What about the crimes of perjury, corruption, and false accusations? This would not even remotely address these problems.
A corrupt cop or government official could easily use this information for in a whole variety of evil ways. They could use it to blackmail people. They could modify the system so that it would finger you for some crime they committed. Etc. Etc...
This in fact would encourage lazy law enforcement. "A crime was committed at 2AM in sector 27c. Let's look up all the faces scanned in that area between 1AM and 3. Well well, John Doe was the only person scanned. Arrest him. Book him. Case closed." John Doe was only walking home from work--the real criminal avoided the cameras. Meanwhile that criminal is still at large, and may have little danger of being prosecuted for the crime as the police decided they have their man.
There is no replacement for ensuring that police officers can be trusted, unbiased and will always search for the real criminal instead of poor John Doe. There is no replacement for making court rulings based upon reason and logic instead of technicalities and "I'm just doing my job" mentality. Until this is achieved, technologies like facial recognition should not even be considered, and the US is not even close.
did they say what they plan on using the information for?
My first guess is that they will print a yellow six pointed star on specific people's drivers licenses, and then to use biometric techonlogy to keep these "nasty" people in their concentration camps.
Their supposed real reason seems to be to keep track of terrorists, but I don't see how this will help at all with that.
there should be a detailed policy of what they can and can not do with the information.
I agree. They should also keep that information with an organization that is of high integrity that will only release it for legitimate uses. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll even consider that...in fact the government probably couldn't even create such a organization, and if they found it, they'd probably destroy it...
No. I think you are confused. That won't work. It'll probably work for someone who gets arrested and the cops try to take his thumbprint.
However for the drivers license, the first time someone compares the print on record with the person's actual fingers, a whole bunch of red flags will go up. I can just hear the accusations of "Terrorist" "Drug Dealer" "Wanted Criminal" starting to fly. You could end up going to jail for doing nothing that is really wrong! They certainly don't have the right to fingerprint (or get a facial scan of) an innocent citizen, but that won't protect you.
If anyone should be tracked with fingerprints, DNA, or biometrics, then it should only be the criminals out on parole or with a warrant for their arrest. I can't think of any valid arguments for tracking law abiding citizens in these matters. A picture should be enough for identification.
I have been without a car for a few years. (however I do have a drivers license).
Maybe what the AC said isn't true in your area. Maybe you just haven't had to live without a car for a while. But in some (maybe even many) areas, it is very difficult to live without a car.
It may be not a great burden to walk a mile and a half, but what about 10? 20?...and the bus? Where I live (and many other western states), the bussing system is a complete joke! Traveling that 10 miles takes about an hour--and that is only if the bus goes "directly" there and you don't have to transfer. It also doesn't count walking to/from the bus stop and the time wasted waiting for the bus. The busses here are usually 5 min. early to 15 min. late--that's up to twenty minutes you have to wait!
In a car that trip would take maybe 15 minutes. On the bus that same trip takes over an hour--provided that the route stops at the doorsteps of your source and destination! Oftentimes it isn't possible to work things out that way--unless you greatly restrict everything you do.
Maybe you might like sitting your ass on a bus for two hours every day or staying in some crappy barely minimum wage job just because it's within walking distance. I sure don't!
Yes, I'm clearly a MS serf... Take a look at userid's you idiot.
Not that I'm saying you are, but that is a silly argument. I mean, you're referring to your low slashdot uid number, right? For all any of us know, you could have been known as the "MS Troll" in your early days...
Ahh, since CLR and C# are useless, that explains why go-mono.net is going gangbusters to develop an implementation on Linux.
LOL! This one's really funny. That Linux Mono movement you're talking about was started by the GNOME people, and I think that it's obvious to anyone that knows the subject well that GNOME is just a low end clone attempt at Win98 for UNIX systems. I imagine if they saw a MS promotional video showing some Windows programmers shoving their hands into yak butts, the GNOME people would have one out within a week.
All the real open source programmers seem to still be using lower level libraries like GTK...then sometimes put in some basic support for GNOME just to make the GNU people happy. I honestly don't think GNOME (or KDE) is really wanted except by script kiddies and buzzword jockeys.
Um, 6 years ago (1996), the Mac's of the time would have been PowerPC based already.
I think we had only one of the PowerPC machines there--it was just a cheap-assed electronics assembly place. Most of the computers there (in the section I worked anyway) were somewhat old--however I wasn't programming on them, just testing boards, so I don't know if they were 68000 or RISC based. I was just using an excuse to praise the 68000's instruction set.;-)
Funny story about that place: the big boss was having some memory problems with his Win95 computer, so he had some tech support guy come look at it. Turns out he had a hundred instances of WordPerfect running! Apparently, he'd just start up another WordPerfect when he needed it--without closing the others down!
Oh, yeah, Windows 2000/XP IS a huge leap over Win9x/DOS/Win3.11 etc.
Well they are--they're a huge leap into shit.;-) A few days ago I did a dd/dev/zero on my win98 partitions--I was sick of all the stupid problems with it and I don't care if software makers will only create products for that crapware OS. It's not worth it--may as well use pencil and paper--even for creating a 1000x1000 julia fractal.;-)
Maybe after I do some repartitioning (my hd is still set up the same way as when it was still a 486), I'll try installing and playing with Crystal Space. Then I'll be able to play 3d games too...
