnings about monitoring. Another was a.com for the military community and required standard registration procedures. I don't know if it's a good idea to have this information online and I wonder what military folks think about it. I reckon there are pros & cons.
Also, if they are capable of front-paging the bulleted statistics that seem to show a clear advantage, they should be capable of putting up a sentence or two that explains WHY. Even it that sentence rattles off a few things, followed by "...and other factors." (where "other factors" is perhaps a link to the conclusion section of the research).
Is that it appears to be a serious problem that should be corrected as a matter of formal policy and process - no matter who is at fault or who participated.
In this day and age, responsible file protection on the part of our elected officials is mandatory. I realize that's a loaded remark, but no matter how you slice it, something has to change within our Congressional offices and infrastructure. Either someone hacked protected files or someone failed to protect files that should have been protected. I have general administrative access on our LAN and even I occasionally stumble across files I can't access. There are multiple levels of security for all things digital and either someone is misusing them or neglecting there use. Is their a third alternative?
Soap Box:
I too am disturbed by this revelation.
But, if negligence is a factor (on either side), or some level of corruption, or misrepresentation of the people, then let us use our tricameral system to resolve it. Otherwise we are guilty of doing nothing but whipping up yet another impotent hysteria-of-the-moment using mass media. Take them to court. Elect new representatives. Our system of government is designed to be manipulated by the citizenry, intending to enact the will of a majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Problem is that the majority don't participate. The only ones doing the manipulating are an ambitious minority, some championing worthy causes, others power hungry and greedy, perhaps even rotten to the core, but all an ambitious minority just the same.
Some Slashdotters are just too damn cynical and conspiracy-minded. I did not think for a second that this was posted just to be an advertisement. It is only an advertisement in as much as it shows how cool the project is. I thought of it like PBS or NPR. More importantly, the post is not about Seattle Wireless TV. It's about what they are reporting. I think the reports are excellent. I learned things I didn't know. (And it was a nice change from reading/scrolling lengthy articles.)
I guess I could see why you think that. Perhaps I was little too off the cuff or should have elaborated. So, if you are a Marine and your life has been at risk, I apologize for any offense given. I must say though, that your remarks make two assumptions of my position, but neither of them is true.
The first misassumption is that I am somehow "eager" to sacrifice other people's lives. Of course such an idea is ridiculous. Had I been more thoughtful in my remarks, I might have acknowledged the obvious benefits these kinds of technologies bring. I suppose I consider many such bots as tools like any other tools. Furthermore, this category of research seems certain to spill over into non-military uses, as it often does, and that is a good thing. Still, I do believe that certain remote technologies that exist today and/or eventually just having enough bots feeds the potential for remote controlled combat to be an easy answer. That is why I think limits of use should be considered. Listen, I have responded to RFPs essentially looking to equip a single guy in the field with a live visual feed from his gun scope back to CENTCOM so an "analyst" 3000 miles away can make a call on whether or not to pull the trigger. Frankly, that scares the bejeezes outta me.
Your second misassumption is that I think it is "important" to put lives at risk. On the contrary, when I say "war sucks" it is precisely because I think putting lives at risk is absolutely the last thing on earth I ever want to happen.
You know...Gene Simmons is the head of a large EVIL company that lets these crazy things run around and kill people. Where is Tom Selleck when we need him?!
from the article: "Why put a person in harm's way if you can take a machine and new technology to go ahead and do a first look?"
I'll tell you why. Start making it easy for countries to engage in war w/o risking human lives and suddenly you've completely changed the fundamentals of why and when people are willing go to war. Combat bots should be outlawed by the Geneva convention. War sucks, but in order for it to have any legitamcy whatsoever, then lives must be at risk. If lives aren't at risk then wars become too easy to start.
Of course, maybe war will evolve in such a way that we'll just carry out computer models to figure out who wins and then send the "correct" number of losers into extermination chambers ala - what was that episode of Star Trek?
