Want to see a creature who's roots date back to the beginning of life on Earth?
Want to see a creature whose roots date back to the beginning of life on earth, but whose physical appearane has changed very little in that time? Go to a beach and find a horseshoe crab. They've been around for millions of years, and looked pretty much the way they do now. They've also got blue blood, which any true geek would find interesting.
Not by much, since both have the effect of putting a stake through the heart of user productivity for however long it takes to exorcise the virus from all the systems.
Uh..... If the network is shut down to prevent infection, then you have fewer PCs on which to do a full re-format and re-install of the OS. Even with a drive image, this takes a long time. This means more work for the IT folks. So even if you left the network up to let the visa-processing folks do their work, you'd be making more work for the IT people. It's about minimizing the effects.
And yes, you should always be doing a full re-format and re-install on any machine that gets hit with a worm. Especially one that allows arbitrary commands to be run on your machine. Even after running the "cleanup" tool from Symantec, NAI, or whoever, you have no guarantee that your system is free from backdoors or that your data has not been altered in some way.
According to a CNN article, the State Department shut down the network to prevent the spread of the virus. It was down from noon until 9PM on Tuesday. Shutting down a network on purpose is different from having it "fail" due to a virus.
Unfortunately, what Verisign did does not violate RFC1034 - the author said so when they first realeased this "service". Wildcards are in the DNS spec, and can be implemented even at TLDs. It's just that no one ever thought anyone would do that. You can't really blame them - it was written in 1987 - money-grubbing slimeballs hadn't yet shown up on the Internet.
Now, as the O'Reilly interview says, this does break some standards since domains like a.com, for example, are supposed to be IANA reserved and not exist. And now they do, in a way. However, I doubt you could even use that defense, since some one letter domains do exist. X.com, for example, is PayPal (because they bought Bank X in San Francisco, way back when). Z.com is Nissan Motors USA. So, *shrug*.
Well, cell phones are a different breed of animal. The FCC is the group that's not pleased about cell phones in aircraft - the FAA doesn't care (although the actual airlines companies probably do care, for the reasons you cited). When you're 20,000 feet up, your cell phone can see many many towers, as opposed to just one or two when you're down on the ground. As I understand, the cell system keeps switching you back and forth between towers and can eventually lock up causing cell service outages.
However, I completely agree about the rest of your post. I don't get why electronic equipment can be shielded from interference anywhere except on planes. Without solid proof (as in a series of tests on the ground and in the air by, say, the FCC, the FAA, Underwriter's Labs, and a bunch of respected electronic engineers), I also don't buy the fact that devices which create a minimum of RF interference have the potential to crash a plane. I realize a large percentage of today's aircraft fleet was built in the '60s and '70s, before the personal electronic device craze caught on. However, there are plenty that were built in the late '80s and '90s. You can't tell me that in, say, 1991, (12 years ago, remember) they didn't anticipate that passengers would bring laptops onboard aircraft. Or even PDAs - the concept of a PDA was already out there - the Newton came out in '93 remember, 3 years before the first USR Pilot.
Maybe the FAA won't let them upgrade the equipment in planes because it has to go through a recertification process or something (the same reason the space shuttle computer systems haven't received an upgrade - it takes a long time to certify something for a mission-critical application), but really, the fault here lies with the "system" (read: government), and the airlines.
Portable electronic devices are here to stay, and yes, you can argue that a game boy is not a necessity while in flight, but a laptop and/or PDA sure as hell is if you're a businessman. If an interference problem exists, it is a technical problem, which needs a technical solution. "You don't get to use your laptop, discman, walkman, or PDA during this flight" is not a solution. And, as was mentioned in another post, if causing a plane crash is as simple as making Mario move through his adventure, what about terrorism? That's a reason in and of itself to shield the plane's systems against interference. Even if you have a plane full of sheep who will obey the rules on electronic devices, you think a terrorist is going to?
Flight attendant: I'm sorry, Mr. Terrorist, you can't use that right now, it will crash the plane.
Terrorist: Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I'll put it away and quit the profession now and go find a legitimate job.
Oh, well, it was good while it lasted. I give the RIAA about 6 weeks before they attempt to kill iTunes completely.