Microsoft finally released something that was actually stable.... only took them.. oooh.. 20 years?:)
Well...I doubt it's really much more stable. I just think there are more stupid lusers that have lower expectations. Every time a new MS OS comes out, everyone seems to insist it's more stable. Even if I use it and find it isn't...
Try using some current Apple products on a daily basis and then get back to me.
Oh, so you're saying they've put a real power switch and manual eject floppies/cdroms onto their computers? That's funny, nearly all the other computer manufacturers seem to be going in the opposite direction...
That sounds a lot to me like the MS fanatics that insist Windows XP/2000 is a lot better than the previous versions (and Linux as well), and I should give their newest version a chance. I've used MS operating systems from DOS 5 to Win98, and all of them have been crappy. DOS was mostly stable just because of the fact that it was mostly only a filesystem driver. If you made a DOS program, you'd have to access the BIOS or hardware directly for graphics/sound/whatever.
BTW six years ago, Apple was cranking out those Beige blocks of cheese that Sculley thought he was going to sell against PCs into Corporate America.
Yeah, yeah, and the goatse.cx guy was living peacefully among a herd of goats. You still haven't specified any reason for me to think that the current Macs are of better design than the ones I used at work 6 years ago. Here, I'll help out: OS X.;-)
And floppies...we don't need no stinking floppies.
Six years ago I doubt you would have said that....unless you were rich enough to crank out thousands of dollars for a CD burner.;-) Although that still wouldn't solve my problems with motor eject type drives versus manual.
Oh yeah, how about providing the make/model of your PC *notebook* with the CPU idling features...
It's not a laptop of any kind, it's a desktop, and I'm certain any power mangement features in a desktop are going to be in a laptop too. The motherboard is a Soyo SY-5EMA+ V1.1 (Based on the crappy VIA Apollo MVP3+ chipset--bought it used, so I didn't know what I was getting) with a 500 MHz K6-2.
I think you are somewhat of a new Apple fan--Personal computer (PC) is the term Apple coined for their Apple IIe (IIRC, it was one of their early 8-bit computers anyway...) Really zealous Apple people will flame anyone who uses that term.;-) --however it's hard to know what to call them... IBM-compatible doesn't really seem to apply anymore.
Before you label me anti-Apple, I'm not really. I just have some issues with their hardware design and the things the main article said. I just had to point out some inconsistencies with your post. I bet if Apple would just sell competitively priced Mac boards and OS X, Macintosh computers would probably have as much market share as Microsoft/IA32 computers. I played around with assembly programming for the 68000 on my Atari ST--much better than Intel's instruction set. Although I guess now the new Macs are all based on some RISC processor...
How long are you going to be away on this trip? If it's only two or three weeks, you may be able to save up vacation/sick time or make a deal with your employer.
because Apple developed a power management chip that keeps all system clocks running, but idles the CPU down when the system encounters idle time, then bounces back to full speed in a few milliseconds. That kind of developement will never happen in a commodity PC market.
That's strange...my 'commodity PC' seems to have that feature, and it appears to work fine in Linux (although it's not a laptop). Just because Bill Gates is too stupid to use it doesn't mean it's not there...
and plug a USB device into one of the ports on the back, without moving anything, and without having too see ugly USB outlets all the time.
Ummm...my USB ports are located in the back too, however if I had a lot of USB devices and was plugging them in all the time, I'd think having the ports in the front would be easier.
There are many other subtle benefits resulting from Apple's design efforts. Suffice it to say, one cannot truly appreciate them until actually using them.
I used to test network cards on Macs about 6 years ago...I always thought their hardware design was idiotic. None of them had any real power switches, so any serious flaw in the card would often require me to unplug the power cord because there was no real power switch. Also they wouldn't shut down properly sometimes--guess what? Had to pull the power cord. Yes, I know these are extreme cases--but isn't that what most planning is for? Also I hated the fact that even the floppy disks used an electronic eject system instead of a mechanical one--that meant you had to wait several seconds for the friggin disk to come out, and if you turned the power off and forgot to eject the disk, you'd have to turn the computer back on! I don't want to know what to do if the power goes out!
Unfortunately, other hardware makers have gone in this direction (software controled power switch, and CDROM eject), but at least my computer still has a real power switch in the back in case anything gets flakey...however I must admit, I just got ACPI working in Linux--and it's a comforting thing to know I can press the software power button, and Linux will attempt to shut down properly. In the event my crappy ps/2 keyboard falls out of it's connector (why did they have to change from the standard 5-pin?), or my fb or whatever experiments screw up the screen/keyboard/etc and the only solution is to reboot without seeing anything on the screen or keys don't work...
....then wireless networks will start popping up as tonnes of people buy 802.11 and bluetooth cards! No ISP bills! Will there be a bandwidth shortage? Only if some freebander fires up his RF noise generator...
What about this broadcast flag and their proposed "narrowly focused government regulation"? Does that mean all software capable of copying or transmitting files would be required to somehow detect the "flag" and not copy/transmit the file?
This still seems to be a bit SSSCA like to me. Will the process to detect the flag be patented? Will detecting the flag take a siginificant amount of processing time? (and "significant" is a relative term--on a busy server just a few hundred clock cycles per detection could be too much) Will implementation of detecting the flag be trivial to program or very difficult?
