Might as well organize a small percentage of/.ers to make regular searches every few days for "Open Document", Linux, "Open Office", BSD, Java and a few other terms.
Seriously, it'd be interesting if you could get a lot of people to do that and see which ones they actually pay attention to. I seriously doubt they'd consider adding support for any of the above, but, then again, I'm rather surprised they added ANY kind of support for anything that isn't pure MS.
I can't give you a full answer, but I can tell you I'm no expert and no skilled artist by any means. I've always been interested in playing around with 3d animation, and downloaded Blender several years ago, when I needed a creative outlet. At first I thought I'd never learn it and nothing made sense to me. Then I bought a copy of "The Official Blender 2.0 Guide" (I guess that probably says how long ago it was!). I started reading through it and was designing 3d objects within a few hours. Once I had a guide to Blender and saw what the intent was with all the strange (or so they seemed to me) way things were done, it make sense and I was able to start working with it quickly.
One reason I don't watch much sf anymore because I have high standards. I want to be able to watch a show with good writing and good acting. I'll be more than happy to let the quality of the sets or effects be a little lower if the show has artistic merit. Maybe I am a snob, or maybe I've just learned to enjoy something at least a little better than the drivel tha often passes as sf now days. I started reading sf as a kid because it made me think and stretched my mind a little with every book I read. That's why I started watching Star Trek, as well. That's why I liked many of the episodes of TNG, didn't care much for Voyager or Enterprise, and liked DS9. I noticed you didn't like DS9. I've seen that a lot with fans who are more interested in explosions, tight body suits, and effects instead of solid writing that actually elevates a show above others. The number of negative reactions toward DS9 are what, long ago, convinced me that many sf fans are not nearly has smart as they think they are. By literary standards, it is a well made, well written, and well produced show. The fact that so many Trekkies and fans can write it off as soap opera is just proof that what many people are looking for in sf is not quality, but drivel, sex, explosions, and violence to passively occupy their minds, instead of giving them a chance to follow a more adult storyline with more adult characters that are involved in more than romance or battles.
I don't expect every series to be as good as Dune or MacBeth. But I do recognize the difference between quality writing and crap. If you don't, well that doesn't mean those that do are "pretentious". It just means we'd rather see the genre live UP to standards, instead of DOWN to the least common denominators.
Sliders was a poorly written, ill-conceived rip-off of an original idea by George R. R. Martin. The characters were less than real, and sometimes I felt almost like a characture.
But, then again, once I learned to read well enough to understand Shakespeare and other classic writers who could really develop a story and characters, I've had higher standards than what most SF shows can meet.
Sliders was a show for the masses who didn't want to deal with real sf that could actually make one think, like "The Prisoner" or 2001: ASO.
It's pap for those who don't have the refined taste for the caviar of sf.
I agree with the first post: DRM is the issue, not specifically TIVO.
I remember when I got my first real computer, an Apple//e (I had a TRS-80 Color Computer before that, but I'm talking about my first usable computer). IIRC, games were $20-$30 a piece. Applewriter//e was $200. Programs were using heavy copy protection. I remember reading a lot of articles about it, and one point was that any disk that could be copy-protected could be broken. Even when IBM became bigger than Apple, for a while copy protection was big. I remember going in and using Don Lancaster's disassembly of Applewriter//e to figure out how to make my own copies of Applewriter//e so I could start modifying it on my own (and leave my precious, licensed copy safe and untouched). I stayed with Apple for a good while because it was fun, because I knew the monitor ROM closely, and because I could not afford to upgrade. Then I got a good deal on an Amiga. By the time I got back into the "mainline" again, Windows 95 was big.
At that point almost no programs had copy protection. It had gone out of style because it cost more to keep ahead of the crackers than to just put it out and make what you could on honest customers. I remember in the material I read by Apple crackers, they pointed out that any disk the computer could run, copy protected or not, HAD to be able to be read by the boot loader, so at least the first sector had to be easily readable. From there on, a good cracker could figure it out one way or the other, as long as he took the time.
We know that any form of DRM is breakable, not just through brute force, but by reverse engineering. Yes, there's the DMCA, but tha is not going to stop cracking programs from being easily found, just as pirated software was easy to find in the days of Apple//e and programs like Locksmith were all over the place -- usually as a pirated copy in the basement of a teen uber-geek who had hundreds of copied 5 1/4" disks.
This is just a new market. Software publishers have gotten used to knowing there are unauthorized copies of their work, in perfect digital form, being traded among the public. This same idea scares the life out of RIAA and MPAA, but eventually they'll realize that it costs more, in the long run, to keep everything protected than to just release it as is and make what you can from the millions of honest customers. They've already started to change their positions on this. When Napster came out, there was no way they wanted ANY online distribution. ITunes changed that. The studio making the Harry Potter movies announced in a press release that large batches of Harry Potter III were released without any copy protection to see how it went, since protection was so expensive to incorporate and license.
It'll take a long while, especially with Microsoft doing the Harold Hill routine (from "The Music Man") where they say, "Hey, all these people will still your stuff. You've got trouble, right here in River City," and, at the same time saying, "But I'll tell you how to fight that trouble. Just pay us tons of money and we'll make sure you don't lose tons of money. We'll protect it all!" Eventually, though, the added expense and work needed for protection and the paranoia of the MPAA and RIAA will start fading and we'll see something much more reasonable, just like we did in the evolution of software marketing.
