2) The Emotional
You can have my fingerprints when you rip them from my fingers, you fucking fascist pig.
3) The Logical
A National ID card system would not have stopped what happend. A national ID card system really doesn't do much except help you keep tabs on law abiding citizens. Not criminals. Oh, and are you going to send me to jail if I refuse to carry it? If I refuse to get one?
4) The Patriotic
This whole scheme would greatly facility control and pacification of the population by a future would-be dictator, would it not? I'm definitely against this idea from word one. And Ellison can suck my farts out of my rectum. Fuck him and fuck Oracle. It's a matter of principle now, I'd rather not give money to him or his organization.
But of course the sheeple favor it. Oh, wait, the sheeple APPEAR to favor it, beacuse of how the survey is presented. Go back to sleep America, Big Brother is watching and is firmly in control.
"I will not be filed, briefed, debriefed, indexed or numbered!" -- The Prisoner
I can't accept that it's better to leave than to try and change things. Besides, where would I go? Canada? The UK? Australia? All these places seem to be heading down the same road as we are.
I'm also not so sure it's quite as bad as you say, though I certainly agree, it can get much worse and the current situation definitely looks like the start of it.
And I love my country, both the reality and its ideal. I love it enough to try to change it, where I can. Maybe one day I'll come to the conclusion that it isn't possible, and I might then go.
Come on guys, you've all seen Star Trek. Do you think the Enterprises computer system is much different? You don't see anyone in there with a PC.
Now I know why every alien and it's familial unit could hack into the computer system without so much as glancing through a manual...
Seriously, lets not confuse technobabble with real issues of OS performance.
How does this design differ from a well-written distributed processing library? What advantages of speed will this give for applications like, say, QuakeIV^2?
What they describe sounds wonderful for a cluster of machines with very fast interconnects, working on very specific problems that are amenable to distributed processing, but ugly for 100,000,000 machines spread out to hell and back, engaged in 100M+1 tasks.
How about the TUNES project? Looks kind of similar, but with loftier goals.
I'm just not convinced I'd want the OS they describe. Doesn't solve any of my pressing problems.
DON'T TREAD ON ME.
by t0qer on Wednesday December 31, @07:00PM
(User #230538 Info)
I'm very surprised at slashdot, slashdot should be accused of treason right now.
Slashdot.. for the most part, is american programmed, and it's contents is made mostly by americans. Lets be real about that ok?
Why are you trying to rile the geeks up against the goverment right now? That's wrong.
It is never wrong to speak out against actions that you think are wrong. It is never wrong to question motivations and purposes, because they can sometimes be just as nasty as anything our enemies might do.
When you were growing up, did you ever have some relative, that would say things like "They shouldn't be letting all these people into the country unchecked". For a time I thought that this was biggotry, but I have come to realize, this is the truth!
No, it is still bigotry, because this mythical relative didn't give any reasons WHY they shouldn't be let into the country, only that because they are "those people" (pick your favorite minority), they shouldn't be allowed in.
I've been victum from our own sides ability to track people down on the internet. Back in janurary some IRC kiddies tracked me down to my work, called the director of IT and I was fired, one week after closing escrow on my house.
You fail to give reasons why you were fired. Were you fired for being on IRC? Were you fired for giving out company secrets? Were you fired for being a "script kiddie" yourself?
Ok i'm not proud of that, but I disclosed that to prove a point, we the geeks of the USA have that much power to screen people at the border, build technology for our troops, spend money where its needed and rally the people together. Anyone without a positive history, we turn them away. We do not want terrorist or murderors in this country. I know my family had pre-usa history no more than 100 years ago from Sicily. Believe me it was checked!
Do you honestly think that immigration is a walk in the park? Many people where I work are naturalized citizens, and let me tell you, it does take a good record and a nice chunk of time (several years if lucky) to get "in". The problem is that, if you have a large support organization, any history can be accurately faked. Faked so well that no background check will uncover it. No, what it seems like you are advocating is just as racist and prejudicial as that relative you speak of. Something along the lines of "Because we can't really prove person X isn't a terorist, lets not take the chance."
Now, hold a second: Sure, beef up immigration background checks if you like. Make the requirements for entry more stringent. But do NOT block an entire group of people. If you're going to deny someone entry, do it for a valid reason, not bigotry.
Instead of rallying everyone up to go anti.gov. Rally them up to support.gov and everything we needs to do in order to pull through this. Last night I was at a party for a marine reservist. Now people please be open minded to what we discussed.
Pardon me, but it was blind faith in the government that allowed citizens of Japanese descent to be placed into camps.
It was blind faith in the government that allowed McCarthy to do the damage he did.
As an American, I have a right and a duty to speak out against that which I think is wrong. Slashdot provides one avenue to share these thoughts. I am also a member of the EFF, and on Monday I have several letters to mail off to my representatives.
I've been very reactionary these last few days, so I'll do my best to keep the vitriol down.
It is a debatable point as to whether or not the writers of the constitution were aware of technological change, but it is a fact that the writting in that document does not specify what sort of speech, nor in what manner that speech is delivered or produced.
It is highly probable that they were aware of individual's using printing presses to create phamplets advocating one or more positions. So it is likely that is one form of speech that is covered.