All maudlin stuff aside, I'm really concerned about the consequences for Apple here. At the least, the RIAA will demand that Apple rewrite their EULA to exclude transfer. At the most, iTunes Music Store will die a painful death. And in any case, this will help those who support stricter DRM: "See, look what happened when we gave the users too many rights?! We let them burn songs onto CD and share with their friends and that made them think they owned it. Looks like it's time for Windows Media Audio files which can only be played on one specific computer between the hours of 9AM and 5PM central time, and if you add RAM to your machine, you need to get a new authorization code by calling this 900 number."
Unless the RIAA turns around and says "Sure, you can sell it, just like you can sell a CD - we don't care" (and if you believe that, there's a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you), nothing good can possibly come out of this.
Very few of these sites are "down" as in you can't get any information of them. Most of these are simply splash screens about the patent issue, and then down at the bottom they say "if you still want to continue, click this". rpmfind.net is working just fine if you follow their "if you still want enter, click here" link - I just downloaded RPMs from there. apache.org is doing the same thing.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that Apache is down too.
That's because it's not. Their front page talks about the issue, but then they have a continue on to apache.org link which takes you to index2.html. This is also the case on their sub-sites, like httpd.apache.org. If you click on that link, you'll see that the Apache site is there. Sometimes we do need to read beyond the first setence of websites, even if this is Slashdot.
You can fix all of these things. You can learn what to avoid. You can become horribly paranoid about everything. But most people don't want to be a system administrator that has to keep up with all of this nonsense.
Easier said than done. Until people realize that a computer connected to the Internet is very very different from other consumer electronics, and even quite different from computers they used in the past, this isn't going to get solved. It's real easy for the/. crowd to criticize these folks, but you have to see it from their mindset. I don't have to be a telephone company representative to use my telephone. I don't have to be a filmmaker to use my DVD player. I don't have to understand how electron guns work to use my TV. And I don't have to be a plumber to use my dishwasher. These are all common household appliances, and they just work. They need dusting off now and then, and when they break you get them fixed, or buy a new one.
But a computer is totally different. Sure, when you get it out of the box, it does what you want it to. And when you first get your broadband Internet connection, you can view these great websites really fast. So how should people intuitively know that this is somehow different from the rest of their electronic devices? How are they to know that someone, somewhere can seize control of their computer, if they don't take the necessary precautions? How are they supposed to realize that allthough your TV just works, your computer needs constant updates to make it work correctly, and more importantly to keep it safe? How are they to understand that there are viruses out there that spoof e-mail addresses, and really, their friends aren't sending the porn?
I work in support. I've seen how difficult it is for the average user to comprehend that there could exist a virus that would find their e-mail address in someone's address book, and then pretend to be from them. They can't understand why this would happen unless they themselves were infected. To you and me it's simple to understand that a virus does that. We take it for granted that Outlook updates its address book with the addresses of everyone in the user's inbox. The average person doesn't understand this.
So what's the solution? Several options:
1) Force a mandatory computer and security education course for every customer at BestBuy, CompUSA, and other big outlets.
2) Make the Internet experience suck less.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2.
Seems to me 3 is the option. End users need to be made aware that their computer is not just a plug-in-and-forget-it device like their home theater system. However, spam needs to die too. And services enabled by default installations. How are we going to accomplish that? No idea. But there's a lot of crap on the Internet - even if you don't think it's dying, it's full of crap. And until users learn that once they connect their computer to the Internet, they need to act as though they're walking through a bad part of town at night, we're not going to see any changes.
Some of these are simply translated as "The person who wrote this doesn't understand this device".
For example, in number "11", it's pretty clear it's not a fridge, but an A/V rack. (that being why it's included with a DVD player). And it's saying "Don't wheel the A/V rack towards you over uneven surfaces, or you'll end up underneath it writhing in pain".
Exhibit 9 is not that stupid - it's pretty clear it's not a cartoon speaking bubble, but rather intimating that somewhere on your computer is a USB port.
Exihibit 5: "I like it because it says 'insert trousers'" Huh? It's weird because it's correct English? Or it's weird because it's telling you what to do? Or it's weird because this guy doesn't know what "trousers" means? It's a pants press - how is it weird for it to tell you to insert your pants into the rack?
The "William H. Gates" building at MIT, part of their new computer science complex, was paid for by a certain individual whose name appears on the building.
Nope. He paid for a part of the building. The building in question is the Stata Center, named for Ray and Maria Stata. Ray Stata is an MIT alum who founded Analog Devices, and he's the one shelling out much of the dough. Gates only paid for one tower of the building (cheapskate), so that's all he gets. No one calls it the Gates building - it's called the Stata Center. Or, alternatively "that pile of iron on Vassar street", since it's designed by "renowned" "architect" Fran Gehry, which means it looks like it was a very nice building that got hit by an earthquake...