All I can say is that they'd better have some really simple free method for encoding/detecting this "flag". Like maybe putting 0x82, 0x94, 0xa6, 0xb8 as the first four bytes of the file, and nothing else needed to detect it (the values should probably be more random, and shouldn't conflict with any other file formats...)
If this "flag" is buried somewhere in all video / audio files and you have to read their specific format's header to find it, I can see a whole lot of commercial programs getting more expensive and/or reduced functionality when they're sold the US....and many US based open source programs disapearing from the internet.
(Not to mention non-US programs won't bother to comply and will therefore be illegal...)
Free and high-end commercial software same?
on
ORBZ Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Most open source software is written by students, hobbists, and professionals in their spare time. They don't have the resources to extensively test their product. Nor is most of this software intended for companies to be dependant on its reliability, and if that company is dependant on the reliability of that software, it is implied that the company is responsible for verifying integrity for use in the company's systems.
However, for a commercial product that was written, tested and sold for the specific purpose of a company operating their business with that software, then the vendor saying 'NO WARRANTIES', too bad if our massive amount of bugs ruin your operations, well IANAL, but it seems to me that this is a contradiction. In fact, I thought that people selling products could not legally warranty away certain types of liability.
It would be absurd to sue a video game manufacturer for millions just because the game crashes every once in a while. Just like it would be absurd to sue someone who gave you a piece of software for free and it had some bug--any bug. Warranties were created so that buyers could have reasonable expectations of a product that is sold on the market. In free software there is no buyer, seller, or market--the product is given away.
However if that same video game is so buggy it's unusable, then you should be able to take it back and be refunded the price you paid for it. Just like you can return free software and get nothing back--as the the developers did when they gave it to you.
Oh, and I don't think all "Open Sourcers" want everyone to only use free/open source software--I think that's mostly just the GNU mongers....
Re:7/10? POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 1
LOL!
I didn't make myself clear. I meant to say I'd be screaming "I'd love to eat Milla's cookie" over and over again.;-) Although I think Klingon women would like someone "shrieking into their naked crotches".;-)
Re:7/10? POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS
on
Resident Evil
·
· Score: 1
**** SPOILERS ****
Why would you build a emergency cutoff system for an AI (in case it perhaps goes crazy) BEHIND defense systems controlled by the AI??
To me it seems they didn't have an emergency cutoff system. Didn't they just use a EMP detonator to overload the system to shut it down? Then they had to pull out the motherboard. Sounds like they didn't even install an off switch.;-)
And why would an AI that we find out isn't crazy start freaking out over killing the infected chick? The AI shouldn't care, it should have calmly stated kill her or you all die, instead of screaming kill her over and over like that chick just ate her cookie.
It was supposed to be an AI system based on a child, correct? Not all advanced computer systems of the future will act like Robbie the Robot or 7 of 9.
BTW, I'd love to eat Milla's cookie, and I'd be screaming it over and over.;-9
Not a plot problem but the Matrix bullets have to go, getting sick of the rip offs.
Hmm...I don't remember any "Matrix bullets". Or are you talking about the scene where they're shooting in all directions and at everything? Or maybe bullets in slow motion, etc. I seem to remember a few movies before the Matrix that had scenes like these...and the only really new thing that the Matrix did with bullets was that slow motion dodging scene--and I don't remember any scene like that in this movie...
Who directed this flick: Hey pal, load noises and sudden appearances on screen only work if you use them SPARINGLY. No audience is going to jump every five minutes at that shit.
I jumped a few times, and it's been a good five or ten years since I've jumped while watching a movie. Unless you count when I looked back during Way of the Gun--that sniper shot was unexpected, and they even used the stereo system for that one. Maybe you miss having the "suspense" music (stolen from Psycho) play before the action happens. I hate that music.;-)
All in all it was a good watch though, entertaining at least.
Just because you don't pay for using your neighbor's broadband via 802.11 doesn't mean that they don't pay for it, or their telco/cable co.
WTF??? Where was it mentioned in the parent post that the wireless network was going to be used in this manner? If your neighbors set up their networks so that anyone on a nearby wireless hub can access their ISP's service, then they are complete dumbasses! (for several reasons) Why do so many incompetant idiots instantly believe any new technology will be used only for some illegal purpose?
If wireless networks live up to the promise, they can replace ISPs--not burden ISP's backs. It's true you wouldn't be able to access a site on the other side of the planet, or maybe even on the other side of your state, but you could IM, play games or fileshare with nearly anyone in your city.
...and when I say fileshare I mean legally distribute files--such as programs that you are allowed under the license (as BSD, 'freeware', LGPL, and etc.) or audio/video/picture files that someone created and wants to give away free. What's that you say? If I take a picture of a stray cat, record myself farting, or videotape a roadtrip I take, then the copyright is owned by the MPAA/RIAA? Yeah right!
Freedom of information doesn't mean information is free. Just 'cause you can legally read the book doesn't mean you don't have to buy the book.
I don't have to buy the book to read it if the book has entered the public domain (check out Project Gutenburg) or the author has authorised it to be distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License
Re:Caffeine? (was Re:The full quote)
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 1
Yeah if you take enough caffeine, you can cause death. Same thing with vitamins and window cleaner. However I dont see how any of these three items cause "social grief."