Now, abstract thought: How similar is putting up a webpage advocating / decrying X to firing up your own printing press to create 1000 pamphlets with the same message? Personally I see no difference in these two actions. They differ merely in technological embodiment as well as potential reach.
Email and snail email also have the same direct relation, and so, that is covered as well. You would make more headway with your argument with me if you were advocating the censoring of Television, as that is a technology with a less-obvious corellary.
"Aiding an enemy in time of war". What is aid? If I say that America shouldn't bomb it's enemies into the stone age, am I aiding the enemy? If I mention on my web page that a "whole lot of people just got onboard aircraft" at my local airbase, am I aiding the enemy? The language is vague and gives license to make anything a crime of treason, if you just use a little creativity.
First, many, many thanks for taking the time to offer a reasonable response. I'm afraid that my response to the orignal poster was rather more heated than it should have been, and that I took a reactionary stance as a response to a perceived assault on my ideals of freedom.
You are completely correct, variable security is possible. My problem is that no one, not me, not anyone, has yet been able to come up with a set of suggestions that appear to be reasonable. In fact, it seems quite difficult to even imagine, in a perfect world, what sorts of security measures will provide a decent level of protection at "reasonable" cost.
I believe part of the problem is that, since the exact form of any future attacks aren't currently known, it isn't possible to come up with a workable set of protections. You can't protect against an unknown threat, one you didn't imagine.
Another issue is that this group, and probably others like them, seem very able to come up with creative work-arounds to whatever procedures we put in place.
Now, the Israel concern. I personally lean towards the "no foriegn entanglements" side of things. I have to ask myself, can I stand by and allow another country to be invaded, possibly destroyed? Is it our responsibility to protect the world? It is my thought and belief that, no, we do not have such a responsibility. Do not think that I enjoy the idea of watching millions die, but I think that nothing we do will ever prevent war in that area, it is merely a question of our casualties or theirs?
Would it appear that we've given in to terrorism? Yes. Would it also be the prudent thing to do? In my opinion, yes. It might be unpopular, but it would save our lives. There are no easy answers. I am not even very confident that what I've suggested would work, really.
I personally am not willing to make this exchange of privacy for security. Not now. Not ever. Daily I live with dangers of far greater statistical likelihood of causing my demise, the occaisonal terrorist attack doesn't make a dent in that. The simple act of driving is far more deadly and dangerous. I live in an area frequently hit by hurricanes. I live in a big city, so there's violent crime to worry about. I smoke. Terrorists are an extremely minor threat in comparison.
So I have not yet felt any fear that I might be involved in an attack.
My second point is that all the security measures in the world won't protect you from a group of determined individuals who are willing to die to kill you. People are assassinated inside of maximum security prisons, what makes you think a group of terrorists can't cause more damage?
Therefore, as there is no credible defense, there is no reason to trade away that which I and my forefathers hold so dear.
Also, your arguments about the detectability of people not using backdoors are simply wrong. In order to be sure a backdoor is present, you have to attempt to use that backdoor, and then analyze the resulting content to see if it's actually decrypted. Well, if I'm encrypting binary content, and you don't have any idea of what sort of file this is, it's still going to look encrypted. Or, how about the incredible ease with which this system could be fooled or simply overwhelmed? What you propse is technically, economically and morally broken.
Ultimately, to be secure you must give up some privacy. The hard question is how much privacy must we give up in order to achieve that security. It's not an easy question, and I'm not sure where that line should be drawn.
This is just not true. Security is a myth. It cannot be had. People die in terrorist attacks in Isreal all the time, and that country has a very sophisticated security apparatus. What makes you think we'll do any better?
As further evidence that security is a fantasy, recall that a few weeks ago a Japanese man broke into a school and started slaughtering children. He did it with a knife.
Imagine this horror: Five hundred dedicated martyrs break into schools all across the country and do the same thing.
You cannot stop it. The amount of planning that it would take would be incredibly minimal. The cost, the same. Shit, you could draft the entire plan in about a paragraph.
Backdoors won't stop that. A policeman on every block won't stop that.
A more effective policy may be to one: Kill all known terrorists now, and two: Figure out what's pissing the majority of them off and STOP DOING IT.
Is that such a loss? Is freedom so important that it overshadows all other values? If I am free to watch what I want, read what I want, say what I want, eat what I want, fuck whom I want, and live where I want, is the loss of a little privacy really so critical?
You are free to do those things NOW. What about tomorrow? Next year? Next decade? Are you so comfortable with your fellow man that you don't fear a vocal minority getting a law or two passed which makes those things illegal? I'm not.
I have been hearing nothing but bloodthirsty bullshit from the "man on the street" the "average American" since the crashes. Our government is populated by these same folks. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. I am not being paranoid, people will abuse any power they are given.
And by the way, you are not free to "fuck whom you want" in some states. What if, after getting the power to snoop indescriminately, certain states decide to start enforcing those laws?
This is exactly the sort of attitude that Ben Franklin warned against. I realize you are just exploring possibilities here, so let me elaborate on a few.
Let's posit that in ten years that all of our lives, both electronic and non, are open books to watchful agencies charged with protecting society. Let us also suppose that they make a few spectacular arrests, break up a few crimes in the planning, and so on, so that the public basically trusts them.
Now lets say that a member of this organization has a genuine dislike for a given class of people. Lets choose Christians for the sake of argument.
