From the initiative: The UK's response to this action to date has been through mandating open standards and specifications in its e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) and allowing market driven products to support these.
Ahh, GIF, the poster child for patent encumberment.
Actually it's their paid senators/congresscritters going to the FCC since the MPAA hasn't pain enough legislators to get this through the legal process.
Check the flight paths that the particular planes took. You would have to start with a random place in upper New York state and get to that building in New York city. All this with a minimum of "noodling around" as time is of the essence.
The error factor in a handheld GPS would make it a poor tool for this particular exercise. Additionally, I'd be surprised how well it handled a travel rate of 500+ MPH (the scale on those screens would be quite amusing).
I don't doubt that people could learn how to do all of this in a week of intense training, but it still takes that time and a relatively technically savvy guy.
Certainly sounds simple. Use a marker to put a small circle on the windshield. Steer your target into the circle. Keep the target in the circle until the plane goes boom!
Execution is a completely different thing. Plus, these steps: Disengage autopilot. Locate current position of plane. Plot course to general vicinity of target building. Figure proper incoming vector to avoid other potential buildings (not so much a problem with the ol' WTC's). Now, draw circle on windshield... which side, how big? Steer your target into the circle. (Boy, this plane sure turns slow, what about those silly pedals on the floor?) Keep the target in the circle (Note - target looks like small sliver from a few miles out and you get a great "ground rush" kind of effect as you get close.)
I should note that your example assumes that you're already flying straight and level. Also, it's only for avoiding where you want to make a violent maneuver, not for steering where you need to be controlled.
Actually, successfully hitting one particular building at 500+ MPH is quite difficult. One pilot was even more skilled to bank the plane and hit multiple floors on impact.
It is actually quite difficult to do what the hijackers did and that's why it was discounted as a possible scenario in hijacking situations. The issue is the intelligence needed to perform the act would hopefully preclude a suicidal disposition.
Unforutnately, we were wrong. Fortunately, the chance of a similar attack ever succeeding (heck they didn't even succeed with all the attacks on that day) are almost none. The big concern right now is some poor confused passenger getting the stuffing beaten out of them because they mistake the cockpit door for a toilet.
You've "proven" that your a flier and not a threat. The time that you've put in with other flights and the "ID" you provide by showing your frequent flier status have pre-screened you.
It's true they don't want to upset their best customers, but you've done a bit more by flying so often.
The issue right now is anonymity. You can consent to a search and retain anonymity. Sobriety checkpoints have some very specific limitations to them. The cops cannot run the license plate of every car going through them. They also cannot demand your license as you drive up. They need to find some evidence of a violation before taking these steps. This means that your anonymity is being protected during the process.
If someone were to walk into an airport, allow all of their effects to be searched, and submit to a full body search (complete with the ol' cavity checks) then what extra bit of security do you gain by having seen their ID?
So, we can certainly argue until the cows come home about "unreasonable searches", but that's not the point of the current protest. (Also, based on the latest Supreme Court ruling about drug testing in schools the bar for "unreasonable" is quite high these days.)
There is a legal concept called "expectation of privacy" that comes into play in this. This means that there are certain actions that you can undertake that do not receive protection under privacy clauses.
The difference is highlighted thus: 1) Shouting out plans about an illegal operation in the middle of a park. (If a cop overhears then it's admissable.)
2) Using an encrypted cell phone to discuss said plans. (If a cop uses a descrambler and listens in without a wiretap permit then it's inadmissable.)
So, having your computer sit there and "shout" on the Internet "here are a bunch of files for downloading" puts you into the category of not expecting privacy.
ANSI C was an illustrative point. The fact is that cross-platform compilation has been around for a long while. Granted, the usefulness has been steadily improving.
The issue remains, what is the new and useful thing that.NET is bringing to the table?
The multi-language thing is a red herring. The average software project is tough enough to control now as it is, the last thing you need is every developer writing in his/her language of choice. (Certainly will not simplify the process of consolidating duplicate functions.)
The point with the languages is that you have to change the other language to fit the syntax that the CLR expects. Look at all the changes they've had to do to VB to make it a language that runs under CLR.
As far as the work identically part. Microsoft has already asserted that they plan on.NET to "run best" on Windows. That means that the really useful features won't be ported. Microsoft has no vested interest in cross-platform compatibility, in fact, it's against their business model.
Wow?!? Really?!? You can compile code on several different platforms?