How is it morally wrong to target known offenders for heightened survelience?
How would it be established that someone is a "known offender"? Maybe that jaywalking ticket you got 10 years ago. Maybe your roommate, brother, sister, or friend used drugs in the past, and by associating with them you must be a "known offender"--because if they do drugs, you must be doing them too.
I remember reading a news story about how the Dever police had put nearly every African-American in the city on their "gang" list. Basicly what would happen is: The police would pull a car over. An officer would check to see if anyone in the car was on the list. If so, everyone in the car would then be listed as a gang member.
This could be used by officers or even politicians to target a specific person for harrasment. You don't think abuse could happen? Maybe in your self-righteous mind you think no bogus charges could be brought against you, however you'll find in the real world, plenty of people are willing and able to defame you or bring you down--including those "sacred" public officials you seem to have so much trust in.
How is it morally wrong for law-enforcement to monitor publically accessable web-based communities for drug activity?
IANAL, however I don't think this is any different from broadcasting a place to sell drugs on the radio, or yelling it on the streets. I don't see any moral or legal problem with this, but I don't think that's what most people here are complaining about. In fact, on thing that confuses me about Wired's story is that the majority of the article talks about this specific issue, but they also drop the NDIC's list of people who should be "targeted" without really discussing it.
Caffeine? (was Re:The full quote)
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 1
(pushing caffeine)... but they are arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned substances combined
How did caffeine get onto your list? I might understand the tobacco (causes lung cancer) and alcohol (causes traffic accidents), but why caffeine??? What happened? Did you spill coffee on your lap in a McDonald's drive up once???
What is "arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned [controlled] substances combined" is the fact that medicines are controlled in the first place. IANAL or doctor, but I understand if you are a doctor, it is perfectly legal for you to possess and administer cocaine and heroin. However, if you're a terminal patient, you have to ask the FDA if you're allowed some new experimental medicine, which most likely they will say "no!" How is that protecting anyone?
The person may become addicted -- they're dying anyway -- which is more important?
It may cause illness -- well they're going to die without the drug anyway.
It may cause death -- which is worse? Taking the drug with a chance of death, or not taking it and guaranteeing death?
It's too bad the Internet didn't keep with the way it was supposed to work...
Yeah. I think that's from too many stupid people. I remember seeing a guy get flamed on usenet for having a summary line in his headers (or was that a keyword line? I forget.) The idiot that flamed him said something like it messes up his newsreader or some odd crap like that.
Back on the subject at hand...the sort of program you're asking about would need some sort of AI code in it. I believe the field of study is called natural language processing. It's not a trivial matter, so it makes sense to me that there is no open source software for it.
It wouldn't be a bad idea for a project. Maybe a system that converts text into a more understandable form for computers...most languages were just haphazardly slapped together then highly bastardized over time...it's amazing that anyone or anything can understand English!;-) Anyway, changing to data that is structured and conforms to more strict rules could do wonders. After that, it'd be much less difficult to write programs that depend on understanding the meaning of documents. (like creating summaries)
Unfortunately, such a project would involve more than just changing words to specific codes. I remember reading about one of the first translation attempts by computer. They tried to test it out by going from English to Russian and back. They put in: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." They got back something like: "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." A lot of the meaning is lost. You have to account for not only placement of words, but also context, idiosyncratic phrases, &etc...
Whoa there!
I could take the time to make a point by point refutation of your comments (complete with bullet points even!), but instead let me just say that your browser apparently did not process my sarcasm tags properly.
Ooops...sorry. Apparently <sarcasm> tags are stripped out by slashdot's software--maybe you should use < instead.;-)
...or ask Commander Taco to give all those who can't recognize good sarcasm an automatic -1 moderation on all their posts.;-)
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly performing any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil remedies having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement of any right covered by this Treaty or the Berne Convention
...
(ii) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast or communicate to the public, without authority, works or copies of works knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority.
(emphasis added by me)
This will most likely be interpeted such that anyone creating a computer program or device which copies or transmits a file will be in violation of this treaty
Don't think so? Anyone who writes a ftp client/server, news reader/server, web browser, http server, sound recording, compression (including those for audio/video such as mpeg), or UNIX cp program will know that someone out there will most likely use it to copy or transmit files that have had their DRM removed. That will most certainly qualify as a "person having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement"
In fact that premise could be extended to someone who makes an audio tape recorder or VCR--how many times a day are these devices used to illegally copy movies and CDs? They have the same potential for infringing against some DRM scheme--even if it is just holding the mic up to a speaker.
It won't stifle creativity???? That's the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. This will make anyone creating or distributing programs or devices that could potentially be used for a DRM "infringement" afraid to release any such device/program--even if the primary use is completely legitimate!!!
And this will have a profound effect on any person attempting to distribute (or even create) their own completely original works on the internet!
This treaty is fucking bullshit!
When I was reading Article 2, I almost thought this might be a reasonable document, but there is way too much crap that leans in the direction of copyright "owners"--**aaahh*corporationsthatstole workfromartists*chhooo**
Yeah, maybe they have the right to use DRM schemes and control how their work is distributed, but they do NOT have the right to shutdown operations that don't use DRM, price-fix, support monoplies, screw their customers!