IF they really wanted to keep cars from speeding, they'd make the sensors work the other way, tell the car not to exceed 100kph or whatever, and a simple rev-limiter/electronic throttle would maintain the speed.
This is an insanely stupid idea. There are times when you need to speed up to get out of a dangerous situation. For example, I was once driving down the highway, and this guy in the lane next to me (obviously drunk) was weaving in and out of lanes, and other cars had to swerve to avoid him. In that case, the safest place to be is in front of him, not behind him. However, I was already going 65mph (the speed limit) and was in one of the left hand lanes, so I couldn't safely slow down enough to get behind him. So I had to speed up to 75 to pass him and some other cars, and then slow back down to normal speed. And about 15 minutes later, there was a five car pileup, caused by this guy (I found this out on the news when I got home).
Also, how is such a device going to be regulated? Will it "know" what the speed limit is? How will it enforce it? If I'm on a highway where it's 65, and then it drops to 55 in a populated area (which is not at all uncommon), will it slam on the brakes until the car gets down to 55? That's a great way to get rear-ended.
Even if the device is smart enough to know what the speed limit is at all times, I'm not sure I want something like that in control of my car's accelerator. I was in a car once where the computer malfunctioned and the fuel-injector was locked full-on. This is equivalent to flooring the accelerator. Fortunately, this happened on an empty street, but had I been in stop and go traffic, or in a parking lot next to a building, I'd probably be dead.
A car is, like anything else, something which can be used for good or evil. It's up to the operator to decide which they choose. You wouldn't want a program on your computer preventing you from using it to copy MP3s, or view pr0n, or read communist newsletters, would you? Why would you want a device on your car preventing you from exceeding the speed limit when necessary?
Well if GPL is invalid, then it's obvious that SCO is infringing on the copywrites of Samba developers by including Samba into their products.
In theory, yes. However, few people are aware that SCO actually purchased the Samba Intellectual Property from Novell back in 1995. But you can't see the purchase agreement, because it's secret.
So, this article and the comments are heavy on emotion and very light on the facts.
For example, did anyone stop to think that such a database already exists for non-homeless people? It's called the Census. With the exception of Social Security Numbers and health status, all the information mentioned in the article summary is also collected by the Census. Really.
Also, in browsing the HUD site, I see no information that mentions that Social Security Numbers will be collected. I'd like to see where that's stated by the program. (Yes, I know the EPIC site says they do, but, well, that's not a primary source). Even the government isn't naive enough to believe that all homeless people carry around their social security cards or remember their numbers.
Also, where is it indicated that responses to these questions will be mandatory? Is the shelter going to deny food to people who don't fill out the form? I doubt it - they wouldn't get away with that, even in these paranoid, Big-Brother times.
Also, what's to prevent someone from answering these questions falsely? Are they going to be required to answer under penalty of perjury? I doubt it. What about the mentally ill? If they put down "Occupation: Jesus Christ", is someone going to sit there and beat them over the head until they come up with a non-ridiculous answer? I don't think so.
Finally, if you read the government's website, you'll see that these data collection systems are already in place in many communities - this is just an attempt to standardize them. That doesn't make the existing systems right or wrong, but people should be aware that this isn't some new plan that got invented overnight.
I'd like to see some solid facts about this plan. Until someone shows me that homeless people are actually being implanted with RFID tags, being forced to answer surveys, and being tracked via a website, or any of the other outrageous things claimed, this will remain purely standard Slashdot sensationalism.
How do you industrious Slashdot readers go about fixing a mess like this (on a tight budget, no less) without getting a mains-induced glimpse at the great beyond?
Suck it up and hire an electrician. Seriously. Yes, those of us who have done lots of electrical work and know not to connect power to ground may feel that it's horribly wrong to pay someone for this, but you really should do it. Even if you know what you're doing, things can always go wrong, and if you're not a licensed electrician you could be opening yourself up to lawsuits by the power company, building code violations, you could lose insurance, etc.
Now, if you want to do your own work inside your house, I would recommend that you get the electrician to install a master lockout switch (different from a master breaker in the panel) between you and the mains supply. Then, play with anything behind that, and you probably won't get in trouble with the power company. You can go re-wire your whole panel yourself, and save some money (getting them to install the lockout switch will be quite cheap comparitively)
But is the reverse true?
on
The Diamond Age
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Diamonds show amazing potential as a superior semiconductor."