Huh, you can already do that with ANSI C and with Java (you may have heard of that one). I'll admit I haven't done much research on.NET, but then I haven't heard anything that really makes this worth my time and efforts when I can already do all my work perfectly well with Java.
So, what real advantages are there for going with.NET/MONO? (Also, how long would I have to wait before I could start taking advantage of the technology?)
In that case then it's merely laziness on the part of the prosecutors. It could very easily be argued that planes do in fact qualify.
This is really what the appeals court structure is for. The idea is to take existing laws and precedent and apply them to new situations. You haven't seen a spate of law rewrites to specifically mention SUV's or something like that. The idea is to prove that the general applies to the specific, not to keep getting more and more specific.
So, do you think they'll define "computer" too broadly or too narrowly in the law?
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot soda cans off a fence != crime Actually, if you're in a densely populated area then it can be considered a crime. (Reckless endangerment.)
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot someone in the face == crime If the person in question has invaded your home and you are in reasonable fear for your life then it's self defense.
So, like all things (including the own a computer and go to jail for life statement) need to be clarified. The real issue is why this needs "new" laws. There are currently laws on the books for terrorist acts. There are laws for assault and murder as well. Just because the "weapon" is different shouldn't change anything.
The part of the bill that should be of the most concern is the provisions that cover something like "hot pursuit" where ISP's are allowed to monitor and turn over information based on a judgement call.
Try buying an OEM PC box without getting XP rammed down your throat. In fact, I believe Microsoft just closed a loop-hole that was allowing OEM's to ship dual OS machines so people could choose Win 2000 instead.
The fact that Apple makes its own box and OS is what allows them to dictate terms that make MS run afoul of monopoly maintenance charges.
Let's launch a bunch of satellites into orbit with lasers or some kinetic energy weapon and wire them into video game consoles back on the ground here. Kids can drop $.50 for a chance to blast away at space debris. That way we can use those well-honed reflexes of the future space cadets (take that how you want to) and maybe even raise some money for NASA with the fees.
(You can implement a targeting/size filter to keep from shooting at real satelites.)
From the article: "It's the same reason that people join gangs," said Allan Doody, the Customs Service investigator who led the DrinkorDie investigation, part of a broader anti-piracy campaign called Operation Buccaneer. "They're hanging out on the cyber-street corner."
But in contrast to petty criminals and warring gangs, Internet piracy groups have a worldwide impact of at least tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Such groups secure their reputations by releasing thousands of free movies, games, music and software programs on the Internet each year.
So, distributing copyrighted materials is worse than such "petty criminal activity" as drive-by shootings, drug sales, and car theft? I'm glad our law enforcement dollars are being invested wisely to get this vicious criminals off the street.
(And yes, they are criminals, I just object to the implied severity of their crimes.)
From the article: He concluded: "It's going to be very exciting. Even though he will be 62 by the time this film comes out, Harrison hasn't lost the snap in his whip."
I'm thinking Mr. Spielberg may be getting a little personally involved with his actors...
Personally, I'd have to recommend Windows for the conjuring of daemons. The good news is that for the first five minutes they tend to do what you want, then they get unstable and die.
That's got to be the best/only safe way to deal with them.
There is definitely something to be said about remaining informed and trying to inform everyone else.
There's one giant problem with it though: The desktop OS market is being dominated by a monopoly. MS makes updates (XP and WPA are a good example) and the bulk of the consuming public doesn't know and/or care. They merely get the latest version when they buy their new PC. MS really doesn't need to market their OS's, they just slowly become dominant by default (installation).
DivX failed because DVD's were already on the market and the cost of the DVD player was dropping rapidly. People were able to evaluate this as a pure cost/benefit issue and everyone realized that the DivX duck wouldn't hunt.
There will be no such evaluation with MS's latest and greatest OS.
Questions that MS needs to answer: How will Palladium treat those home videos that everyone's starting to create. (I just bough a digital camcorder myself.) How will Palladium treat home recordings? (I have a friend who is slowly putting together his own album. What if he wanted to mail around MP3's of his songs?)
This is where we can maybe corner MS. They need to answer how the "untrusted" (really uncopyrighted or copyrighted by an individual) content is treated.
Their main points are that GPL is flawed due to requiring anything which uses GPLd code [no matter how little] to be licensed under the GPL; and, that most GPL projects encourage many unvarifiable developers to take part in the project, resulting in potential malicious code being inserted without anyone else taking notice.