If I create an original work (text, audio, video, image, or computer program), I should be allowed to distribute it in any resonable way including without DRM. I should not have to worry that someone will be able to find some way to use it that is illegal. They are the ones that are commiting the crime. Not me!!!! How far is this going to go? Will governments start going after car manufacturers because bank robbers use cars as a getaway vehicle???
If I buy unlimited rights to view/listen to a work (such as is implied with videos and CDs). Then I should be allowed to view/listen to that work at any time in any way and not be required to watch fucking commercials!!! Broadcast TV has commercials because that is how they pay for thier content. DVD has commercials because they wish to screw over as many customers as possible while making as much money as they can! In addition I should be able to watch my DVD in any region of the world with any OS or device I choose. The people who designed DVDs took those choices away from me. This is why I never bought a DVD player or drive.
Yeah, I don't see why there should be a difference. A program is still a work whether it is in ASCII form or translated to Java bytecodes/x86 binary opcodes/etc...
Yes, I agree. I have never taken any illegal drugs in my life, but when I go in for a Nazi drug test, I am always worry whether or not it'll be a false postive and I'll be labeled a drug attic.
When will the idiots realize that hiring some nimrod to pour chemicals (and now frog cells) onto people's piss won't solve any social problems! Yeah, it may keep a few atheletes from competing or some crack addicts from using heavy machinery, but how many innocent people's lives have been ruined? The real abusers find ways to bypass the tests anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
What about the crimes of perjury, corruption, and false accusations? This would not even remotely address these problems.
A corrupt cop or government official could easily use this information for in a whole variety of evil ways. They could use it to blackmail people. They could modify the system so that it would finger you for some crime they committed. Etc. Etc...
This in fact would encourage lazy law enforcement. "A crime was committed at 2AM in sector 27c. Let's look up all the faces scanned in that area between 1AM and 3. Well well, John Doe was the only person scanned. Arrest him. Book him. Case closed." John Doe was only walking home from work--the real criminal avoided the cameras. Meanwhile that criminal is still at large, and may have little danger of being prosecuted for the crime as the police decided they have their man.
There is no replacement for ensuring that police officers can be trusted, unbiased and will always search for the real criminal instead of poor John Doe. There is no replacement for making court rulings based upon reason and logic instead of technicalities and "I'm just doing my job" mentality. Until this is achieved, technologies like facial recognition should not even be considered, and the US is not even close.
My first guess is that they will print a yellow six pointed star on specific people's drivers licenses, and then to use biometric techonlogy to keep these "nasty" people in their concentration camps.
Their supposed real reason seems to be to keep track of terrorists, but I don't see how this will help at all with that.
I agree. They should also keep that information with an organization that is of high integrity that will only release it for legitimate uses. Unfortunately, I doubt they'll even consider that...in fact the government probably couldn't even create such a organization, and if they found it, they'd probably destroy it...
No. I think you are confused. That won't work. It'll probably work for someone who gets arrested and the cops try to take his thumbprint.
However for the drivers license, the first time someone compares the print on record with the person's actual fingers, a whole bunch of red flags will go up. I can just hear the accusations of "Terrorist" "Drug Dealer" "Wanted Criminal" starting to fly. You could end up going to jail for doing nothing that is really wrong! They certainly don't have the right to fingerprint (or get a facial scan of) an innocent citizen, but that won't protect you.
If anyone should be tracked with fingerprints, DNA, or biometrics, then it should only be the criminals out on parole or with a warrant for their arrest. I can't think of any valid arguments for tracking law abiding citizens in these matters. A picture should be enough for identification.
I have been without a car for a few years. (however I do have a drivers license).
Maybe what the AC said isn't true in your area. Maybe you just haven't had to live without a car for a while. But in some (maybe even many) areas, it is very difficult to live without a car.
It may be not a great burden to walk a mile and a half, but what about 10? 20? ...and the bus? Where I live (and many other western states), the bussing system is a complete joke! Traveling that 10 miles takes about an hour--and that is only if the bus goes "directly" there and you don't have to transfer. It also doesn't count walking to/from the bus stop and the time wasted waiting for the bus. The busses here are usually 5 min. early to 15 min. late--that's up to twenty minutes you have to wait!
In a car that trip would take maybe 15 minutes. On the bus that same trip takes over an hour--provided that the route stops at the doorsteps of your source and destination! Oftentimes it isn't possible to work things out that way--unless you greatly restrict everything you do.
Maybe you might like sitting your ass on a bus for two hours every day or staying in some crappy barely minimum wage job just because it's within walking distance. I sure don't!
Not that I'm saying you are, but that is a silly argument. I mean, you're referring to your low slashdot uid number, right? For all any of us know, you could have been known as the "MS Troll" in your early days...
LOL! This one's really funny. That Linux Mono movement you're talking about was started by the GNOME people, and I think that it's obvious to anyone that knows the subject well that GNOME is just a low end clone attempt at Win98 for UNIX systems. I imagine if they saw a MS promotional video showing some Windows programmers shoving their hands into yak butts, the GNOME people would have one out within a week.