Add to that the growth of FOSS and people with guts, like the gov. in Mass., who are beginning to see the value in open formats and software that doesn't cost a ton of money, and eventually, after all the fears are shown groundless, we'll see the entire data and content market become commodity markets, just like the expensive long distance and cell phone markets have become.
So does it really matter if a crew member does something that is possible seen by the hijackers?
It's not an after-the-alarm situation. If it's any kind of known action, it can be found out. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, if you're dealing with people ready to die, you can stage a hijacking you intend to fail and the perps can later pass info through their lawyers about what actions they saw the crew take. There's also the possibility that a hijacker might see a flight attendent attempt to reach for a wristband, a piece of jewelry (like the comm badges in Trek), or anything else. All they have to see is the slightest suspicious movement and, if they have good weapons or skills, they can drop that person right then and there.
I still say use biometric info and if an alarm goes off, the pilot could check on all the crew and see what's going on. Of course, as someone mentioned, cameras on deck could help, too.
As for crew in the rear, if you have someone moving backwards, just in case, all they have to do is drop the crew. In other words, the whole alarm thing makes it more likely the crew will be killed faster.
Oh, and before anyone mentions problems with guns and weapons, remember that plastic guns, in parts, have been smuggled in before.
On the other hand, in a case like 9/11, you restrict their movement, keep them away from the passangers with their hands up, until you no longer need them. Then you either kill them or severe their hands.
Making it hard to get away from someone is just a sure way to make sure it's either cut off or the person is killed.
The problem is that most details should not be published, but will be found out anyway. If you've got a highly organized group, you set up a fake hi-jacking. The perps watch what happens to be sure they know what the signal is. Then they communicate this info through their lawyers to their partners.
It's not just blocking them. You'd have to count on the crew actually being able to set off the alarm. Think of banks: they started putting buttons under the counter or in a discreet location. Now a holdup person comes in and the first thing they want is everyone's hands in the air.
I'm trying to imagine a device a crew memember could activate without it being seen. Once word gets out that they press a button on a wrist band, or something else, hijackers will know what action to watch for and what device to remove from the staff.
Maybe they'd be better off with something like the health monitors I saw on the Tour de France. They're wireless and transmit things like heart rate to a monitor. The pilot would have to evaluate the info. If he sees one crew member with a sudden heart rate increase, he can check on that person, but if it happens to two or more at once, that would be a strong indication that something stressful is happening in the plane.
Do you think there's a difference that, in your case, the fence hole was found by accident, and in the course of daily activities and to find a hole in a firewall, one has to deliberately scan that firewall with an intent to find, at the very least, open ports?
After reading your post, I stopped and thought about the difference between what you did and scanning a firewall or trying to break in to test a systems integrity. I came to the conclusion there is a VERY fine line involved. In your case, the fence was at the edge of the property, in public view, was was more or less intended to be in public view and was part of the planned interface with the public. It's also worth noting an important part of that interface is the intent of the fence to keep people out.
Compare that to a firewall. It is also intended to keep people out, but the difference is you can SEE a hole in the fence without penetrating it. You were able to see the hole and notify the company about it without going on their property or any type of invasive procedure. To test a firewall, you actually have to penetrate it in one way or another. While you could see the fence hole without going in, to find a hole (not just an open port) in a firewall that is vulnerable, you HAVE to penetrate the firewall. That would be like you not knowing it was a hole until you stepped through onto their property.
It's an interesting point because it shows a fine line.
Interesting. I can't really think of an anology that would make it seem acceptable, since the root of the situation is that a network scan is an examination of your assets without your permission. Almsot any situation you can compare it to amounts to the same thing: someone is, in some way, observing you (generic you -- I'm not trying to attack you personally) when you don't want them to or don't expect them to. While they may be able to do it legally (one example is that I think guys with upskirt cameras have gotten away with it because the judges have ruled there's no reasonable expectation of privacy -- but that doesn't mean a woman won't still be very angry at him), it is still VERY unlikely anyone would NOT feel violated at such a move.
Maybe that could explain either the difference in the net scanning and the anology or explain why both would piss people off. I used to work as a videographer and had to tape weddings and even then, when it was a public gathering, and people KNOW there's a camera there (and have talked to me), sometimes people still get upset if there's a frame or two of them where they were caught off guard.
(The most notable I ever had to edit out was one where the camera, with the spotlight, was on the bride's Mother and her boyfriend during a slow dance. There is NO way you can miss the spots the owner made us use, and there was a point, early in the shot, where the boyfriend even looked straight at the camera, but he still, at one point, closed his eyes, and was holding her from behind, and groped her boob -- just a quick feel, but enough to be seen (yet not enough to be sure of what was happening) and the two of them were quite upset when they saw it in the video. They KNEW the camera was there, and still felt violated that they were caught on tape.)
There's an expectation of privacy of data in your own network. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your back yard, but not from above.
I'm sure, though, if you were the one swimming nude in your pool, or were someplace you felt were private (whether nude or not) and someone showed you pictures they had taken of you when you had every reason to expect to be alone, you'd have a different opinion.