Please, take a moment and read the GPL. Then come back and ask people questions about it. (I believe there was an Ask Slashdot about it awhile ago...)
Using GPL'd code does not mean you have to automatically release all of your code. First off, the GPL cannot override other more restrictive licenses. If you don't have the right to GPL the code that you've included then you can't release it, you have to remove the GPL'd code instead. Second, the GPL's release/publish conditions are only invoked if you release/publish your code. This is a very important distinction. If you develop something "in house" for your company's use, then you don't have to release the resulting code. If you don't distribute it then you don't have to publish it.
As far as "malicious code" goes, look at all of the "easter eggs" and "bugs" in current "professional" code. How much overall code review do you think goes on when an entire flight simulator gets packed into a spreadsheet application? (You may have noticed how a Service Release deactivated it.)
In the Open Source world, if you doubt some code then you can simply audit it. Good luck if you think there's some backdoor lurking in the latest MS code. (Look at MS's WMP EULA that gives them permission to force downloads on your box in the name of "DRM".)
There's a reason that people use the cover of darkness to perform questionable/malicious acts. Having the source code for full review and scrutiny is the best way to shine a bright light into all corners.
What's wrong with where they came from? A blanket statement is made that Open Source has bad usability. I point to two OS projects that don't have those problems.
Mozilla is a complete rewrite. They threw out the original Netscape code and started over again. OpenOffice started from Star Office which predates Sun's involvement.
In both cases, you have software that is at least as usable as anything coming out of the "proprietary" world.
As far as usability of Linux distros goes it all depends on the configuration of the machine. You can have super usable versions (like Tivo's interface) and you can have completely uncustomized command line versions. Look at the Linux in schools and LTSP initiatives to see how usability of Linux has been increased.
Slashdot Mirror
From the initiative:
The UK's response to this action to date has been through mandating open standards and specifications in its e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) and allowing market driven products to support these.
Ahh, GIF, the poster child for patent encumberment.
Actually it's their paid senators/congresscritters going to the FCC since the MPAA hasn't pain enough legislators to get this through the legal process.
Well, I can't give you 20,000 atmospheres, but I can give you a tank driving over a hard drive.
http://homepage.cc/harddisk/
Enjoy. Personally, I think it would be more fun if they used the main gun to "partition" the disk.
Check the flight paths that the particular planes took. You would have to start with a random place in upper New York state and get to that building in New York city. All this with a minimum of "noodling around" as time is of the essence.
The error factor in a handheld GPS would make it a poor tool for this particular exercise. Additionally, I'd be surprised how well it handled a travel rate of 500+ MPH (the scale on those screens would be quite amusing).
I don't doubt that people could learn how to do all of this in a week of intense training, but it still takes that time and a relatively technically savvy guy.
Certainly sounds simple.
Use a marker to put a small circle on the windshield.
Steer your target into the circle.
Keep the target in the circle until the plane goes boom!
Execution is a completely different thing. Plus, these steps:
Disengage autopilot.
Locate current position of plane.
Plot course to general vicinity of target building.
Figure proper incoming vector to avoid other potential buildings (not so much a problem with the ol' WTC's).
Now, draw circle on windshield... which side, how big?
Steer your target into the circle. (Boy, this plane sure turns slow, what about those silly pedals on the floor?)
Keep the target in the circle (Note - target looks like small sliver from a few miles out and you get a great "ground rush" kind of effect as you get close.)
I should note that your example assumes that you're already flying straight and level. Also, it's only for avoiding where you want to make a violent maneuver, not for steering where you need to be controlled.
Actually, successfully hitting one particular building at 500+ MPH is quite difficult. One pilot was even more skilled to bank the plane and hit multiple floors on impact.
It is actually quite difficult to do what the hijackers did and that's why it was discounted as a possible scenario in hijacking situations. The issue is the intelligence needed to perform the act would hopefully preclude a suicidal disposition.
Unforutnately, we were wrong. Fortunately, the chance of a similar attack ever succeeding (heck they didn't even succeed with all the attacks on that day) are almost none. The big concern right now is some poor confused passenger getting the stuffing beaten out of them because they mistake the cockpit door for a toilet.
True, but with a qualification.
You've "proven" that your a flier and not a threat. The time that you've put in with other flights and the "ID" you provide by showing your frequent flier status have pre-screened you.