It would be perfectly possible for this individual to collect info on certain vulnerable people and, oh I dunno, pass it along to hate groups.
Not the best possible example. So here's another one. How about the idea that people in that organization start selling the info to anyone willing to pay, on the black market? Is your life so clear that there is truly no one you'd care to expose every little detail to?
I've only gone on at such length because it seems no one is willing to respond to your devil's advocate position.
To sum up, freedom is worth dying for because being free allows people the best possible opportunity to suceed in life. There is the chance to meet one's full potential and to share this boon with all. Maximum freedom gives one the greatest potential range of possibilities and opportunities for growth, to be the best people we possibly can, and to make our own determination as to what "best" means.
Bullshit. Point me to the evidence that said that cryptographic tools enabled the terrorists to do what they did.
And irrelevant. Even if such tools directly enabled that tradgedy, it is still a great wrong to give up our freedom to the government. Because the government is filled with people just as fallible as we are. They have, they are and they will continue to abuse such power as we choose to give them.
A simple visual object-oriented programming language (successor to LOGO?) and a top notch GUI for Linux could ease this needed transition. Maybe a proportionate group of men
and women working together cooperatively will develop this.
What, are you claiming women need a "simple visual object-oriented programming language"?? What kind of sexist bullshit is this? My co-worker is a woman, with a Masters in Comp.Sci, and she's damned good in both Perl and C++.
LOGO? Is this flamebait? LOGO?! Next thing you'll be saying is we should re-write our operating systems in Pilot.. (kudos if you remember Pilot)
As a fifteen year-old, I tried to learn forth. Almost succeeded. Several years ago I went back and learned it to a point where I could at least implement small functions.
More recently I've taken up the study of Scheme, and I must say, I feel alot of similarity between the two worldviews.
But my daily work is Perl and C, doing web-applications. And I'm trying to break into the games industry. Both of these types of work share something in common: Code and "content" (business rules, user interface, etc) are tightly bound together and are difficult to abstract apart from each other. You'd think that a language that encourages easy extension and manipulation would be ideal in environments that have frequently changing demands. Nope.
Because my code has to interface with systems I don't have control over, and that those systems operate in a fashion difficult to cope with if your language doesn't share similar data abstractions, I have to use the same tools. Essentially, because I can't re-write everthing that my apps have to cope with, I need to use tools that make working with those external resources easier.
A convoluted way of saying: Because 3dsmax is a common modeling system, and that many, many programs work with its format, I have to as well, and I need tools which make that easier.
But I love the power and flexibility that the less-popular languages offer, such as Forth and Scheme. I'd love to be able to use those languages in my daily work.
So my question is, what steps are being taken to make Forth friendlier to application development?
I realize that Forth may not be the best language for, say, web development, but that is only because no one has bothered to write the tools and extensions to make it better. But in order to cope with highly structured data (like the results from an SQL query), wouldn't a type system be a useful core feature?
Re:Mob software is ill conceived
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 1
But I think the author's point is that the software out there now is far, far less than what you would get with an "average" mob, and that by studying how nature handles it, we may one day aspire to create software as complex, as capable and as all around adaptable as ourselves.
Also, your example has a few flaws. First, because the project was (probably?) a piece of required coursework, you don't get the same level of dedication that you get from someone who works on something just because they want to.
I think this is one of the best things I've seen posted to Slashdot yet, and I've been a regular user for.. four years? three?
The possibilities have rekindled my sense of why I began programming in the first place (Because it's FUN!), which a day-in, day-out daily grind at a dot-bomb has slowly eroded.
I have to get to work soon, but I think I must say this.
Whether this guy is right or wrong, the vast majority of us won't be involved in that determination. Mostly, we're not scientists. And so we debate back and forth on the merits of this paper, but without reaching any conclusions.
If you feel SO strongly about this paper, for or against, then get yourself into a lab. Because you aren't helping us and you aren't helping yourself with empty claims of insanity or genius on the part of this researcher.
Try to keep in mind a few points: First, that in nearly every case of claims of fundamental breakthroughs, it does not pan out.
Second, try to wrap your mind around the fact that our knowledge of the universe is woefully incomplete, will probably always be so, and that any totally new discovery MAY seem impossible in light of current understanding.. because current understanding is wrong.
There is no armchair way to determine the truth or falsehood of this guys claims, you HAVE to test.
I almost am of the opinion that anyone claiming a sufficiently strange new theory should build a device which demonstrates this new knowledge as an obvious effect. In other words, if you claim to have discovered a storage effect for "life-force" (whatever that is), then you had better go on and build a battery. Because no one will believe you. And usually, they'll be right. But not always.
Now you enter the argument of General Relativity versus Quantum Gravity.
Graivtons have been predicted (they would have spin 2), but never observed.
Well, not really an argument, but one theory works best depending on your scale, and there is no theory that works at all scales.. Also, if how you describe normal gravity were true at all scales, then how is energy carried into the bowling ball, so that it moves?
In other words, mass either interacts directly with spacetime causing it to curve (in which case, where is the force carrier?) or normal matter has / emits gravitons which do the same thing. Or some other theory which hasn't been thought up yet.
I haven't seen television since Feburary, but last I checked, they had re-runs of Babylon-5 on. I'd say, in order, Babylon-5, Farscape, original Star Trek re-runs and StarGate SG-1 are the best scifi on American televsion today.