It's also good to remeber that just because one can does not mean one should. It's always best to show others as much consideration as possible. I'm sure you at least understand that.
If you really are puzzled how to market, prepare a flyer, in humanized terms, of what you do, and offer a little up front. Perhaps you can, for example, offer a port scan as an opening, and show them, again, in humanized and non-geek terms, just what that means and what you can do. Basically, you're offering them a free evaluation. You don't want to give them so much info they can give someone the report and have them fix it, but that way they feel like they're getting a nice demo, something for free, and it creates a sense of good will that can help you sell your services.
Yes, it is a bad idea. It is so incredibly bad an idea, you should *really* rethink how you're going to handle your business. This is a case of stereotypical geek behavior -- thinking more of how you can show off and what you want rather than what your customers or potential customers would want.
Reverse it, and use an anology like the one in the parent post: how would you feel if someone came to see you, in your office, and said, "Hey, we looked at your locks, and found we could break into your office in less than 5 minutes. For a fee we can tell you how to protect yourself." Wouldn't you wonder if they're running a protection racket? What would you do if, somewhere in the next few months, your business was broken into? Who would the first suspect be? I know if someone came to me and told me how easily any of my systems could be broken into, I'd get all their info, ask them if they had a preliminary report, and tell them I had to talk to my partner. Once I had all their info, I'd turn it over to the cops, since I have NO idea if they are about to hit me up for money, or if they're just geeks that are too stupid to know how to deal with me as a human.
Seriously, if you actually think this could, in any way, be a good idea, then either forget starting your own business or, before you do anything else, hire a sales person who can be your front line and keep you away from your customers so you don't drive them off.
Ever since I started my own business, I've heard from a lot of people who tell me they think they have great ideas -- either for a business, a product, a service, or a way to market. In many years, the idea of scanning, then going up to people and saying they are vulnerable and you can fix it has to be the dumbest one I've heard yet.
And I'm speaking without malice or cruel intent -- just stating it as experience tells me it is.
Your argument could be applied directly to movies as well
It should be. What Kate Winslet and Jim Carry did in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was art. What she did with DiCarpio in "Titanic" was slick and vapid. There is no way I could ever consider that flic art. If Cubby Broccoli (not that he's still around) started complaining that people didn't see his James Bond films as art, I'd make the same arguments. They aren't art, and should never be considered as art.
Most people didn't consider movies as an art form, but there are many directors, writers, and actors who have proven it is. Enough high quality films have been made to prove the medium, even though there are too many like "Death Race 2000" to make it look otherwise.
Video games are a new medium and they won't be accepted as art until proving that enough of their creators are willing, consistently, to rise above the level of crass commercialism to let everyone else know there are real artists creating games, not just companies willing to pander to baser instincts for money.
And yes, I remember when I was growing up, most pop music was about feelings. Even when I think about big band music and before. It seems somewhere along the line people started to realize they could get away with just being crude -- they didn't need talent or any need to be creative -- they just had to be crude. That's when pop music and TV and many other media started their ultimate decline.
Unfortunately, even with some early examples like Myst (as I mentioned in another post), the video game medium has started on a crash course for the bottom much faster than many other media.
MS Flight Sim hasn't had much publicity for years. The Sims is a good game. Football -- well, that's a sport, not an art form.
You missed my point. Maybe I should not have put it just in sales. (That's also a UK chart -- I don't know the problems in the UK, but it's the trashy behavior in the US that seems to get most notice.) It was the same for years in SF. There were a few good SF films, like 2001: ASO, but it was still alwyas looked down on because of the cheap monster flics.
As long as game companies have reason to keep pushing trash titles instead of art titles, the trash will get the attention. You're saying 1 in 3 don't have violence. That means 2/3s do. While it isn't violence in itself that is bad, it is often as titillating as Lara Croft's overdone body.
Personally, I think when games like Myst were popular (and when Riven came out), there was a higher level of respect in general because the games were focused more on appealing to one's intelligence than to baser instincts.
You're complaining that controvertial games are the ones that get publicy.
First, I'm not so much complaining, as I am pointing out that there are too many titles like this and that makes it easy for them to dominate an outsider's view of the field. Second, these games would not be coming out, would not be created, and would not be publicized if people weren't making a big deal out of them with their hard earned cash.
Elminate the special attention trash titles get and people will start to look at the games differently. If that isn't what matters to you (that's a generic you), then don't complain buy what you want and encourage more trash titles.
Re:I can understand where you're coming from here.
on
Pre-Selling Domain Names?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The best solution, if you're really worried about keeping a name, is to buy a five or ten-year claim.
When I first got my domains, I was lucky to keep them renewed on time (money was that short!). Now I keep them renewed so they never have less than a year before expiration. I'll probably up that soon, too.
I also have them registered through Directnic, which has gotten a lot of publicity recently because of their ability to stay online throughout the entire Katrina situation. They've treated me well and start notifying me 60-90 days before expiration.
Why is it that the cultural and artistic merit of the game medium is so hard to accept?
While there are some games that are artistic, maybe if we saw some topselling games that didn't feature easter eggs that were sex scenes with hookers, rewards for stealing cars, or woman that look at all realistic, instead of Lara Croft with her need for a cantilevered bra, people might start taking games seriously. When the well known and publicized games appeal to more than the adolescent male ego, with a need for large breasts and testosterone rushes, we'll see others having a different viewpoint.