It's true they don't want to upset their best customers, but you've done a bit more by flying so often.
The issue right now is anonymity. You can consent to a search and retain anonymity. Sobriety checkpoints have some very specific limitations to them. The cops cannot run the license plate of every car going through them. They also cannot demand your license as you drive up. They need to find some evidence of a violation before taking these steps. This means that your anonymity is being protected during the process.
If someone were to walk into an airport, allow all of their effects to be searched, and submit to a full body search (complete with the ol' cavity checks) then what extra bit of security do you gain by having seen their ID?
So, we can certainly argue until the cows come home about "unreasonable searches", but that's not the point of the current protest. (Also, based on the latest Supreme Court ruling about drug testing in schools the bar for "unreasonable" is quite high these days.)
There is a legal concept called "expectation of privacy" that comes into play in this. This means that there are certain actions that you can undertake that do not receive protection under privacy clauses.
The difference is highlighted thus:
1) Shouting out plans about an illegal operation in the middle of a park. (If a cop overhears then it's admissable.)
2) Using an encrypted cell phone to discuss said plans. (If a cop uses a descrambler and listens in without a wiretap permit then it's inadmissable.)
So, having your computer sit there and "shout" on the Internet "here are a bunch of files for downloading" puts you into the category of not expecting privacy.
ANSI C was an illustrative point. The fact is that cross-platform compilation has been around for a long while. Granted, the usefulness has been steadily improving.
.NET is bringing to the table?
The issue remains, what is the new and useful thing that
The multi-language thing is a red herring. The average software project is tough enough to control now as it is, the last thing you need is every developer writing in his/her language of choice. (Certainly will not simplify the process of consolidating duplicate functions.)
The point with the languages is that you have to change the other language to fit the syntax that the CLR expects. Look at all the changes they've had to do to VB to make it a language that runs under CLR.
.NET to "run best" on Windows. That means that the really useful features won't be ported. Microsoft has no vested interest in cross-platform compatibility, in fact, it's against their business model.
As far as the work identically part. Microsoft has already asserted that they plan on
Wow?!? Really?!? You can compile code on several different platforms?
.NET, but then I haven't heard anything that really makes this worth my time and efforts when I can already do all my work perfectly well with Java.
.NET/MONO? (Also, how long would I have to wait before I could start taking advantage of the technology?)
Huh, you can already do that with ANSI C and with Java (you may have heard of that one). I'll admit I haven't done much research on
So, what real advantages are there for going with
*salutes* *tips hat*
You're right, I didn't expect that. Well done.
In that case then it's merely laziness on the part of the prosecutors. It could very easily be argued that planes do in fact qualify.
This is really what the appeals court structure is for. The idea is to take existing laws and precedent and apply them to new situations. You haven't seen a spate of law rewrites to specifically mention SUV's or something like that. The idea is to prove that the general applies to the specific, not to keep getting more and more specific.
So, do you think they'll define "computer" too broadly or too narrowly in the law?
URL #2: http://www.spanish.inquisition/
...so on and so forth...
*CRASH*
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!
Close, but not accurate.
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot soda cans off a fence != crime
Actually, if you're in a densely populated area then it can be considered a crime. (Reckless endangerment.)
Using a(licensed) firearm to shoot someone in the face == crime
If the person in question has invaded your home and you are in reasonable fear for your life then it's self defense.
So, like all things (including the own a computer and go to jail for life statement) need to be clarified. The real issue is why this needs "new" laws. There are currently laws on the books for terrorist acts. There are laws for assault and murder as well. Just because the "weapon" is different shouldn't change anything.
The part of the bill that should be of the most concern is the provisions that cover something like "hot pursuit" where ISP's are allowed to monitor and turn over information based on a judgement call.
I can see the Dell/Apple ad campaign now:
"Dude, you got to think different."
I assume/hope you were attempting to be ironic.
Try buying an OEM PC box without getting XP rammed down your throat. In fact, I believe Microsoft just closed a loop-hole that was allowing OEM's to ship dual OS machines so people could choose Win 2000 instead.
The fact that Apple makes its own box and OS is what allows them to dictate terms that make MS run afoul of monopoly maintenance charges.
...consoles.