That said, there is NO question Microsoft has used tactics to drive competition into the ground. The DR_DOS is a clear example and there are others. Again, we're left with the conspiracy theory - Microsoft could easily use this and WIndows update to degrade the stability of competing products and then block them out entirely or make them spend precious R&D on fixing bugs Microsoft has cause. Now in most other contexts (except maybe the gov't) something like this would be laughed at. But time and again Microsoft has proved they will go to extreme lengths to eliminate competition and a setup like this gives them a very powerful weapon.
I believe the quote is "a chilling effect on competition".
Because Microsoft never has to use this new facility in an overtly anticompetitive manner in order for them to wield extreme control over hardware vendors. The THREAT of being blacklisted is enough alone.
Here, let me put a gun to your head. You don't know it isn't loaded, you don't know I never had ANY intention of loading it, but the gun is still there, you see it. Now, I ask you to please let me into your home. What do you do?
Now, imagine I am an evil mad scientist bent upon destroying the world, or at least, the world's ability to support human life.
Now, I (as the hypothetical Bad Guy) know enough about nanotechical design to remove all the standard safe-guards and environmental dependencies. But I'm not a Mechanical Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Nuclear Physisct[sic], et al, I only know how to work with nanobots. And that means I don't know how to make them resistant to the wide variety of defenses that might be employed in the future. So what do I do?
No, my little minions of evil don't have to have any intelligence at all, they merely have to be able to make random changes in themselves and be able to evaluate those changes in regards to a given set of hostile conditions.
Problem solved, world go BOOM!
No, not that easily, but the concepts needed to really unleash a little hell on earth already exist and are being researched.
Implacations of biotech? I'll tell you what the implacations are: Reduced starvation. Saving human lives.
It's hard work, and it takes money to do it. Do you imagine, for a single minute, that biotech research could have happened out of purely alturistic desires? The writing, the time, the labor, sure (witness OpenSource). But how about the multimillion dollar hardware? Where is that going to come from?
Biotech saves lives. FUD kills.
Little over-all benefit... Christ man, do you put a dollar value on human life? If it costs a billion to save a family, it's worth doing. But you're not going to see that billion spent, without there being some benefit to the doer. You cannot feed a family on ideals. And, specifically, you should read the recent UN report on Biotech. Oh, wait, you don't want hard facts. Nevermind.
All this legalistic talk, while quite on topic, is totally irrelevant to how nanotechnology will be used. The governments of the world have demonstrated, time and again, their willingness to ignore treaty when it suits them. Why? Because they feel it's in their own best interest. Period. Let me put it this way: If you signed a piece of paper in which you agreed to die of natural causes at a specific age, would you honor it?
No, you'd fight it with every weapon at your disposal. We don't try to live forever, because it's not a current possibility. That won't be true forever. Governments are the same way. "Sure, I won't use biological weapons.. unless I think it's the only way to survive, then 'Where's the Ebola?'"
You can hammer out all the documents you like, but it needs cooporation to enforce it. And Governments have ultimate discretion when it comes to cooporation and enforcement of laws, their own or others.
So go 'wan, yack about treaties and agreements all you like. Our Government will still do what it likes.
And don't give me any of the idealistic crap about setting a good example. Would you honor a law which might mean your death? Shortening of your lifespan? Your children going hungry?
Hey, I used wireless! With a Palm VII, and a III (had myself a CDPD brick). And it rocked.
But the problem was cost. Double-digits per K in the case of the VII (unless I wanted to go $40/month for unlimited) or $40/month for the CDPD.
If they could just get connection fees low enough, I'd consider going in again on one. Not until then.
As for color, I used to hold the same opinion, that it was a cheap trick of no practicle value. Until I used a IIIc, and then later an E-115 from Casio. It just looks better, hands down and out. And if you do a lot of reading, that matters.
Finally, memory. I have maxed out the 2megs on my Palm VII, and I desperately wished that I had waited until the VIIx came out. There's never enough memory, because more memory lets me do more stuff.
Case in point: iPAQ. With a 1gig microdrive, I can run a very decent linux system. Why? 'cuz I'm a geek who likes toys, and who likes finding new uses for those toys.
But geek types like myself are a very small part of the market. The closest thing I've seen to an ultimate geek PDA (in terms of functionality packed into minimal space) is the recent HandEra (formerly TRG). But even it is lacking features I would dearly love to have.
So since this article seems to be more about wishes than realities, I'll toss my wish list into it: Color. Serial port. IR port. Maximum possible RAM. Flashable ROM (also large). CF slot. Expansion port. High speed. Long battery life. Running PalmOS, or Linux.
The military's intrest in suborbitals does put those of us who grew up on space stories, and firmly belive that being in space is a good idea in something of a bind.
On one hand, it seems like a nice way to get funding for an interesting area of space travel, and it's military applications don't seem to have a particularly high chance of being used.
On the other hand, it represents a creaping ligitimization of space as a DMZ--which disturbs me for both philosophic reasons, and also becase it really doesn't seem to be the sort of space we all dreamed about in our youth.
We all who? I'm 26, and grew up reading books like "The Bug-Life Chronicles", "Schizmatrix", "Neuromancer", "Hardware", in addition to the more traditional "Childhood's End" and Cordwainer Smith's "Instrumentality" series.