...for parents to shirk their obligations to be personally involved in their childrens' lives. Just another case of applying a technical solution to a social problem.
Resourceful deviants who know about cameras will eventually figure out ways to avoid them.
Well, if we really are going to install cameras everywhere then we'd be wise to heed a 21st century parable and make sure that access to what these things see goes into the public domain and is not exclusively controlled by small groups of quasi-political non-educators.
So, I'm going to do my part and start petitioning my local government. After all, it's the one that made news for installing face-recognition in our public-area camera network.
"This situation is rather odd in a lot of ways," said Gordon Haff, a senior analyst at Illuminata (Nashua, N.H.). For instance, SCO was formerly Caldera International Inc., a Linux distributor and developer before it abandoned Linux to focus on Unix, Haff noted.
So...before they were doing this they were making money by encouraging people to use (w/o a license) a product for which they are now insisting no one has the right to use (w/o a license)?! Am I missing something here?
I don't usually make comments like this, but I have to say that this article is little more than a rehashing of stuff we've known for quite a long time now. In fact, Zeimann's now-famous analysis was published in December of 2002! And the author of this article is certainly not the first to assert that the RIAA needs to deal with the changing environment instead of resisting it.
I've read article and many of the replies here. Several/.ers definitely describe flaws in government contracting processes and hiring practices that I've experienced, but I think they are missing the point. I think there is an additional, more fundamental flaw, that has been overlooked - or at least didn't get modded up high enough for me to see - maybe i should go trolling for a different set of opinions:^).
My experience tells me that the problems begin when we fall into the trap of trying to solve problems with a reactive mindset instead of a proactive mindset (proactive being favorable). We allow daunting problems and/or a need for revenue to back us into a corner time and time again and every time we are forced to hack our way out. Some of that is just old-fashioned survival, but a lot of it can be avoided with deliberate forethought, planning, discipline, and a commitment to quality and detail.
Avoiding clusterf*x has to be an institutional effort, whether the institution is a huge goverment agency or an tee-tiny, independent software shop. Everyone in the organization - operations, sales, IT - has to be on board with the policy that "if it's worth doing at all, then it's worth taking the time to do it right...the first time." I said "fundamental" earlier b/c that has to be something like lesson #5 in life's little handbook - we all heard it all too often when we were kids, we know it's true, and yet now we don't pay it any mind.
I do think the failure to heed that simple maxim usually starts in business development and snowballs by the time it gets to IT, but it really goes both ways. Everyone has to be responsible for maintaining the discipline required to produce quality.
What happened with this system is everyone involved got themselves all in a panic like a drowners who not only won't let you save them, but pull you under too. It's understandable given Sept 11, but "undertandable" and "right" are two different things. Legislators threw money at a situation they didn't try to understand. Deal-makers when after that money, promising to solve problems they knew they didn't understand. Developers enabled deal-makers by claiming to understand. No one took the time to do it right the first time.
I think you are missing the point entirely. This product does not promote a new interaction technique the way 3D does to 2D. It is intended to apply common interaction techniques (searching, hyperlinking) to a medium that does not currently support those techniqes. The goal of this product is to provide a way to search and hyperlink to specific segments of audio/video within other segments of audio/video (think of finding and jumping to a particular chapter on your favorite DVD - you can't do that on the Internet). And, believe me, there is plenty of need for searching those media that have nothing to do w/ entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that some of them are Republicans and at least one of them worked for Nixon!
a number *are* Republicans (not "of")
The articles I've read on this point out that the UCS organized the open letter, but that most of the contributors are NOT members. (Not only that, a number of Republicans who served other Republican presidents)
I think this is exactly what the scientists are trying to say. i.e., no matter how hard you try, politics can't change science, so please stop trying.