As long as people keep buying the games that celebrate senseless violence and sexual objects instead of focusing on games that are art, video games will not be seen as art.
If you want to know whether the "finished product" of the Bible is true or true enough, how would you go about it?
Actually, and I don't remember chapter and verse, there are passages in the Bible that say it is not complete. However, there are also case in the Bible where statements contradict scientific fact. I spent a year teaching in a fundamentalist school, where I heard many, many lines about what was true and what wasn't. I heard many justifications, for instance, when the Bible referred to the "four courners of the Earth," everyone around said, "Well, that's figurative, we know that, because we know the world isn't flat," yet they go on, within 5 minutes to point out how the Bible is word for word true, so we know evolution is wrong and.... yada, yada, yada.
So, as I'm told, in parts where science has proved something true, the Bible is figurative, but if someone doesn't want to believe the science (as in evolution), then the Bible is true. It's true when it works for me, and figurative otherwise, is that it?
There are large parts of the Bible that contradict known scientific fact, but also parts that contradict known historical fact. There was no census or decree from Caesar Agustus. There was no reason or evidence to believe Jesus was born anywhere but in Nazereth. There is even evidence that the words in English were mistranslated and Joseph was a stone mason, not a carpenter. If one traces the sources of the gospels, one can see where decisions where made in later sources to make changes that brought their statements in line with earlier prophecies. In other words, the early versions, that were written by people who had witnessed events, were revised later, by people who had not seen the true events, to coincide with prophecies made long before. Just look at the descriptions of the crucifiction in the gospels, and you'll see contradictions and differences that are incompatable -- and this is a document that is supposedly perfect and given to us by a perfect, divine, all-powerful being?
I propose a way to know who God really is: Openly, honestly ask God "if he exists," to reveal Himself to you _without qualification_
What makes you think I haven't done that and found revealed to me a God who wasn't petty enough to say, "Follow Jesus or I'll send you to eternal torment," or who was bigger than the God people invoke as supporting them when they go out to kill others in war, or who had a much more unconditional love than the so-called Christians who are contstantly saying those who don't believe as they do will suffer in Hell forever?
Sorry, the tone of this post is strong and angry -- it comes from the end of a long day, so take the message and allow for the fact that what I'm saying is currently filtered through exhaustion and a very sore wrist from too much time at the keyboard.
I love it when I'm in a discussion and someone quotes the Bible to prove me wrong. (I know that's not what you were doing -- trying to prove the AC wrong, but I think you'll agree with my point.)
When someone does that, I start asking them a lot of questions about the Bible -- not what's in it, but when it was written, when the gospels were written, what sources the writers used, and so on. I have yet to meet someone who uses the Bible as an authority and a "that proves it all" source that has any clue about how it was put together and that the process that brought it into its present form is not at all what they think. Most people who quote the Bible to me are fundies, many of whom hate the Roman Catholic Church, and they get REALLY pissed when I can give them enough history to show them it was that very same church that is responsible for what was put in and left out of the Bible.
I know they're stuck in a mindset and won't change, but after bringing it up with me, they usually go away frustrated. I can only hope that they've heard enough that they start to think, instead of quote what they've been told.
CNN: an outlet for political propaganda, thanks to Ted Turner.
You've got several problems with that.
1) Turner is notably liberal and, if you are right with your stereotypical thinking, would be more likely to report damage to the environment than that it's getting better, but CNN is reporting the opposite.
2) It seems you didn't RTFA, at least the CNN article. Note that it cites a NOAA report.
There have been many reports, even discussed and linked to on here, about how scientists in the Bush administration are constantly forced to alter reports to fit the views of the administration. Since this administration says everything is okay, there is no need to worry, it is only expected to see a report issued from a branch of the US gov. to agree with that statement.
It's good that you've found your niche. The reason I asked the question (and I admit it was confrontational) is because I've heard a LOT of people telling me how to run my business. I've heard people saying things like, "Well, anyone could run that business" (about my biz and others), or, especially, "Well, I could run that business, too, if someone gave me the chance." That last one always amuses me. Nobody gave me a chance to run my business, I started it and created the chance on my own. People who are running businesses (and I'm not talking about obscenely priced CEOs) generally are in that position because, in one way or another, they earend it.
So when someone says, "Gee, I could do that," or starts indicating that they could do a great job in such a position, my question is always why they aren't doing that. Most of the time, if I ask it aloud, the answer comes back as a bunch of excuses or comments like, "Nobody ever gave me a chance like that." Those excuses (or that statement), though, show exactly WHY they aren't running a business, why they likely never will, and why they'd probably suck at it. Such answers show a clear misunderstanding of how people get to be in charge of a biz.
Your answer, though, makes it quite clear you are in your niche. It's similar for me. I tried many things, always suspecting I was going to have to "bite the bullet", bust my tail, and get something going. Now that I have, I'm in my niche. I think most of the mid-level managers that rely on certifications instead of establishing a person's skill are NOT in their niche, not truly happy and comfortable where they are, and have no clue about how to find where they belong. I really pity them.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be hilarious!
It'll never happen, but we can dream.