Bah, I'm more concered about the reverse being true. You know, like when semiconductors will show amazing potential as a superior diamond. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to give my girlfriend a chip than a diamond ring. And just because you're not using diamonds doesn't mean you can't differentiate on the value. The slick executive types will propose with dual Athlons, while the poor struggling college student will have to resort to a 6502 or something.
Has anyone successfully fought back against a DMCA notice where they claimed they were distributing a work that wasn't actually being distributed? Like, in this case, for example?
I believe, in issuing the cease and desist letter, they have to say something like "we affirm under penalty of perjury that...." I've certainly seen some letters that look like that. Why hasn't anyone tried to take them to court for wrongful prosecution, or whatever violation they're committing?
They pay taxes (sales tax and the federal taxes deducted from their paychecks).
Uh, no. Well, OK, they pay sales tax, but so does everyone who buys anything. A large majority of them do NOT have taxes deducated from their paychecks, or even have paychecks at all (cash under the table), since if they got a social security number, that wouldn't help them "stay under the radar", and you can't deduct taxes from a paycheck without a social security number.
Doesn't this mean that Apple 'Free Software' can mix with GNU 'Free Software' provided the proper attributions and such are given?
If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this
page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.
Yes, exactly. And the more Linux vendors that jump on board with this initiative, the more foolish and stupid SCO will look. And when that happens, SCO will be no more.
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
When SCO first started making these claims, everyone said "Why doesn't some big name come out and say 'You're full of shit'". And now RedHat has done that with this lawsuit. And the same folks are saying this is a bad thing.
I want this feature, but I want it to vibrate, not beep. Then I can get my SMS messages in meetings, in the theater, etc. Add in a morse response button, and I could respond w/o pulling out the phone, too.
'course, all that fiddling in my pocket might look bad...
Depends what kind of theater you're in, doesn't it?
So, who's taking bets on how long it will be before
the **AA forces manufacturers to cripple this or use
it to implement DRM in some way? Like, for example, if you're watching a DVD, it will prevent you from turning on your VCR, since you might be using it to record that DVD. Or, if you're playing a CD, it prevents you from turning on your component MP3 player, because, well, you might be using it to record that CD stream and distribute it over the Internet.
Don't get me wrong, I think this would be cool, and I welcome the day when I can dispose of the 4 remotes I have (3 of which are Sony, and they still don't interoperate well). But in this day and age of DRM, I fear that the more we automate things, the easier it will be for those in power to legislate what we can and can't do with them.
Look at DVDs, for example. Sure, the picture quality and sound are miles ahead of VHS. But on VHS, I can fastforward through that FBI warning, and trailers. I can't do that with most DVDs. Nor can I skip chapters, or access the menu unless the disc decides I'm worthy. And I'm forced to watch the MGM splash screen, and some annoying intro that the DVD designers think looks cool. (Yes, yes, I know of the existence of mod chips and hacks for DVD players. That's not the point.) With DVD, the media (as in disc, not newspapers) controls the player, as opposed to the other way around with VHS.
The more we relinquish control over our equipment, in the name of automation and progress, the more we hand control over to another group. Is that the way it has to be? No. Is that the way it should be? No. But that's the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Want to see a creature whose roots date back to the beginning of life on earth, but whose physical appearane has changed very little in that time? Go to a beach and find a horseshoe crab. They've been around for millions of years, and looked pretty much the way they do now. They've also got blue blood, which any true geek would find interesting.
Uh..... If the network is shut down to prevent infection, then you have fewer PCs on which to do a full re-format and re-install of the OS. Even with a drive image, this takes a long time. This means more work for the IT folks. So even if you left the network up to let the visa-processing folks do their work, you'd be making more work for the IT people. It's about minimizing the effects.
And yes, you should always be doing a full re-format and re-install on any machine that gets hit with a worm. Especially one that allows arbitrary commands to be run on your machine. Even after running the "cleanup" tool from Symantec, NAI, or whoever, you have no guarantee that your system is free from backdoors or that your data has not been altered in some way.
According to a CNN article, the State Department shut down the network to prevent the spread of the virus. It was down from noon until 9PM on Tuesday. Shutting down a network on purpose is different from having it "fail" due to a virus.
