By "in space", I'm assuming you mean in orbit. Remember, "what goes up, must come down." This applies to objects in orbit due to small amounts of drag. In the long run, these orbiting reactors would end up falling to earth and disintegrating in the atmosphere. Most definately a very bad thing.
Actually, the first step is to reduce dependency on the driver and have the car flly itself. For this, you can devise a new aerial highway system that controls the cars in controlled airspace (or at least provides collision avoidance information to your car.) This is the plan that Moller is taking anyway: <URL:http://www.moller.com/>
I'm definately not a lawyer, but here's what I think:
If you download a file over a P2P network, isn't the burden of copyright validation on the supplier? I mean, when I download an iTunes song, Apple provides the DRM and clearly defines what my rights are as the licensee of that piece of copyrighted material.
In the case of P2P, if I download a song, I may not have to worry about the copyright because I assumed the supplier had verified that it was ok for me to download.
OTOH, if I make a decision to redistribute that downloaded song, I better be sure I know the copyright (or lack there of) of what I'm sharing.
Which brings me to another point. If the RIAA shares music as part of a sting, does that mean, since they're the legal copyright holders, that they have waived that right as soon as the allow downloading from their servers? Just a thought.
No... they will find it by passing legislation to allow them to tap into ANY computer they think might be abusing/stealing their prized intellectual property.
True, there are bugs in OSS. BUT, as I pointed out, the bugs in OSS, on the most part (not all) are MUCH less severe than on M$ systems due to:
Programmer Pride (I can name that regexp in 3 notes)
Full disclosure of source code (given enough eyeballs...)
More mature network-born, multi-user OSes (with many security lessons already learned)
Most OSS projects are worked on by programmers with REAL WORLD programming experience instead of being written by someone recruited straight out of college (Like M$ does)
I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out to you (or will I be the last)
The Open Source products you speak of don't run as root by default. A big problem with this recent MS exploit is that IIS runs under the SYSTEM account. Therefore, if the single service is compromised, you can kiss your box goodbye.
The real underlying problem here is that M$ does not design there products with security in mind. They add all the features they think the public will want, THEN they worry about securing it.
If M$ would think things through BEFORE launching a product, maybe this type of buffer overflow would only lead to defaced websites and not fully compromised systems (something you almost never see in large Open Source products)
September 5-17, 1978:
President Jimmy Carter meets with Israeli and Arab leaders at Camp David to sign historic peace agreements for the middle east.
This seems to be a plausible explanation as most Palestinian extremist groups still despise the signing of peace agreements "forced" on them by the evil Americans.
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/cdavid.htm
You're right, you don't get it. You wouldn't want your own personal police officer following you to make sure you didn't commit a crime, would you? I'm not saying you have ever or ever plan to commit a crime, but public cameras say just that. Yes, the cameras are looking AT YOU. They are there to ensure YOU don't commit a crime. As a member of society, you volunteer away your freedom and mine as well. Thanks a lot! You know what? I don't like you taking away my freedom. I'm not a criminal and I should not be treated as such.
All these people who say: "I don't think having cameras in public is a bad idea" (not a direct quote) think that public spaces shouldn't be private. What next? I don't think many people would enjoy the idea of wearing a tracking device and moblie camera that uplink to your local police department while you are in public. But just think of all the crime it would stop! If everyone is watched, no one can get away with a crime. WOW! I've solved the crime problem! This would only be in public mind you.
What's the difference? I don't commit crimes, and I wouldn't with or without public cameras surrounding me. I'd just get a little paranoid of the local police/government/authorities. With that much paranoia, how safe would police be? And we thought the LAPD was trigger happy! Wait until we get the entire public resenting all authority figures. Then we'll see the collapse of a Democracy!
I think the personal mobile camera and tracking device is the same as public cameras. As mentioned above, they breed a sense of guilt into everyone who knows they're being watched.
This country is going downhill fast.