All the real open source programmers seem to still be using lower level libraries like GTK ...then sometimes put in some basic support for GNOME just to make the GNU people happy. I honestly don't think GNOME (or KDE) is really wanted except by script kiddies and buzzword jockeys.
I think we had only one of the PowerPC machines there--it was just a cheap-assed electronics assembly place. Most of the computers there (in the section I worked anyway) were somewhat old--however I wasn't programming on them, just testing boards, so I don't know if they were 68000 or RISC based. I was just using an excuse to praise the 68000's instruction set. ;-)
Funny story about that place: the big boss was having some memory problems with his Win95 computer, so he had some tech support guy come look at it. Turns out he had a hundred instances of WordPerfect running! Apparently, he'd just start up another WordPerfect when he needed it--without closing the others down!
Well they are--they're a huge leap into shit. ;-) A few days ago I did a dd /dev/zero on my win98 partitions--I was sick of all the stupid problems with it and I don't care if software makers will only create products for that crapware OS. It's not worth it--may as well use pencil and paper--even for creating a 1000x1000 julia fractal. ;-)
Maybe after I do some repartitioning (my hd is still set up the same way as when it was still a 486), I'll try installing and playing with Crystal Space. Then I'll be able to play 3d games too...
Well...I doubt it's really much more stable. I just think there are more stupid lusers that have lower expectations. Every time a new MS OS comes out, everyone seems to insist it's more stable. Even if I use it and find it isn't...
Oh, so you're saying they've put a real power switch and manual eject floppies/cdroms onto their computers? That's funny, nearly all the other computer manufacturers seem to be going in the opposite direction...
That sounds a lot to me like the MS fanatics that insist Windows XP/2000 is a lot better than the previous versions (and Linux as well), and I should give their newest version a chance. I've used MS operating systems from DOS 5 to Win98, and all of them have been crappy. DOS was mostly stable just because of the fact that it was mostly only a filesystem driver. If you made a DOS program, you'd have to access the BIOS or hardware directly for graphics/sound/whatever.
Yeah, yeah, and the goatse.cx guy was living peacefully among a herd of goats. You still haven't specified any reason for me to think that the current Macs are of better design than the ones I used at work 6 years ago. Here, I'll help out: OS X. ;-)
Six years ago I doubt you would have said that....unless you were rich enough to crank out thousands of dollars for a CD burner. ;-) Although that still wouldn't solve my problems with motor eject type drives versus manual.
It's not a laptop of any kind, it's a desktop, and I'm certain any power mangement features in a desktop are going to be in a laptop too. The motherboard is a Soyo SY-5EMA+ V1.1 (Based on the crappy VIA Apollo MVP3+ chipset--bought it used, so I didn't know what I was getting) with a 500 MHz K6-2.
I think you are somewhat of a new Apple fan--Personal computer (PC) is the term Apple coined for their Apple IIe (IIRC, it was one of their early 8-bit computers anyway...) Really zealous Apple people will flame anyone who uses that term. ;-) --however it's hard to know what to call them... IBM-compatible doesn't really seem to apply anymore.
Before you label me anti-Apple, I'm not really. I just have some issues with their hardware design and the things the main article said. I just had to point out some inconsistencies with your post. I bet if Apple would just sell competitively priced Mac boards and OS X, Macintosh computers would probably have as much market share as Microsoft/IA32 computers. I played around with assembly programming for the 68000 on my Atari ST--much better than Intel's instruction set. Although I guess now the new Macs are all based on some RISC processor...
How long are you going to be away on this trip? If it's only two or three weeks, you may be able to save up vacation/sick time or make a deal with your employer.
That's strange...my 'commodity PC' seems to have that feature, and it appears to work fine in Linux (although it's not a laptop). Just because Bill Gates is too stupid to use it doesn't mean it's not there...
Ummm...my USB ports are located in the back too, however if I had a lot of USB devices and was plugging them in all the time, I'd think having the ports in the front would be easier.
I used to test network cards on Macs about 6 years ago...I always thought their hardware design was idiotic. None of them had any real power switches, so any serious flaw in the card would often require me to unplug the power cord because there was no real power switch. Also they wouldn't shut down properly sometimes--guess what? Had to pull the power cord. Yes, I know these are extreme cases--but isn't that what most planning is for? Also I hated the fact that even the floppy disks used an electronic eject system instead of a mechanical one--that meant you had to wait several seconds for the friggin disk to come out, and if you turned the power off and forgot to eject the disk, you'd have to turn the computer back on! I don't want to know what to do if the power goes out!
Unfortunately, other hardware makers have gone in this direction (software controled power switch, and CDROM eject), but at least my computer still has a real power switch in the back in case anything gets flakey...however I must admit, I just got ACPI working in Linux--and it's a comforting thing to know I can press the software power button, and Linux will attempt to shut down properly. In the event my crappy ps/2 keyboard falls out of it's connector (why did they have to change from the standard 5-pin?), or my fb or whatever experiments screw up the screen/keyboard/etc and the only solution is to reboot without seeing anything on the screen or keys don't work...
....then wireless networks will start popping up as tonnes of people buy 802.11 and bluetooth cards! No ISP bills! Will there be a bandwidth shortage? Only if some freebander fires up his RF noise generator...
What about this broadcast flag and their proposed "narrowly focused government regulation"? Does that mean all software capable of copying or transmitting files would be required to somehow detect the "flag" and not copy/transmit the file?