Now, as the O'Reilly interview says, this does break some standards since domains like a.com, for example, are supposed to be IANA reserved and not exist. And now they do, in a way. However, I doubt you could even use that defense, since some one letter domains do exist. X.com, for example, is PayPal (because they bought Bank X in San Francisco, way back when). Z.com is Nissan Motors USA. So, *shrug*.
However, I completely agree about the rest of your post. I don't get why electronic equipment can be shielded from interference anywhere except on planes. Without solid proof (as in a series of tests on the ground and in the air by, say, the FCC, the FAA, Underwriter's Labs, and a bunch of respected electronic engineers), I also don't buy the fact that devices which create a minimum of RF interference have the potential to crash a plane. I realize a large percentage of today's aircraft fleet was built in the '60s and '70s, before the personal electronic device craze caught on. However, there are plenty that were built in the late '80s and '90s. You can't tell me that in, say, 1991, (12 years ago, remember) they didn't anticipate that passengers would bring laptops onboard aircraft. Or even PDAs - the concept of a PDA was already out there - the Newton came out in '93 remember, 3 years before the first USR Pilot.
Maybe the FAA won't let them upgrade the equipment in planes because it has to go through a recertification process or something (the same reason the space shuttle computer systems haven't received an upgrade - it takes a long time to certify something for a mission-critical application), but really, the fault here lies with the "system" (read: government), and the airlines.
Portable electronic devices are here to stay, and yes, you can argue that a game boy is not a necessity while in flight, but a laptop and/or PDA sure as hell is if you're a businessman. If an interference problem exists, it is a technical problem, which needs a technical solution. "You don't get to use your laptop, discman, walkman, or PDA during this flight" is not a solution. And, as was mentioned in another post, if causing a plane crash is as simple as making Mario move through his adventure, what about terrorism? That's a reason in and of itself to shield the plane's systems against interference. Even if you have a plane full of sheep who will obey the rules on electronic devices, you think a terrorist is going to?
Flight attendant: I'm sorry, Mr. Terrorist, you can't use that right now, it will crash the plane.
Terrorist: Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I'll put it away and quit the profession now and go find a legitimate job.
Right, that's exactly what will happen.
All maudlin stuff aside, I'm really concerned about the consequences for Apple here. At the least, the RIAA will demand that Apple rewrite their EULA to exclude transfer. At the most, iTunes Music Store will die a painful death. And in any case, this will help those who support stricter DRM: "See, look what happened when we gave the users too many rights?! We let them burn songs onto CD and share with their friends and that made them think they owned it. Looks like it's time for Windows Media Audio files which can only be played on one specific computer between the hours of 9AM and 5PM central time, and if you add RAM to your machine, you need to get a new authorization code by calling this 900 number."
Unless the RIAA turns around and says "Sure, you can sell it, just like you can sell a CD - we don't care" (and if you believe that, there's a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you), nothing good can possibly come out of this.
Very few of these sites are "down" as in you can't get any information of them. Most of these are simply splash screens about the patent issue, and then down at the bottom they say "if you still want to continue, click this". rpmfind.net is working just fine if you follow their "if you still want enter, click here" link - I just downloaded RPMs from there. apache.org is doing the same thing.
That's because it's not. Their front page talks about the issue, but then they have a continue on to apache.org link which takes you to index2.html. This is also the case on their sub-sites, like httpd.apache.org. If you click on that link, you'll see that the Apache site is there. Sometimes we do need to read beyond the first setence of websites, even if this is Slashdot.
Easier said than done. Until people realize that a computer connected to the Internet is very very different from other consumer electronics, and even quite different from computers they used in the past, this isn't going to get solved. It's real easy for the /. crowd to criticize these folks, but you have to see it from their mindset. I don't have to be a telephone company representative to use my telephone. I don't have to be a filmmaker to use my DVD player. I don't have to understand how electron guns work to use my TV. And I don't have to be a plumber to use my dishwasher. These are all common household appliances, and they just work. They need dusting off now and then, and when they break you get them fixed, or buy a new one.
But a computer is totally different. Sure, when you get it out of the box, it does what you want it to. And when you first get your broadband Internet connection, you can view these great websites really fast. So how should people intuitively know that this is somehow different from the rest of their electronic devices? How are they to know that someone, somewhere can seize control of their computer, if they don't take the necessary precautions? How are they supposed to realize that allthough your TV just works, your computer needs constant updates to make it work correctly, and more importantly to keep it safe? How are they to understand that there are viruses out there that spoof e-mail addresses, and really, their friends aren't sending the porn?