Might as well organize a small percentage of /.ers to make regular searches every few days for "Open Document", Linux, "Open Office", BSD, Java and a few other terms.
Seriously, it'd be interesting if you could get a lot of people to do that and see which ones they actually pay attention to. I seriously doubt they'd consider adding support for any of the above, but, then again, I'm rather surprised they added ANY kind of support for anything that isn't pure MS.
Any chance you have a link to that study?
Thanks!
I can't give you a full answer, but I can tell you I'm no expert and no skilled artist by any means. I've always been interested in playing around with 3d animation, and downloaded Blender several years ago, when I needed a creative outlet. At first I thought I'd never learn it and nothing made sense to me. Then I bought a copy of "The Official Blender 2.0 Guide" (I guess that probably says how long ago it was!). I started reading through it and was designing 3d objects within a few hours. Once I had a guide to Blender and saw what the intent was with all the strange (or so they seemed to me) way things were done, it make sense and I was able to start working with it quickly.
I'm just stating the facts.
One reason I don't watch much sf anymore because I have high standards. I want to be able to watch a show with good writing and good acting. I'll be more than happy to let the quality of the sets or effects be a little lower if the show has artistic merit. Maybe I am a snob, or maybe I've just learned to enjoy something at least a little better than the drivel tha often passes as sf now days. I started reading sf as a kid because it made me think and stretched my mind a little with every book I read. That's why I started watching Star Trek, as well. That's why I liked many of the episodes of TNG, didn't care much for Voyager or Enterprise, and liked DS9. I noticed you didn't like DS9. I've seen that a lot with fans who are more interested in explosions, tight body suits, and effects instead of solid writing that actually elevates a show above others. The number of negative reactions toward DS9 are what, long ago, convinced me that many sf fans are not nearly has smart as they think they are. By literary standards, it is a well made, well written, and well produced show. The fact that so many Trekkies and fans can write it off as soap opera is just proof that what many people are looking for in sf is not quality, but drivel, sex, explosions, and violence to passively occupy their minds, instead of giving them a chance to follow a more adult storyline with more adult characters that are involved in more than romance or battles.
I don't expect every series to be as good as Dune or MacBeth. But I do recognize the difference between quality writing and crap. If you don't, well that doesn't mean those that do are "pretentious". It just means we'd rather see the genre live UP to standards, instead of DOWN to the least common denominators.
Sliders was a poorly written, ill-conceived rip-off of an original idea by George R. R. Martin. The characters were less than real, and sometimes I felt almost like a characture.
But, then again, once I learned to read well enough to understand Shakespeare and other classic writers who could really develop a story and characters, I've had higher standards than what most SF shows can meet.
Sliders was a show for the masses who didn't want to deal with real sf that could actually make one think, like "The Prisoner" or 2001: ASO.
It's pap for those who don't have the refined taste for the caviar of sf.
I agree with the first post: DRM is the issue, not specifically TIVO.
//e (I had a TRS-80 Color Computer before that, but I'm talking about my first usable computer). IIRC, games were $20-$30 a piece. Applewriter //e was $200. Programs were using heavy copy protection. I remember reading a lot of articles about it, and one point was that any disk that could be copy-protected could be broken. Even when IBM became bigger than Apple, for a while copy protection was big. I remember going in and using Don Lancaster's disassembly of Applewriter //e to figure out how to make my own copies of Applewriter //e so I could start modifying it on my own (and leave my precious, licensed copy safe and untouched). I stayed with Apple for a good while because it was fun, because I knew the monitor ROM closely, and because I could not afford to upgrade. Then I got a good deal on an Amiga. By the time I got back into the "mainline" again, Windows 95 was big.
//e and programs like Locksmith were all over the place -- usually as a pirated copy in the basement of a teen uber-geek who had hundreds of copied 5 1/4" disks.
I remember when I got my first real computer, an Apple
At that point almost no programs had copy protection. It had gone out of style because it cost more to keep ahead of the crackers than to just put it out and make what you could on honest customers. I remember in the material I read by Apple crackers, they pointed out that any disk the computer could run, copy protected or not, HAD to be able to be read by the boot loader, so at least the first sector had to be easily readable. From there on, a good cracker could figure it out one way or the other, as long as he took the time.
We know that any form of DRM is breakable, not just through brute force, but by reverse engineering. Yes, there's the DMCA, but tha is not going to stop cracking programs from being easily found, just as pirated software was easy to find in the days of Apple
This is just a new market. Software publishers have gotten used to knowing there are unauthorized copies of their work, in perfect digital form, being traded among the public. This same idea scares the life out of RIAA and MPAA, but eventually they'll realize that it costs more, in the long run, to keep everything protected than to just release it as is and make what you can from the millions of honest customers. They've already started to change their positions on this. When Napster came out, there was no way they wanted ANY online distribution. ITunes changed that. The studio making the Harry Potter movies announced in a press release that large batches of Harry Potter III were released without any copy protection to see how it went, since protection was so expensive to incorporate and license.
It'll take a long while, especially with Microsoft doing the Harold Hill routine (from "The Music Man") where they say, "Hey, all these people will still your stuff. You've got trouble, right here in River City," and, at the same time saying, "But I'll tell you how to fight that trouble. Just pay us tons of money and we'll make sure you don't lose tons of money. We'll protect it all!" Eventually, though, the added expense and work needed for protection and the paranoia of the MPAA and RIAA will start fading and we'll see something much more reasonable, just like we did in the evolution of software marketing.