I've never been under any illusions that space would somehow be a "Golden Land of Opportunity and Adventure.." to quote Bladerunner.
Our conflicts may become more esoteric, and use more frightening weapons, but we'll still have conflict, of that I'm certain. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe we'll advance to the point that killing will be a barbaric practice of the past, but I wouldn't bet on it.
While I agree with everything you say, I also don't think it detracts from the research cited in the link.
I currently work for a dot.com, and we just contracted with an Indian firm to do much of our development (which kind of puts me in the hot seat, as I am one of the few remaining software developers there). And I have to say I have NEVER heard more Indian jokes in my life than in the last few weeks. It's depressing. And infuriating. Theoretically well-educated people engaging in little more than racism, and from major executives.
After meeting with their project manager and discussing a new product, I have come to the conclusion that they are not much different (in technical ability) than any given pool of domestic developers, as I expected. They are not uber-coders. They do have a very "willing to do it your way" attitude, but that is normal since they are working for us. And we're only paying them $10.00 / hour.
THAT's the big difference. I don't know what sort of back-alley business deals my bosses cut to get this rate, but whatever, the fact that you could find a firm anywhere willing to do this much for this little, is impressive from a business standpoint.
Now, I'm only a single datapoint, but I'd say that the article was completely accurate, from my limited experience. I also agree with sections 10-12, I do think this sort of thing that my company is engaging in, will hurt in the long run (if we survive).
First, were life to be found on Mars, it would provide strong evidence for what is currently only a theory: That life is as common as dirt, or more properly, nebulae.
It would lend concrete data to the Drake equation. This is the concept of attempting to guess just how many other intelligent species are in our own galaxy. Unfortunately, because of some rather gaping holes in our knowledge, it could be anywhere from 1 to 1 million. This would lend support to the one million end of the scale.
Now, philosophy and metaphysics: Many people of a religious bent seem to be of the notion that this planet is special and unique, that we are THE (as in, the only) children of God, and that the idea of intelligent life out there is just so much poppycock. Were life to be discovered "out there", it would become rather more difficult to hold that position.
I would like to point out a bad assumption that you've made: Just because there is life on this planet, it does NOT follow that there is life elsewhere, and the reason is that our world is so totally unlike any other in our system. We have liquid water, we have strong seasonal change, our cloud cover is thick enough to block some of the more destructive radiations yet still allows ample energy to reach the surface, etc, etc.
This would be evidence that life can evolve under radically different conditions from our own, which is another thing which we only suspect but couldn't prove, until now... providing that the data is accurate, that is.
So I would say that this is a very, very important discovery.
It won't take long for theives to adjust to the sound. And if you'd rather not dance like a marionette everytime someone's cell phone goes off, get a sample of the sound and listen to it on loop. Desensitise yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
1) The Irrational
OHMIGOD NOOOOOOOO!
2) The Emotional
You can have my fingerprints when you rip them from my fingers, you fucking fascist pig.
3) The Logical
A National ID card system would not have stopped what happend. A national ID card system really doesn't do much except help you keep tabs on law abiding citizens. Not criminals. Oh, and are you going to send me to jail if I refuse to carry it? If I refuse to get one?
4) The Patriotic
This whole scheme would greatly facility control and pacification of the population by a future would-be dictator, would it not? I'm definitely against this idea from word one. And Ellison can suck my farts out of my rectum. Fuck him and fuck Oracle. It's a matter of principle now, I'd rather not give money to him or his organization.
But of course the sheeple favor it. Oh, wait, the sheeple APPEAR to favor it, beacuse of how the survey is presented. Go back to sleep America, Big Brother is watching and is firmly in control.
"I will not be filed, briefed, debriefed, indexed or numbered!" -- The Prisoner
I'm also not so sure it's quite as bad as you say, though I certainly agree, it can get much worse and the current situation definitely looks like the start of it.
And I love my country, both the reality and its ideal. I love it enough to try to change it, where I can. Maybe one day I'll come to the conclusion that it isn't possible, and I might then go.
Seriously, lets not confuse technobabble with real issues of OS performance. How does this design differ from a well-written distributed processing library? What advantages of speed will this give for applications like, say, QuakeIV^2?
What they describe sounds wonderful for a cluster of machines with very fast interconnects, working on very specific problems that are amenable to distributed processing, but ugly for 100,000,000 machines spread out to hell and back, engaged in 100M+1 tasks.
How about the TUNES project? Looks kind of similar, but with loftier goals.
I'm just not convinced I'd want the OS they describe. Doesn't solve any of my pressing problems.
Now, hold a second: Sure, beef up immigration background checks if you like. Make the requirements for entry more stringent. But do NOT block an entire group of people. If you're going to deny someone entry, do it for a valid reason, not bigotry.
Pardon me, but it was blind faith in the government that allowed citizens of Japanese descent to be placed into camps.It was blind faith in the government that allowed McCarthy to do the damage he did.
As an American, I have a right and a duty to speak out against that which I think is wrong. Slashdot provides one avenue to share these thoughts. I am also a member of the EFF, and on Monday I have several letters to mail off to my representatives.
It is a debatable point as to whether or not the writers of the constitution were aware of technological change, but it is a fact that the writting in that document does not specify what sort of speech, nor in what manner that speech is delivered or produced.