Main Entry: 1censure Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh&r Function: noun Etymology: Latin censura, from censEre 1 : a judgment involving condemnation 2 archaic : OPINION, JUDGMENT 3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly 4 : an official reprimand
Furthermore, it says clearly, in at least one case, that a U.S. scientist was blocked 11 times from being able to share his research with Dutch scientists who asked for it. That is *censorship*. And since the research dealt with bacterial emissions near hog farms, I highly doubt it was a matter of national security.
Finally, the scientists are not asserting that the Bush administration, or any administration, be required to take their advice. They are saying that the Bush administration is deliberately trying to suppress scientific data with which the administration disagrees. I for one have a much higher degree of confidence in the learned advice of a Nobel laureate than in man who once said that "even C students [like him] can become President of the United States."
(http://www.worldlegacy.org/HungerQuiz.htm) How about we fix that first?
Just tonight I was Googling for "number personnel U.S. military" and I was surprised to find many links along the lines of "How to find U.S. military personnel." The site with the most links to directories has a Netherlands domain name, which seemed odd. I tried to find some family members and did turn up some information. Some sites were DoD and had recognizable warnings about monitoring. Another was a .com for the military community and required standard registration procedures. I don't know if it's a good idea to have this information online and I wonder what military folks think about it. I reckon there are pros & cons.
Also, if they are capable of front-paging the bulleted statistics that seem to show a clear advantage, they should be capable of putting up a sentence or two that explains WHY. Even it that sentence rattles off a few things, followed by "...and other factors." (where "other factors" is perhaps a link to the conclusion section of the research).
In this day and age, responsible file protection on the part of our elected officials is mandatory. I realize that's a loaded remark, but no matter how you slice it, something has to change within our Congressional offices and infrastructure. Either someone hacked protected files or someone failed to protect files that should have been protected. I have general administrative access on our LAN and even I occasionally stumble across files I can't access. There are multiple levels of security for all things digital and either someone is misusing them or neglecting there use. Is their a third alternative?
Soap Box:
I too am disturbed by this revelation.
But, if negligence is a factor (on either side), or some level of corruption, or misrepresentation of the people, then let us use our tricameral system to resolve it. Otherwise we are guilty of doing nothing but whipping up yet another impotent hysteria-of-the-moment using mass media. Take them to court. Elect new representatives. Our system of government is designed to be manipulated by the citizenry, intending to enact the will of a majority while protecting the rights of minorities. Problem is that the majority don't participate. The only ones doing the manipulating are an ambitious minority, some championing worthy causes, others power hungry and greedy, perhaps even rotten to the core, but all an ambitious minority just the same.
Yes, interesting...Is MONEY a government document? :^)
Apparently they don't count operating system when they use the term "modular."
Excellent comment. But, I guess I should expect that from one of The Usual Suspects. :^)
He wants the charges made public. He knows what the charges are, but the warrant is currently sealed, and therefore not public.
Yes, in fact, many teams are spending much more than a million bucks to try and win. It's exciting.
Some Slashdotters are just too damn cynical and conspiracy-minded. I did not think for a second that this was posted just to be an advertisement. It is only an advertisement in as much as it shows how cool the project is. I thought of it like PBS or NPR. More importantly, the post is not about Seattle Wireless TV. It's about what they are reporting. I think the reports are excellent. I learned things I didn't know. (And it was a nice change from reading/scrolling lengthy articles.)
The first misassumption is that I am somehow "eager" to sacrifice other people's lives. Of course such an idea is ridiculous. Had I been more thoughtful in my remarks, I might have acknowledged the obvious benefits these kinds of technologies bring. I suppose I consider many such bots as tools like any other tools. Furthermore, this category of research seems certain to spill over into non-military uses, as it often does, and that is a good thing. Still, I do believe that certain remote technologies that exist today and/or eventually just having enough bots feeds the potential for remote controlled combat to be an easy answer. That is why I think limits of use should be considered. Listen, I have responded to RFPs essentially looking to equip a single guy in the field with a live visual feed from his gun scope back to CENTCOM so an "analyst" 3000 miles away can make a call on whether or not to pull the trigger. Frankly, that scares the bejeezes outta me.