Add to that the growth of FOSS and people with guts, like the gov. in Mass., who are beginning to see the value in open formats and software that doesn't cost a ton of money, and eventually, after all the fears are shown groundless, we'll see the entire data and content market become commodity markets, just like the expensive long distance and cell phone markets have become.
So does it really matter if a crew member does something that is possible seen by the hijackers?
It's not an after-the-alarm situation. If it's any kind of known action, it can be found out. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, if you're dealing with people ready to die, you can stage a hijacking you intend to fail and the perps can later pass info through their lawyers about what actions they saw the crew take. There's also the possibility that a hijacker might see a flight attendent attempt to reach for a wristband, a piece of jewelry (like the comm badges in Trek), or anything else. All they have to see is the slightest suspicious movement and, if they have good weapons or skills, they can drop that person right then and there.
I still say use biometric info and if an alarm goes off, the pilot could check on all the crew and see what's going on. Of course, as someone mentioned, cameras on deck could help, too.
As for crew in the rear, if you have someone moving backwards, just in case, all they have to do is drop the crew. In other words, the whole alarm thing makes it more likely the crew will be killed faster.
Oh, and before anyone mentions problems with guns and weapons, remember that plastic guns, in parts, have been smuggled in before.
On the other hand, in a case like 9/11, you restrict their movement, keep them away from the passangers with their hands up, until you no longer need them. Then you either kill them or severe their hands.
Making it hard to get away from someone is just a sure way to make sure it's either cut off or the person is killed.
The problem is that most details should not be published, but will be found out anyway. If you've got a highly organized group, you set up a fake hi-jacking. The perps watch what happens to be sure they know what the signal is. Then they communicate this info through their lawyers to their partners.
It's not just blocking them. You'd have to count on the crew actually being able to set off the alarm. Think of banks: they started putting buttons under the counter or in a discreet location. Now a holdup person comes in and the first thing they want is everyone's hands in the air.
I'm trying to imagine a device a crew memember could activate without it being seen. Once word gets out that they press a button on a wrist band, or something else, hijackers will know what action to watch for and what device to remove from the staff.
Maybe they'd be better off with something like the health monitors I saw on the Tour de France. They're wireless and transmit things like heart rate to a monitor. The pilot would have to evaluate the info. If he sees one crew member with a sudden heart rate increase, he can check on that person, but if it happens to two or more at once, that would be a strong indication that something stressful is happening in the plane.
Do you think there's a difference that, in your case, the fence hole was found by accident, and in the course of daily activities and to find a hole in a firewall, one has to deliberately scan that firewall with an intent to find, at the very least, open ports?
After reading your post, I stopped and thought about the difference between what you did and scanning a firewall or trying to break in to test a systems integrity. I came to the conclusion there is a VERY fine line involved. In your case, the fence was at the edge of the property, in public view, was was more or less intended to be in public view and was part of the planned interface with the public. It's also worth noting an important part of that interface is the intent of the fence to keep people out.
Compare that to a firewall. It is also intended to keep people out, but the difference is you can SEE a hole in the fence without penetrating it. You were able to see the hole and notify the company about it without going on their property or any type of invasive procedure. To test a firewall, you actually have to penetrate it in one way or another. While you could see the fence hole without going in, to find a hole (not just an open port) in a firewall that is vulnerable, you HAVE to penetrate the firewall. That would be like you not knowing it was a hole until you stepped through onto their property.
It's an interesting point because it shows a fine line.
Interesting. I can't really think of an anology that would make it seem acceptable, since the root of the situation is that a network scan is an examination of your assets without your permission. Almsot any situation you can compare it to amounts to the same thing: someone is, in some way, observing you (generic you -- I'm not trying to attack you personally) when you don't want them to or don't expect them to. While they may be able to do it legally (one example is that I think guys with upskirt cameras have gotten away with it because the judges have ruled there's no reasonable expectation of privacy -- but that doesn't mean a woman won't still be very angry at him), it is still VERY unlikely anyone would NOT feel violated at such a move.
Maybe that could explain either the difference in the net scanning and the anology or explain why both would piss people off. I used to work as a videographer and had to tape weddings and even then, when it was a public gathering, and people KNOW there's a camera there (and have talked to me), sometimes people still get upset if there's a frame or two of them where they were caught off guard.
(The most notable I ever had to edit out was one where the camera, with the spotlight, was on the bride's Mother and her boyfriend during a slow dance. There is NO way you can miss the spots the owner made us use, and there was a point, early in the shot, where the boyfriend even looked straight at the camera, but he still, at one point, closed his eyes, and was holding her from behind, and groped her boob -- just a quick feel, but enough to be seen (yet not enough to be sure of what was happening) and the two of them were quite upset when they saw it in the video. They KNEW the camera was there, and still felt violated that they were caught on tape.)
There's an expectation of privacy of data in your own network. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your back yard, but not from above.
I'm sure, though, if you were the one swimming nude in your pool, or were someplace you felt were private (whether nude or not) and someone showed you pictures they had taken of you when you had every reason to expect to be alone, you'd have a different opinion.