It is highly probable that they were aware of individual's using printing presses to create phamplets advocating one or more positions. So it is likely that is one form of speech that is covered.
Now, abstract thought: How similar is putting up a webpage advocating / decrying X to firing up your own printing press to create 1000 pamphlets with the same message? Personally I see no difference in these two actions. They differ merely in technological embodiment as well as potential reach.
Email and snail email also have the same direct relation, and so, that is covered as well. You would make more headway with your argument with me if you were advocating the censoring of Television, as that is a technology with a less-obvious corellary.
"Aiding an enemy in time of war". What is aid? If I say that America shouldn't bomb it's enemies into the stone age, am I aiding the enemy? If I mention on my web page that a "whole lot of people just got onboard aircraft" at my local airbase, am I aiding the enemy? The language is vague and gives license to make anything a crime of treason, if you just use a little creativity.
First, many, many thanks for taking the time to offer a reasonable response. I'm afraid that my response to the orignal poster was rather more heated than it should have been, and that I took a reactionary stance as a response to a perceived assault on my ideals of freedom.
You are completely correct, variable security is possible. My problem is that no one, not me, not anyone, has yet been able to come up with a set of suggestions that appear to be reasonable. In fact, it seems quite difficult to even imagine, in a perfect world, what sorts of security measures will provide a decent level of protection at "reasonable" cost.
I believe part of the problem is that, since the exact form of any future attacks aren't currently known, it isn't possible to come up with a workable set of protections. You can't protect against an unknown threat, one you didn't imagine.
Another issue is that this group, and probably others like them, seem very able to come up with creative work-arounds to whatever procedures we put in place.
Now, the Israel concern. I personally lean towards the "no foriegn entanglements" side of things. I have to ask myself, can I stand by and allow another country to be invaded, possibly destroyed? Is it our responsibility to protect the world? It is my thought and belief that, no, we do not have such a responsibility. Do not think that I enjoy the idea of watching millions die, but I think that nothing we do will ever prevent war in that area, it is merely a question of our casualties or theirs?
Would it appear that we've given in to terrorism? Yes. Would it also be the prudent thing to do? In my opinion, yes. It might be unpopular, but it would save our lives. There are no easy answers. I am not even very confident that what I've suggested would work, really.
I personally am not willing to make this exchange of privacy for security. Not now. Not ever. Daily I live with dangers of far greater statistical likelihood of causing my demise, the occaisonal terrorist attack doesn't make a dent in that. The simple act of driving is far more deadly and dangerous. I live in an area frequently hit by hurricanes. I live in a big city, so there's violent crime to worry about. I smoke. Terrorists are an extremely minor threat in comparison. So I have not yet felt any fear that I might be involved in an attack.
My second point is that all the security measures in the world won't protect you from a group of determined individuals who are willing to die to kill you. People are assassinated inside of maximum security prisons, what makes you think a group of terrorists can't cause more damage?
Therefore, as there is no credible defense, there is no reason to trade away that which I and my forefathers hold so dear.
Also, your arguments about the detectability of people not using backdoors are simply wrong. In order to be sure a backdoor is present, you have to attempt to use that backdoor, and then analyze the resulting content to see if it's actually decrypted. Well, if I'm encrypting binary content, and you don't have any idea of what sort of file this is, it's still going to look encrypted. Or, how about the incredible ease with which this system could be fooled or simply overwhelmed? What you propse is technically, economically and morally broken.
This is just not true. Security is a myth. It cannot be had. People die in terrorist attacks in Isreal all the time, and that country has a very sophisticated security apparatus. What makes you think we'll do any better?As further evidence that security is a fantasy, recall that a few weeks ago a Japanese man broke into a school and started slaughtering children. He did it with a knife.
Imagine this horror: Five hundred dedicated martyrs break into schools all across the country and do the same thing.
You cannot stop it. The amount of planning that it would take would be incredibly minimal. The cost, the same. Shit, you could draft the entire plan in about a paragraph.
Backdoors won't stop that. A policeman on every block won't stop that.
A more effective policy may be to one: Kill all known terrorists now, and two: Figure out what's pissing the majority of them off and STOP DOING IT.
You are free to do those things NOW. What about tomorrow? Next year? Next decade? Are you so comfortable with your fellow man that you don't fear a vocal minority getting a law or two passed which makes those things illegal? I'm not.
I have been hearing nothing but bloodthirsty bullshit from the "man on the street" the "average American" since the crashes. Our government is populated by these same folks. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. I am not being paranoid, people will abuse any power they are given.
And by the way, you are not free to "fuck whom you want" in some states. What if, after getting the power to snoop indescriminately, certain states decide to start enforcing those laws?
This is exactly the sort of attitude that Ben Franklin warned against. I realize you are just exploring possibilities here, so let me elaborate on a few.
Let's posit that in ten years that all of our lives, both electronic and non, are open books to watchful agencies charged with protecting society. Let us also suppose that they make a few spectacular arrests, break up a few crimes in the planning, and so on, so that the public basically trusts them.
Now lets say that a member of this organization has a genuine dislike for a given class of people. Lets choose Christians for the sake of argument.
It would be perfectly possible for this individual to collect info on certain vulnerable people and, oh I dunno, pass it along to hate groups.
Not the best possible example. So here's another one. How about the idea that people in that organization start selling the info to anyone willing to pay, on the black market? Is your life so clear that there is truly no one you'd care to expose every little detail to?