I work in support. I've seen how difficult it is for the average user to comprehend that there could exist a virus that would find their e-mail address in someone's address book, and then pretend to be from them. They can't understand why this would happen unless they themselves were infected. To you and me it's simple to understand that a virus does that. We take it for granted that Outlook updates its address book with the addresses of everyone in the user's inbox. The average person doesn't understand this.
So what's the solution? Several options:
1) Force a mandatory computer and security education course for every customer at BestBuy, CompUSA, and other big outlets.
2) Make the Internet experience suck less.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2.
Seems to me 3 is the option. End users need to be made aware that their computer is not just a plug-in-and-forget-it device like their home theater system. However, spam needs to die too. And services enabled by default installations. How are we going to accomplish that? No idea. But there's a lot of crap on the Internet - even if you don't think it's dying, it's full of crap. And until users learn that once they connect their computer to the Internet, they need to act as though they're walking through a bad part of town at night, we're not going to see any changes.
For example, in number "11", it's pretty clear it's not a fridge, but an A/V rack. (that being why it's included with a DVD player). And it's saying "Don't wheel the A/V rack towards you over uneven surfaces, or you'll end up underneath it writhing in pain".
Exhibit 9 is not that stupid - it's pretty clear it's not a cartoon speaking bubble, but rather intimating that somewhere on your computer is a USB port.
Exihibit 5: "I like it because it says 'insert trousers'" Huh? It's weird because it's correct English? Or it's weird because it's telling you what to do? Or it's weird because this guy doesn't know what "trousers" means? It's a pants press - how is it weird for it to tell you to insert your pants into the rack?
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Nope. He paid for a part of the building. The building in question is the Stata Center, named for Ray and Maria Stata. Ray Stata is an MIT alum who founded Analog Devices, and he's the one shelling out much of the dough. Gates only paid for one tower of the building (cheapskate), so that's all he gets. No one calls it the Gates building - it's called the Stata Center. Or, alternatively "that pile of iron on Vassar street", since it's designed by "renowned" "architect" Fran Gehry, which means it looks like it was a very nice building that got hit by an earthquake...
Dude, if there's a red light on the Interstate, we've got bigger problems...
This is an insanely stupid idea. There are times when you need to speed up to get out of a dangerous situation. For example, I was once driving down the highway, and this guy in the lane next to me (obviously drunk) was weaving in and out of lanes, and other cars had to swerve to avoid him. In that case, the safest place to be is in front of him, not behind him. However, I was already going 65mph (the speed limit) and was in one of the left hand lanes, so I couldn't safely slow down enough to get behind him. So I had to speed up to 75 to pass him and some other cars, and then slow back down to normal speed. And about 15 minutes later, there was a five car pileup, caused by this guy (I found this out on the news when I got home).
Also, how is such a device going to be regulated? Will it "know" what the speed limit is? How will it enforce it? If I'm on a highway where it's 65, and then it drops to 55 in a populated area (which is not at all uncommon), will it slam on the brakes until the car gets down to 55? That's a great way to get rear-ended.
Even if the device is smart enough to know what the speed limit is at all times, I'm not sure I want something like that in control of my car's accelerator. I was in a car once where the computer malfunctioned and the fuel-injector was locked full-on. This is equivalent to flooring the accelerator. Fortunately, this happened on an empty street, but had I been in stop and go traffic, or in a parking lot next to a building, I'd probably be dead.
A car is, like anything else, something which can be used for good or evil. It's up to the operator to decide which they choose. You wouldn't want a program on your computer preventing you from using it to copy MP3s, or view pr0n, or read communist newsletters, would you? Why would you want a device on your car preventing you from exceeding the speed limit when necessary?
*ducks*
Bah, they had game grids back in 1982. I bet IBM's version doesn't have lightcycles, either. Yeesh, get with the times, IBM...
In theory, yes. However, few people are aware that SCO actually purchased the Samba Intellectual Property from Novell back in 1995. But you can't see the purchase agreement, because it's secret.
For example, did anyone stop to think that such a database already exists for non-homeless people? It's called the Census. With the exception of Social Security Numbers and health status, all the information mentioned in the article summary is also collected by the Census. Really.