This still seems to be a bit SSSCA like to me. Will the process to detect the flag be patented? Will detecting the flag take a siginificant amount of processing time? (and "significant" is a relative term--on a busy server just a few hundred clock cycles per detection could be too much) Will implementation of detecting the flag be trivial to program or very difficult?
All I can say is that they'd better have some really simple free method for encoding/detecting this "flag". Like maybe putting 0x82, 0x94, 0xa6, 0xb8 as the first four bytes of the file, and nothing else needed to detect it (the values should probably be more random, and shouldn't conflict with any other file formats...)
If this "flag" is buried somewhere in all video / audio files and you have to read their specific format's header to find it, I can see a whole lot of commercial programs getting more expensive and/or reduced functionality when they're sold the US. ...and many US based open source programs disapearing from the internet.
(Not to mention non-US programs won't bother to comply and will therefore be illegal...)
Most open source software is written by students, hobbists, and professionals in their spare time. They don't have the resources to extensively test their product. Nor is most of this software intended for companies to be dependant on its reliability, and if that company is dependant on the reliability of that software, it is implied that the company is responsible for verifying integrity for use in the company's systems.
However, for a commercial product that was written, tested and sold for the specific purpose of a company operating their business with that software, then the vendor saying 'NO WARRANTIES', too bad if our massive amount of bugs ruin your operations, well IANAL, but it seems to me that this is a contradiction. In fact, I thought that people selling products could not legally warranty away certain types of liability.
It would be absurd to sue a video game manufacturer for millions just because the game crashes every once in a while. Just like it would be absurd to sue someone who gave you a piece of software for free and it had some bug--any bug. Warranties were created so that buyers could have reasonable expectations of a product that is sold on the market. In free software there is no buyer, seller, or market--the product is given away.
However if that same video game is so buggy it's unusable, then you should be able to take it back and be refunded the price you paid for it. Just like you can return free software and get nothing back--as the the developers did when they gave it to you.
Oh, and I don't think all "Open Sourcers" want everyone to only use free/open source software--I think that's mostly just the GNU mongers....
LOL!
I didn't make myself clear. I meant to say I'd be screaming "I'd love to eat Milla's cookie" over and over again. ;-) Although I think Klingon women would like someone "shrieking into their naked crotches". ;-)
**** SPOILERS ****
To me it seems they didn't have an emergency cutoff system. Didn't they just use a EMP detonator to overload the system to shut it down? Then they had to pull out the motherboard. Sounds like they didn't even install an off switch. ;-)
It was supposed to be an AI system based on a child, correct? Not all advanced computer systems of the future will act like Robbie the Robot or 7 of 9.
BTW, I'd love to eat Milla's cookie, and I'd be screaming it over and over. ;-9
Hmm...I don't remember any "Matrix bullets". Or are you talking about the scene where they're shooting in all directions and at everything? Or maybe bullets in slow motion, etc. I seem to remember a few movies before the Matrix that had scenes like these...and the only really new thing that the Matrix did with bullets was that slow motion dodging scene--and I don't remember any scene like that in this movie...
I jumped a few times, and it's been a good five or ten years since I've jumped while watching a movie. Unless you count when I looked back during Way of the Gun--that sniper shot was unexpected, and they even used the stereo system for that one. Maybe you miss having the "suspense" music (stolen from Psycho) play before the action happens. I hate that music. ;-)
I agree!
WTF??? Where was it mentioned in the parent post that the wireless network was going to be used in this manner? If your neighbors set up their networks so that anyone on a nearby wireless hub can access their ISP's service, then they are complete dumbasses! (for several reasons) Why do so many incompetant idiots instantly believe any new technology will be used only for some illegal purpose?
If wireless networks live up to the promise, they can replace ISPs--not burden ISP's backs. It's true you wouldn't be able to access a site on the other side of the planet, or maybe even on the other side of your state, but you could IM, play games or fileshare with nearly anyone in your city.
...and when I say fileshare I mean legally distribute files--such as programs that you are allowed under the license (as BSD, 'freeware', LGPL, and etc.) or audio/video/picture files that someone created and wants to give away free. What's that you say? If I take a picture of a stray cat, record myself farting, or videotape a roadtrip I take, then the copyright is owned by the MPAA/RIAA? Yeah right!
Yeah if you take enough caffeine, you can cause death. Same thing with vitamins and window cleaner. However I dont see how any of these three items cause "social grief."
How would it be established that someone is a "known offender"? Maybe that jaywalking ticket you got 10 years ago. Maybe your roommate, brother, sister, or friend used drugs in the past, and by associating with them you must be a "known offender"--because if they do drugs, you must be doing them too.
I remember reading a news story about how the Dever police had put nearly every African-American in the city on their "gang" list. Basicly what would happen is: The police would pull a car over. An officer would check to see if anyone in the car was on the list. If so, everyone in the car would then be listed as a gang member.
This could be used by officers or even politicians to target a specific person for harrasment. You don't think abuse could happen? Maybe in your self-righteous mind you think no bogus charges could be brought against you, however you'll find in the real world, plenty of people are willing and able to defame you or bring you down--including those "sacred" public officials you seem to have so much trust in.