I've only gone on at such length because it seems no one is willing to respond to your devil's advocate position.
To sum up, freedom is worth dying for because being free allows people the best possible opportunity to suceed in life. There is the chance to meet one's full potential and to share this boon with all. Maximum freedom gives one the greatest potential range of possibilities and opportunities for growth, to be the best people we possibly can, and to make our own determination as to what "best" means.
And irrelevant. Even if such tools directly enabled that tradgedy, it is still a great wrong to give up our freedom to the government. Because the government is filled with people just as fallible as we are. They have, they are and they will continue to abuse such power as we choose to give them.
It's a report that basically says that lots of incoming missiles are raining on the Afghanistan capital.
Any word if this is our retaliation?
LOGO? Is this flamebait? LOGO?! Next thing you'll be saying is we should re-write our operating systems in Pilot.. (kudos if you remember Pilot)
More recently I've taken up the study of Scheme, and I must say, I feel alot of similarity between the two worldviews.
But my daily work is Perl and C, doing web-applications. And I'm trying to break into the games industry. Both of these types of work share something in common: Code and "content" (business rules, user interface, etc) are tightly bound together and are difficult to abstract apart from each other. You'd think that a language that encourages easy extension and manipulation would be ideal in environments that have frequently changing demands. Nope.
Because my code has to interface with systems I don't have control over, and that those systems operate in a fashion difficult to cope with if your language doesn't share similar data abstractions, I have to use the same tools. Essentially, because I can't re-write everthing that my apps have to cope with, I need to use tools that make working with those external resources easier.
A convoluted way of saying: Because 3dsmax is a common modeling system, and that many, many programs work with its format, I have to as well, and I need tools which make that easier.
But I love the power and flexibility that the less-popular languages offer, such as Forth and Scheme. I'd love to be able to use those languages in my daily work.
I realize that Forth may not be the best language for, say, web development, but that is only because no one has bothered to write the tools and extensions to make it better. But in order to cope with highly structured data (like the results from an SQL query), wouldn't a type system be a useful core feature?
Also, your example has a few flaws. First, because the project was (probably?) a piece of required coursework, you don't get the same level of dedication that you get from someone who works on something just because they want to.
I think this is one of the best things I've seen posted to Slashdot yet, and I've been a regular user for.. four years? three?
The possibilities have rekindled my sense of why I began programming in the first place (Because it's FUN!), which a day-in, day-out daily grind at a dot-bomb has slowly eroded.
Whether this guy is right or wrong, the vast majority of us won't be involved in that determination. Mostly, we're not scientists. And so we debate back and forth on the merits of this paper, but without reaching any conclusions.
If you feel SO strongly about this paper, for or against, then get yourself into a lab.
Because you aren't helping us and you aren't helping yourself with empty claims of insanity or genius on the part of this researcher.
Try to keep in mind a few points: First, that in nearly every case of claims of fundamental breakthroughs, it does not pan out.
Second, try to wrap your mind around the fact that our knowledge of the universe is woefully incomplete, will probably always be so, and that any totally new discovery MAY seem impossible in light of current understanding.. because current understanding is wrong.
There is no armchair way to determine the truth or falsehood of this guys claims, you HAVE to test.
I almost am of the opinion that anyone claiming a sufficiently strange new theory should build a device which demonstrates this new knowledge as an obvious effect. In other words, if you claim to have discovered a storage effect for "life-force" (whatever that is), then you had better go on and build a battery. Because no one will believe you. And usually, they'll be right. But not always.
Graivtons have been predicted (they would have spin 2), but never observed.
Well, not really an argument, but one theory works best depending on your scale, and there is no theory that works at all scales.. Also, if how you describe normal gravity were true at all scales, then how is energy carried into the bowling ball, so that it moves?
In other words, mass either interacts directly with spacetime causing it to curve (in which case, where is the force carrier?) or normal matter has / emits gravitons which do the same thing.
Or some other theory which hasn't been thought up yet.
I haven't seen television since Feburary, but last I checked, they had re-runs of Babylon-5 on. I'd say, in order, Babylon-5, Farscape, original Star Trek re-runs and StarGate SG-1 are the best scifi on American televsion today.
I believe the quote is "a chilling effect on competition".
Because Microsoft never has to use this new facility in an overtly anticompetitive manner in order for them to wield extreme control over hardware vendors. The THREAT of being blacklisted is enough alone.
Here, let me put a gun to your head. You don't know it isn't loaded, you don't know I never had ANY intention of loading it, but the gun is still there, you see it. Now, I ask you to please let me into your home. What do you do?
Now, I (as the hypothetical Bad Guy) know enough about nanotechical design to remove all the standard safe-guards and environmental dependencies. But I'm not a Mechanical Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Nuclear Physisct[sic], et al, I only know how to work with nanobots. And that means I don't know how to make them resistant to the wide variety of defenses that might be employed in the future. So what do I do?
Enter Evolvable Hardware.
No, my little minions of evil don't have to have any intelligence at all, they merely have to be able to make random changes in themselves and be able to evaluate those changes in regards to a given set of hostile conditions.
Problem solved, world go BOOM!
No, not that easily, but the concepts needed to really unleash a little hell on earth already exist and are being researched.