It's also good to remeber that just because one can does not mean one should. It's always best to show others as much consideration as possible. I'm sure you at least understand that.
If you really are puzzled how to market, prepare a flyer, in humanized terms, of what you do, and offer a little up front. Perhaps you can, for example, offer a port scan as an opening, and show them, again, in humanized and non-geek terms, just what that means and what you can do. Basically, you're offering them a free evaluation. You don't want to give them so much info they can give someone the report and have them fix it, but that way they feel like they're getting a nice demo, something for free, and it creates a sense of good will that can help you sell your services.
Yes, it is a bad idea. It is so incredibly bad an idea, you should *really* rethink how you're going to handle your business. This is a case of stereotypical geek behavior -- thinking more of how you can show off and what you want rather than what your customers or potential customers would want.
Reverse it, and use an anology like the one in the parent post: how would you feel if someone came to see you, in your office, and said, "Hey, we looked at your locks, and found we could break into your office in less than 5 minutes. For a fee we can tell you how to protect yourself." Wouldn't you wonder if they're running a protection racket? What would you do if, somewhere in the next few months, your business was broken into? Who would the first suspect be? I know if someone came to me and told me how easily any of my systems could be broken into, I'd get all their info, ask them if they had a preliminary report, and tell them I had to talk to my partner. Once I had all their info, I'd turn it over to the cops, since I have NO idea if they are about to hit me up for money, or if they're just geeks that are too stupid to know how to deal with me as a human.
Seriously, if you actually think this could, in any way, be a good idea, then either forget starting your own business or, before you do anything else, hire a sales person who can be your front line and keep you away from your customers so you don't drive them off.
Ever since I started my own business, I've heard from a lot of people who tell me they think they have great ideas -- either for a business, a product, a service, or a way to market. In many years, the idea of scanning, then going up to people and saying they are vulnerable and you can fix it has to be the dumbest one I've heard yet.
And I'm speaking without malice or cruel intent -- just stating it as experience tells me it is.
Your argument could be applied directly to movies as well
It should be. What Kate Winslet and Jim Carry did in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was art. What she did with DiCarpio in "Titanic" was slick and vapid. There is no way I could ever consider that flic art. If Cubby Broccoli (not that he's still around) started complaining that people didn't see his James Bond films as art, I'd make the same arguments. They aren't art, and should never be considered as art.
Most people didn't consider movies as an art form, but there are many directors, writers, and actors who have proven it is. Enough high quality films have been made to prove the medium, even though there are too many like "Death Race 2000" to make it look otherwise.
Video games are a new medium and they won't be accepted as art until proving that enough of their creators are willing, consistently, to rise above the level of crass commercialism to let everyone else know there are real artists creating games, not just companies willing to pander to baser instincts for money.
And yes, I remember when I was growing up, most pop music was about feelings. Even when I think about big band music and before. It seems somewhere along the line people started to realize they could get away with just being crude -- they didn't need talent or any need to be creative -- they just had to be crude. That's when pop music and TV and many other media started their ultimate decline.
Unfortunately, even with some early examples like Myst (as I mentioned in another post), the video game medium has started on a crash course for the bottom much faster than many other media.
MS Flight Sim hasn't had much publicity for years. The Sims is a good game. Football -- well, that's a sport, not an art form.
You missed my point. Maybe I should not have put it just in sales. (That's also a UK chart -- I don't know the problems in the UK, but it's the trashy behavior in the US that seems to get most notice.) It was the same for years in SF. There were a few good SF films, like 2001: ASO, but it was still alwyas looked down on because of the cheap monster flics.
As long as game companies have reason to keep pushing trash titles instead of art titles, the trash will get the attention. You're saying 1 in 3 don't have violence. That means 2/3s do. While it isn't violence in itself that is bad, it is often as titillating as Lara Croft's overdone body.
Personally, I think when games like Myst were popular (and when Riven came out), there was a higher level of respect in general because the games were focused more on appealing to one's intelligence than to baser instincts.
You're complaining that controvertial games are the ones that get publicy.
First, I'm not so much complaining, as I am pointing out that there are too many titles like this and that makes it easy for them to dominate an outsider's view of the field. Second, these games would not be coming out, would not be created, and would not be publicized if people weren't making a big deal out of them with their hard earned cash.
Elminate the special attention trash titles get and people will start to look at the games differently. If that isn't what matters to you (that's a generic you), then don't complain buy what you want and encourage more trash titles.
The best solution, if you're really worried about keeping a name, is to buy a five or ten-year claim.
When I first got my domains, I was lucky to keep them renewed on time (money was that short!). Now I keep them renewed so they never have less than a year before expiration. I'll probably up that soon, too.
I also have them registered through Directnic, which has gotten a lot of publicity recently because of their ability to stay online throughout the entire Katrina situation. They've treated me well and start notifying me 60-90 days before expiration.
Why is it that the cultural and artistic merit of the game medium is so hard to accept?
While there are some games that are artistic, maybe if we saw some topselling games that didn't feature easter eggs that were sex scenes with hookers, rewards for stealing cars, or woman that look at all realistic, instead of Lara Croft with her need for a cantilevered bra, people might start taking games seriously. When the well known and publicized games appeal to more than the adolescent male ego, with a need for large breasts and testosterone rushes, we'll see others having a different viewpoint.