Your second misassumption is that I think it is "important" to put lives at risk. On the contrary, when I say "war sucks" it is precisely because I think putting lives at risk is absolutely the last thing on earth I ever want to happen.
Runaway
I'll tell you why. Start making it easy for countries to engage in war w/o risking human lives and suddenly you've completely changed the fundamentals of why and when people are willing go to war. Combat bots should be outlawed by the Geneva convention. War sucks, but in order for it to have any legitamcy whatsoever, then lives must be at risk. If lives aren't at risk then wars become too easy to start.
Of course, maybe war will evolve in such a way that we'll just carry out computer models to figure out who wins and then send the "correct" number of losers into extermination chambers ala - what was that episode of Star Trek?
8 ^ |
"Microsoft Code at Fault..."
Is that a Freudian slip or what? :^)
Well, if we really are going to install cameras everywhere then we'd be wise to heed a 21st century parable and make sure that access to what these things see goes into the public domain and is not exclusively controlled by small groups of quasi-political non-educators.
So, I'm going to do my part and start petitioning my local government. After all, it's the one that made news for installing face-recognition in our public-area camera network.
So...before they were doing this they were making money by encouraging people to use (w/o a license) a product for which they are now insisting no one has the right to use (w/o a license)?! Am I missing something here?
I don't usually make comments like this, but I have to say that this article is little more than a rehashing of stuff we've known for quite a long time now. In fact, Zeimann's now-famous analysis was published in December of 2002! And the author of this article is certainly not the first to assert that the RIAA needs to deal with the changing environment instead of resisting it.
I've read article and many of the replies here. Several /.ers definitely describe flaws in government contracting processes and hiring practices that I've experienced, but I think they are missing the point. I think there is an additional, more fundamental flaw, that has been overlooked - or at least didn't get modded up high enough for me to see - maybe i should go trolling for a different set of opinions :^).
My experience tells me that the problems begin when we fall into the trap of trying to solve problems with a reactive mindset instead of a proactive mindset (proactive being favorable). We allow daunting problems and/or a need for revenue to back us into a corner time and time again and every time we are forced to hack our way out. Some of that is just old-fashioned survival, but a lot of it can be avoided with deliberate forethought, planning, discipline, and a commitment to quality and detail.
Avoiding clusterf*x has to be an institutional effort, whether the institution is a huge goverment agency or an tee-tiny, independent software shop. Everyone in the organization - operations, sales, IT - has to be on board with the policy that "if it's worth doing at all, then it's worth taking the time to do it right...the first time." I said "fundamental" earlier b/c that has to be something like lesson #5 in life's little handbook - we all heard it all too often when we were kids, we know it's true, and yet now we don't pay it any mind.
I do think the failure to heed that simple maxim usually starts in business development and snowballs by the time it gets to IT, but it really goes both ways. Everyone has to be responsible for maintaining the discipline required to produce quality.
What happened with this system is everyone involved got themselves all in a panic like a drowners who not only won't let you save them, but pull you under too. It's understandable given Sept 11, but "undertandable" and "right" are two different things. Legislators threw money at a situation they didn't try to understand. Deal-makers when after that money, promising to solve problems they knew they didn't understand. Developers enabled deal-makers by claiming to understand. No one took the time to do it right the first time.
P.S. It doesn't have to be this way.
Don't need to. Just /. it.
By the way, I tried many derivations of the URL and could not pull up a site.
I think you are missing the point entirely. This product does not promote a new interaction technique the way 3D does to 2D. It is intended to apply common interaction techniques (searching, hyperlinking) to a medium that does not currently support those techniqes. The goal of this product is to provide a way to search and hyperlink to specific segments of audio/video within other segments of audio/video (think of finding and jumping to a particular chapter on your favorite DVD - you can't do that on the Internet). And, believe me, there is plenty of need for searching those media that have nothing to do w/ entertainment.