Let's launch a bunch of satellites into orbit with lasers or some kinetic energy weapon and wire them into video game consoles back on the ground here. Kids can drop $.50 for a chance to blast away at space debris. That way we can use those well-honed reflexes of the future space cadets (take that how you want to) and maybe even raise some money for NASA with the fees.
(You can implement a targeting/size filter to keep from shooting at real satelites.)
From the article:
"It's the same reason that people join gangs," said Allan Doody, the Customs Service investigator who led the DrinkorDie investigation, part of a broader anti-piracy campaign called Operation Buccaneer. "They're hanging out on the cyber-street corner."
But in contrast to petty criminals and warring gangs, Internet piracy groups have a worldwide impact of at least tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Such groups secure their reputations by releasing thousands of free movies, games, music and software programs on the Internet each year.
So, distributing copyrighted materials is worse than such "petty criminal activity" as drive-by shootings, drug sales, and car theft? I'm glad our law enforcement dollars are being invested wisely to get this vicious criminals off the street.
(And yes, they are criminals, I just object to the implied severity of their crimes.)
From the article:
He concluded: "It's going to be very exciting. Even though he will be 62 by the time this film comes out, Harrison hasn't lost the snap in his whip."
I'm thinking Mr. Spielberg may be getting a little personally involved with his actors...
Personally, I'd have to recommend Windows for the conjuring of daemons. The good news is that for the first five minutes they tend to do what you want, then they get unstable and die.
That's got to be the best/only safe way to deal with them.
There is definitely something to be said about remaining informed and trying to inform everyone else.
There's one giant problem with it though:
The desktop OS market is being dominated by a monopoly. MS makes updates (XP and WPA are a good example) and the bulk of the consuming public doesn't know and/or care. They merely get the latest version when they buy their new PC. MS really doesn't need to market their OS's, they just slowly become dominant by default (installation).
DivX failed because DVD's were already on the market and the cost of the DVD player was dropping rapidly. People were able to evaluate this as a pure cost/benefit issue and everyone realized that the DivX duck wouldn't hunt.
There will be no such evaluation with MS's latest and greatest OS.
Questions that MS needs to answer: How will Palladium treat those home videos that everyone's starting to create. (I just bough a digital camcorder myself.) How will Palladium treat home recordings? (I have a friend who is slowly putting together his own album. What if he wanted to mail around MP3's of his songs?)
This is where we can maybe corner MS. They need to answer how the "untrusted" (really uncopyrighted or copyrighted by an individual) content is treated.
Their main points are that GPL is flawed due to requiring anything which uses GPLd code [no matter how little] to be licensed under the GPL; and, that most GPL projects encourage many unvarifiable developers to take part in the project, resulting in potential malicious code being inserted without anyone else taking notice.
Please, take a moment and read the GPL. Then come back and ask people questions about it. (I believe there was an Ask Slashdot about it awhile ago...)
Using GPL'd code does not mean you have to automatically release all of your code. First off, the GPL cannot override other more restrictive licenses. If you don't have the right to GPL the code that you've included then you can't release it, you have to remove the GPL'd code instead. Second, the GPL's release/publish conditions are only invoked if you release/publish your code. This is a very important distinction. If you develop something "in house" for your company's use, then you don't have to release the resulting code. If you don't distribute it then you don't have to publish it.
As far as "malicious code" goes, look at all of the "easter eggs" and "bugs" in current "professional" code. How much overall code review do you think goes on when an entire flight simulator gets packed into a spreadsheet application? (You may have noticed how a Service Release deactivated it.)
In the Open Source world, if you doubt some code then you can simply audit it. Good luck if you think there's some backdoor lurking in the latest MS code. (Look at MS's WMP EULA that gives them permission to force downloads on your box in the name of "DRM".)
There's a reason that people use the cover of darkness to perform questionable/malicious acts. Having the source code for full review and scrutiny is the best way to shine a bright light into all corners.
What's wrong with where they came from? A blanket statement is made that Open Source has bad usability. I point to two OS projects that don't have those problems.
Mozilla is a complete rewrite. They threw out the original Netscape code and started over again. OpenOffice started from Star Office which predates Sun's involvement.
In both cases, you have software that is at least as usable as anything coming out of the "proprietary" world.
As far as usability of Linux distros goes it all depends on the configuration of the machine. You can have super usable versions (like Tivo's interface) and you can have completely uncustomized command line versions. Look at the Linux in schools and LTSP initiatives to see how usability of Linux has been increased.