As long as people keep buying the games that celebrate senseless violence and sexual objects instead of focusing on games that are art, video games will not be seen as art.
That's okay. For the many of us who are none of the above, we're just not sure what to think of you! ;)
If you want to know whether the "finished product" of the Bible is true or true enough, how would you go about it?
.... yada, yada, yada.
Actually, and I don't remember chapter and verse, there are passages in the Bible that say it is not complete. However, there are also case in the Bible where statements contradict scientific fact. I spent a year teaching in a fundamentalist school, where I heard many, many lines about what was true and what wasn't. I heard many justifications, for instance, when the Bible referred to the "four courners of the Earth," everyone around said, "Well, that's figurative, we know that, because we know the world isn't flat," yet they go on, within 5 minutes to point out how the Bible is word for word true, so we know evolution is wrong and
So, as I'm told, in parts where science has proved something true, the Bible is figurative, but if someone doesn't want to believe the science (as in evolution), then the Bible is true. It's true when it works for me, and figurative otherwise, is that it?
There are large parts of the Bible that contradict known scientific fact, but also parts that contradict known historical fact. There was no census or decree from Caesar Agustus. There was no reason or evidence to believe Jesus was born anywhere but in Nazereth. There is even evidence that the words in English were mistranslated and Joseph was a stone mason, not a carpenter. If one traces the sources of the gospels, one can see where decisions where made in later sources to make changes that brought their statements in line with earlier prophecies. In other words, the early versions, that were written by people who had witnessed events, were revised later, by people who had not seen the true events, to coincide with prophecies made long before. Just look at the descriptions of the crucifiction in the gospels, and you'll see contradictions and differences that are incompatable -- and this is a document that is supposedly perfect and given to us by a perfect, divine, all-powerful being?
I propose a way to know who God really is: Openly, honestly ask God "if he exists," to reveal Himself to you _without qualification_
What makes you think I haven't done that and found revealed to me a God who wasn't petty enough to say, "Follow Jesus or I'll send you to eternal torment," or who was bigger than the God people invoke as supporting them when they go out to kill others in war, or who had a much more unconditional love than the so-called Christians who are contstantly saying those who don't believe as they do will suffer in Hell forever?
Sorry, the tone of this post is strong and angry -- it comes from the end of a long day, so take the message and allow for the fact that what I'm saying is currently filtered through exhaustion and a very sore wrist from too much time at the keyboard.
I love it when I'm in a discussion and someone quotes the Bible to prove me wrong. (I know that's not what you were doing -- trying to prove the AC wrong, but I think you'll agree with my point.)
When someone does that, I start asking them a lot of questions about the Bible -- not what's in it, but when it was written, when the gospels were written, what sources the writers used, and so on. I have yet to meet someone who uses the Bible as an authority and a "that proves it all" source that has any clue about how it was put together and that the process that brought it into its present form is not at all what they think. Most people who quote the Bible to me are fundies, many of whom hate the Roman Catholic Church, and they get REALLY pissed when I can give them enough history to show them it was that very same church that is responsible for what was put in and left out of the Bible.
I know they're stuck in a mindset and won't change, but after bringing it up with me, they usually go away frustrated. I can only hope that they've heard enough that they start to think, instead of quote what they've been told.
CNN: an outlet for political propaganda, thanks to Ted Turner.
You've got several problems with that.
1) Turner is notably liberal and, if you are right with your stereotypical thinking, would be more likely to report damage to the environment than that it's getting better, but CNN is reporting the opposite.
2) It seems you didn't RTFA, at least the CNN article. Note that it cites a NOAA report.
There have been many reports, even discussed and linked to on here, about how scientists in the Bush administration are constantly forced to alter reports to fit the views of the administration. Since this administration says everything is okay, there is no need to worry, it is only expected to see a report issued from a branch of the US gov. to agree with that statement.
It's good that you've found your niche. The reason I asked the question (and I admit it was confrontational) is because I've heard a LOT of people telling me how to run my business. I've heard people saying things like, "Well, anyone could run that business" (about my biz and others), or, especially, "Well, I could run that business, too, if someone gave me the chance." That last one always amuses me. Nobody gave me a chance to run my business, I started it and created the chance on my own. People who are running businesses (and I'm not talking about obscenely priced CEOs) generally are in that position because, in one way or another, they earend it.
So when someone says, "Gee, I could do that," or starts indicating that they could do a great job in such a position, my question is always why they aren't doing that. Most of the time, if I ask it aloud, the answer comes back as a bunch of excuses or comments like, "Nobody ever gave me a chance like that." Those excuses (or that statement), though, show exactly WHY they aren't running a business, why they likely never will, and why they'd probably suck at it. Such answers show a clear misunderstanding of how people get to be in charge of a biz.
Your answer, though, makes it quite clear you are in your niche. It's similar for me. I tried many things, always suspecting I was going to have to "bite the bullet", bust my tail, and get something going. Now that I have, I'm in my niche. I think most of the mid-level managers that rely on certifications instead of establishing a person's skill are NOT in their niche, not truly happy and comfortable where they are, and have no clue about how to find where they belong. I really pity them.