Also, in browsing the HUD site, I see no information that mentions that Social Security Numbers will be collected. I'd like to see where that's stated by the program. (Yes, I know the EPIC site says they do, but, well, that's not a primary source). Even the government isn't naive enough to believe that all homeless people carry around their social security cards or remember their numbers.
Also, where is it indicated that responses to these questions will be mandatory? Is the shelter going to deny food to people who don't fill out the form? I doubt it - they wouldn't get away with that, even in these paranoid, Big-Brother times.
Also, what's to prevent someone from answering these questions falsely? Are they going to be required to answer under penalty of perjury? I doubt it. What about the mentally ill? If they put down "Occupation: Jesus Christ", is someone going to sit there and beat them over the head until they come up with a non-ridiculous answer? I don't think so.
Finally, if you read the government's website, you'll see that these data collection systems are already in place in many communities - this is just an attempt to standardize them. That doesn't make the existing systems right or wrong, but people should be aware that this isn't some new plan that got invented overnight.
I'd like to see some solid facts about this plan. Until someone shows me that homeless people are actually being implanted with RFID tags, being forced to answer surveys, and being tracked via a website, or any of the other outrageous things claimed, this will remain purely standard Slashdot sensationalism.
Suck it up and hire an electrician. Seriously. Yes, those of us who have done lots of electrical work and know not to connect power to ground may feel that it's horribly wrong to pay someone for this, but you really should do it. Even if you know what you're doing, things can always go wrong, and if you're not a licensed electrician you could be opening yourself up to lawsuits by the power company, building code violations, you could lose insurance, etc.
Now, if you want to do your own work inside your house, I would recommend that you get the electrician to install a master lockout switch (different from a master breaker in the panel) between you and the mains supply. Then, play with anything behind that, and you probably won't get in trouble with the power company. You can go re-wire your whole panel yourself, and save some money (getting them to install the lockout switch will be quite cheap comparitively)
Bah, I'm more concered about the reverse being true. You know, like when semiconductors will show amazing potential as a superior diamond. Because it's a hell of a lot cheaper to give my girlfriend a chip than a diamond ring. And just because you're not using diamonds doesn't mean you can't differentiate on the value. The slick executive types will propose with dual Athlons, while the poor struggling college student will have to resort to a 6502 or something.
I believe, in issuing the cease and desist letter, they have to say something like "we affirm under penalty of perjury that ...." I've certainly seen some letters that look like that. Why hasn't anyone tried to take them to court for wrongful prosecution, or whatever violation they're committing?
Uh, no. Well, OK, they pay sales tax, but so does everyone who buys anything. A large majority of them do NOT have taxes deducated from their paychecks, or even have paychecks at all (cash under the table), since if they got a social security number, that wouldn't help them "stay under the radar", and you can't deduct taxes from a paycheck without a social security number.
If you mean GPL'd software, no. According to this page, the FSF still considers APSLv2 incompatible with the GPL. Though they don't explain why. At some point, I really like to see a comprehensive listing of why each of the free-but-not-GPL-compatible licenses are designated such. I mean, it's all well an good for the GPL to say "It's not ok to use this license", but I find such a statement annoying without at least a brief note along the lines of "it's incompatible because it prevents you from doing $foo, which is allowed under the GPL" Or something.
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
When SCO first started making these claims, everyone said "Why doesn't some big name come out and say 'You're full of shit'". And now RedHat has done that with this lawsuit. And the same folks are saying this is a bad thing.
*SIGH*
'course, all that fiddling in my pocket might look bad...
Depends what kind of theater you're in, doesn't it?
Don't get me wrong, I think this would be cool, and I welcome the day when I can dispose of the 4 remotes I have (3 of which are Sony, and they still don't interoperate well). But in this day and age of DRM, I fear that the more we automate things, the easier it will be for those in power to legislate what we can and can't do with them.
Look at DVDs, for example. Sure, the picture quality and sound are miles ahead of VHS. But on VHS, I can fastforward through that FBI warning, and trailers. I can't do that with most DVDs. Nor can I skip chapters, or access the menu unless the disc decides I'm worthy. And I'm forced to watch the MGM splash screen, and some annoying intro that the DVD designers think looks cool. (Yes, yes, I know of the existence of mod chips and hacks for DVD players. That's not the point.) With DVD, the media (as in disc, not newspapers) controls the player, as opposed to the other way around with VHS.
The more we relinquish control over our equipment, in the name of automation and progress, the more we hand control over to another group. Is that the way it has to be? No. Is that the way it should be? No. But that's the way it is.