IANAL, however I don't think this is any different from broadcasting a place to sell drugs on the radio, or yelling it on the streets. I don't see any moral or legal problem with this, but I don't think that's what most people here are complaining about. In fact, on thing that confuses me about Wired's story is that the majority of the article talks about this specific issue, but they also drop the NDIC's list of people who should be "targeted" without really discussing it.
How did caffeine get onto your list? I might understand the tobacco (causes lung cancer) and alcohol (causes traffic accidents), but why caffeine??? What happened? Did you spill coffee on your lap in a McDonald's drive up once???
What is "arguably responsible for more social grief than all the banned [controlled] substances combined" is the fact that medicines are controlled in the first place. IANAL or doctor, but I understand if you are a doctor, it is perfectly legal for you to possess and administer cocaine and heroin. However, if you're a terminal patient, you have to ask the FDA if you're allowed some new experimental medicine, which most likely they will say "no!" How is that protecting anyone?
Yeah. I think that's from too many stupid people. I remember seeing a guy get flamed on usenet for having a summary line in his headers (or was that a keyword line? I forget.) The idiot that flamed him said something like it messes up his newsreader or some odd crap like that.
Back on the subject at hand...the sort of program you're asking about would need some sort of AI code in it. I believe the field of study is called natural language processing. It's not a trivial matter, so it makes sense to me that there is no open source software for it.
It wouldn't be a bad idea for a project. Maybe a system that converts text into a more understandable form for computers...most languages were just haphazardly slapped together then highly bastardized over time...it's amazing that anyone or anything can understand English! ;-) Anyway, changing to data that is structured and conforms to more strict rules could do wonders. After that, it'd be much less difficult to write programs that depend on understanding the meaning of documents. (like creating summaries)
Unfortunately, such a project would involve more than just changing words to specific codes. I remember reading about one of the first translation attempts by computer. They tried to test it out by going from English to Russian and back. They put in: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." They got back something like: "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten." A lot of the meaning is lost. You have to account for not only placement of words, but also context, idiosyncratic phrases, &etc...
That technique is called a "loss leader"? I thought it was called "bait and switch". ;-)
Ooops...sorry. Apparently <sarcasm> tags are stripped out by slashdot's software--maybe you should use < instead. ;-)
...or ask Commander Taco to give all those who can't recognize good sarcasm an automatic -1 moderation on all their posts. ;-)
Take a close look at Article 12:
...
(emphasis added by me)
This will most likely be interpeted such that anyone creating a computer program or device which copies or transmits a file will be in violation of this treaty
Don't think so? Anyone who writes a ftp client/server, news reader/server, web browser, http server, sound recording, compression (including those for audio/video such as mpeg), or UNIX cp program will know that someone out there will most likely use it to copy or transmit files that have had their DRM removed. That will most certainly qualify as a "person having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement" In fact that premise could be extended to someone who makes an audio tape recorder or VCR--how many times a day are these devices used to illegally copy movies and CDs? They have the same potential for infringing against some DRM scheme--even if it is just holding the mic up to a speaker.
It won't stifle creativity???? That's the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. This will make anyone creating or distributing programs or devices that could potentially be used for a DRM "infringement" afraid to release any such device/program--even if the primary use is completely legitimate!!! And this will have a profound effect on any person attempting to distribute (or even create) their own completely original works on the internet!
This treaty is fucking bullshit!
When I was reading Article 2, I almost thought this might be a reasonable document, but there is way too much crap that leans in the direction of copyright "owners"--**aaahh*corporationsthatstole workfromartists*chhooo**
Yeah, maybe they have the right to use DRM schemes and control how their work is distributed, but they do NOT have the right to shutdown operations that don't use DRM, price-fix, support monoplies, screw their customers!
If I create an original work (text, audio, video, image, or computer program), I should be allowed to distribute it in any resonable way including without DRM. I should not have to worry that someone will be able to find some way to use it that is illegal. They are the ones that are commiting the crime. Not me!!!! How far is this going to go? Will governments start going after car manufacturers because bank robbers use cars as a getaway vehicle???
If I buy unlimited rights to view/listen to a work (such as is implied with videos and CDs). Then I should be allowed to view/listen to that work at any time in any way and not be required to watch fucking commercials!!! Broadcast TV has commercials because that is how they pay for thier content. DVD has commercials because they wish to screw over as many customers as possible while making as much money as they can! In addition I should be able to watch my DVD in any region of the world with any OS or device I choose. The people who designed DVDs took those choices away from me. This is why I never bought a DVD player or drive.
Yeah, I don't see why there should be a difference. A program is still a work whether it is in ASCII form or translated to Java bytecodes/x86 binary opcodes/etc...
Mod the parent up. Everyone needs to see this AC!
Yeah yeah. I attended school in the US pwublick educayshonel swysshem. So kill me.
Yes, I agree. I have never taken any illegal drugs in my life, but when I go in for a Nazi drug test, I am always worry whether or not it'll be a false postive and I'll be labeled a drug attic.
When will the idiots realize that hiring some nimrod to pour chemicals (and now frog cells) onto people's piss won't solve any social problems! Yeah, it may keep a few atheletes from competing or some crack addicts from using heavy machinery, but how many innocent people's lives have been ruined? The real abusers find ways to bypass the tests anyway...