Slashdot Mirror
By "in space", I'm assuming you mean in orbit. Remember, "what goes up, must come down." This applies to objects in orbit due to small amounts of drag. In the long run, these orbiting reactors would end up falling to earth and disintegrating in the atmosphere. Most definately a very bad thing.
s 954.htm
A good reference of why this is a bad idea is Cosmos 954 http://www.geocities.com/conspiracyprime/e2_cosmo
No, it's not. New-Klee-er or New-Clear.
There is no 'u' in the second half of nuclear
- did I just bite a troll?
Actually, the first step is to reduce dependency on the driver and have the car flly itself. For this, you can devise a new aerial highway system that controls the cars in controlled airspace (or at least provides collision avoidance information to your car.) This is the plan that Moller is taking anyway: <URL:http://www.moller.com/>
I'm definately not a lawyer, but here's what I think:
If you download a file over a P2P network, isn't the burden of copyright validation on the supplier? I mean, when I download an iTunes song, Apple provides the DRM and clearly defines what my rights are as the licensee of that piece of copyrighted material.
In the case of P2P, if I download a song, I may not have to worry about the copyright because I assumed the supplier had verified that it was ok for me to download.
OTOH, if I make a decision to redistribute that downloaded song, I better be sure I know the copyright (or lack there of) of what I'm sharing.
Which brings me to another point. If the RIAA shares music as part of a sting, does that mean, since they're the legal copyright holders, that they have waived that right as soon as the allow downloading from their servers? Just a thought.
What about music I "licensed" in the past? I have never been able to find that Led Zeppelin III LP I bought in 1983?
I mean, since I DID license the music when I bought the record, shouldn't I be able to download those songs legally?
It's not like I'm asking the record company to incur any additional distribution costs since I'd be downloading it via KaZaa.
Ok, fine. The telco is the service provider.
What I see illegal here now is using an external caller ID scrambler. Or have these types of devices already been outlawed?
What about secure telephone devices (encoders, voice masking, etc)?
With the rate at which things are going, we'll soon be safe from all these freedoms.
Good-bye liberty, hello security!
I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out to you (or will I be the last)
The Open Source products you speak of don't run as root by default. A big problem with this recent MS exploit is that IIS runs under the SYSTEM account. Therefore, if the single service is compromised, you can kiss your box goodbye.
The real underlying problem here is that M$ does not design there products with security in mind. They add all the features they think the public will want, THEN they worry about securing it.
If M$ would think things through BEFORE launching a product, maybe this type of buffer overflow would only lead to defaced websites and not fully compromised systems (something you almost never see in large Open Source products)
September 5-17, 1978: President Jimmy Carter meets with Israeli and Arab leaders at Camp David to sign historic peace agreements for the middle east. This seems to be a plausible explanation as most Palestinian extremist groups still despise the signing of peace agreements "forced" on them by the evil Americans. http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/cdavid .htm
You're right, you don't get it. You wouldn't want your own personal police officer following you to make sure you didn't commit a crime, would you? I'm not saying you have ever or ever plan to commit a crime, but public cameras say just that. Yes, the cameras are looking AT YOU. They are there to ensure YOU don't commit a crime. As a member of society, you volunteer away your freedom and mine as well. Thanks a lot! You know what? I don't like you taking away my freedom. I'm not a criminal and I should not be treated as such.
All these people who say: "I don't think having cameras in public is a bad idea" (not a direct quote) think that public spaces shouldn't be private. What next? I don't think many people would enjoy the idea of wearing a tracking device and moblie camera that uplink to your local police department while you are in public. But just think of all the crime it would stop! If everyone is watched, no one can get away with a crime. WOW! I've solved the crime problem! This would only be in public mind you. What's the difference? I don't commit crimes, and I wouldn't with or without public cameras surrounding me. I'd just get a little paranoid of the local police/government/authorities. With that much paranoia, how safe would police be? And we thought the LAPD was trigger happy! Wait until we get the entire public resenting all authority figures. Then we'll see the collapse of a Democracy! I think the personal mobile camera and tracking device is the same as public cameras. As mentioned above, they breed a sense of guilt into everyone who knows they're being watched. This country is going downhill fast.