It's hard work, and it takes money to do it. Do you imagine, for a single minute, that biotech research could have happened out of purely alturistic desires? The writing, the time, the labor, sure (witness OpenSource). But how about the multimillion dollar hardware? Where is that going to come from?
Biotech saves lives. FUD kills.
Little over-all benefit... Christ man, do you put a dollar value on human life? If it costs a billion to save a family, it's worth doing. But you're not going to see that billion spent, without there being some benefit to the doer. You cannot feed a family on ideals. And, specifically, you should read the recent UN report on Biotech. Oh, wait, you don't want hard facts. Nevermind.
No, you'd fight it with every weapon at your disposal. We don't try to live forever, because it's not a current possibility. That won't be true forever. Governments are the same way. "Sure, I won't use biological weapons.. unless I think it's the only way to survive, then 'Where's the Ebola?'"
You can hammer out all the documents you like, but it needs cooporation to enforce it. And Governments have ultimate discretion when it comes to cooporation and enforcement of laws, their own or others.
So go 'wan, yack about treaties and agreements all you like. Our Government will still do what it likes.
And don't give me any of the idealistic crap about setting a good example. Would you honor a law which might mean your death? Shortening of your lifespan? Your children going hungry?
But the problem was cost. Double-digits per K in the case of the VII (unless I wanted to go $40/month for unlimited) or $40/month for the CDPD.
If they could just get connection fees low enough, I'd consider going in again on one. Not until then.
As for color, I used to hold the same opinion, that it was a cheap trick of no practicle value. Until I used a IIIc, and then later an E-115 from Casio. It just looks better, hands down and out. And if you do a lot of reading, that matters.
Finally, memory. I have maxed out the 2megs on my Palm VII, and I desperately wished that I had waited until the VIIx came out. There's never enough memory, because more memory lets me do more stuff.
Case in point: iPAQ. With a 1gig microdrive, I can run a very decent linux system. Why? 'cuz I'm a geek who likes toys, and who likes finding new uses for those toys.
But geek types like myself are a very small part of the market. The closest thing I've seen to an ultimate geek PDA (in terms of functionality packed into minimal space) is the recent HandEra (formerly TRG). But even it is lacking features I would dearly love to have.
So since this article seems to be more about wishes than realities, I'll toss my wish list into it: Color. Serial port. IR port. Maximum possible RAM. Flashable ROM (also large). CF slot. Expansion port. High speed. Long battery life. Running PalmOS, or Linux.
We all who? I'm 26, and grew up reading books like "The Bug-Life Chronicles", "Schizmatrix", "Neuromancer", "Hardware", in addition to the more traditional "Childhood's End" and Cordwainer Smith's "Instrumentality" series.
I've never been under any illusions that space would somehow be a "Golden Land of Opportunity and Adventure.." to quote Bladerunner.
Our conflicts may become more esoteric, and use more frightening weapons, but we'll still have conflict, of that I'm certain. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe we'll advance to the point that killing will be a barbaric practice of the past, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I currently work for a dot.com, and we just contracted with an Indian firm to do much of our development (which kind of puts me in the hot seat, as I am one of the few remaining software developers there). And I have to say I have NEVER heard more Indian jokes in my life than in the last few weeks. It's depressing. And infuriating. Theoretically well-educated people engaging in little more than racism, and from major executives.
After meeting with their project manager and discussing a new product, I have come to the conclusion that they are not much different (in technical ability) than any given pool of domestic developers, as I expected. They are not uber-coders. They do have a very "willing to do it your way" attitude, but that is normal since they are working for us. And we're only paying them $10.00 / hour.
THAT's the big difference. I don't know what sort of back-alley business deals my bosses cut to get this rate, but whatever, the fact that you could find a firm anywhere willing to do this much for this little, is impressive from a business standpoint.
Now, I'm only a single datapoint, but I'd say that the article was completely accurate, from my limited experience. I also agree with sections 10-12, I do think this sort of thing that my company is engaging in, will hurt in the long run (if we survive).
First, were life to be found on Mars, it would provide strong evidence for what is currently only a theory: That life is as common as dirt, or more properly, nebulae.
It would lend concrete data to the Drake equation. This is the concept of attempting to guess just how many other intelligent species are in our own galaxy. Unfortunately, because of some rather gaping holes in our knowledge, it could be anywhere from 1 to 1 million. This would lend support to the one million end of the scale.
Now, philosophy and metaphysics: Many people of a religious bent seem to be of the notion that this planet is special and unique, that we are THE (as in, the only) children of God, and that the idea of intelligent life out there is just so much poppycock. Were life to be discovered "out there", it would become rather more difficult to hold that position.
I would like to point out a bad assumption that you've made: Just because there is life on this planet, it does NOT follow that there is life elsewhere, and the reason is that our world is so totally unlike any other in our system.
We have liquid water, we have strong seasonal change, our cloud cover is thick enough to block some of the more destructive radiations yet still allows ample energy to reach the surface, etc, etc.
This would be evidence that life can evolve under radically different conditions from our own, which is another thing which we only suspect but couldn't prove, until now... providing that the data is accurate, that is.
So I would say that this is a very, very important discovery.
It won't take long for theives to adjust to the sound. And if you'd rather not dance like a marionette everytime someone's cell phone goes off, get a sample of the sound and listen to it on loop. Desensitise yourself.