"OK, we believe you. 300 gigabyte databases are beyond today's technological limits."
Din't say that. Nice try, though.
"OK, we believe you. real-time two way circuit switched audio systems to every household in america (aka "the phone system") is beyond today's technology. "
Never heard "all circuits are busy"? The phone system can't handle every one used at once. Nice try.
"And nevermind real-time data connections to 2^32 internationally interconnected computer systems across (aka the Internet). totally impossible."
I bought an R2D2 last year, and I love it. It was especially fun at work when it'd roam around and annoy the engineers trying to work. (Hey, I still had status for having the neat toy!) One thing, though, is that there's a small window of opportunity where one can get away with that, and having a stationary mode for it would have been nice. They didn't put any sort of port on it where I could plug in from the wall. Pity because I'd like to have had that thing sitting my desk and turning it's head at everybody that walks by.
I really hope that this robot has a consideration like that. I don't know how appealing that is to others, but I'd love to decorate my office with neat lit up things that move around.
"Yes, trust Microsoft to store your sensitive personal information, like "does not signal left turns in "Gotham" race game" and "would rather play as dwarf than elf". A violation of privacy, I tell you! "
What I read about the final judgement doesn't say anything about Bush's influence on it. I have NFI if he said anything or not. But I do agree with the ruling that said that MS hadn't set out to build the monopoly, what they were in trouble for was maintaining it afterwards. There has to be some truth in that. Windows 95 was VERY popular when it came out, it had a hell of a hype wave. Around that time, PCs running Windows were the thing to have in order to get on the net. Thus, the de-facto standard was born, as well as a monopoly for MS. Microsoft could not have bought that success, nobody could have.
Anyway, I forgot why we were discussing this point heh. I do agree, though, that they were not punished severely enough. I don't feel adequate steps were taken to lower the barrier of entry. At the same time, though, I don't feel that anybody's really trying to enter, either. At least not with a strong enough effort.
"300 million people isn't a big deal to a computer."
300 gigabytes is nothing to sneeze at. It's also a very big underestimation of the resources that'd be needed. First there's the tracking devices. Then there's getting the data from the tracking devices to the computer. Then there's the computer taking the info from those devices and doing something. You really think they can build a computer that'll handle 300 million real time connections?
" (*note, do note use the bloated MS Word format where "hello world" takes up 128K)"
Actually the 'bloat' is the 32k header file that every Word.DOC has. It's not like they're using 12k to describe each character. It may not be the most efficient use of disk space, but then again, that's not the strength it's touting is it? "Hell, Google can sift through that much data in the blink of an eye. The technology is already there, and it's too damned easy to implement."
No, it's not. Google's not keeping an eye on 300 million websites in real time. It's crawling around the web looking for keywords to pick up on. It provides thousands of results per search, which is the opposite of what the gov't would need in order to use this sort of technology to to find would-be terrorists. They don't have thousands of agents to go sending after each hit. They also don't have a way of profiling individuals in a meaningful way. That work still has to be done by humans, and that will be the case for the next few decades.
"My dad always thought that the best security meassure for these iris scans would be some sort of icepick-like tip that pokes you hard in the eye if the scan fails."
Boy you really gotta laugh at the guy that fails the test twice.
"I fear a bleak future run along the lines of Minority Report's eye scanning. Honestly, this technology is scary."
I don't. Hollywood's been predicting that the world will rot for decades. Instead, it slowly gets better and better.
Technology can be dangerous if it is absorbed too quickly. There's no time for thought and adjustment. However, we have a very big population, and that means technology is very slow to be adopted, and by then proper precautions are usually taken.
It's also worth noting that nearly everything people imagine happening that would be real 'bad' has large problems with practicality. The benefit has to outweigh the practicality, and nearly everything that people are afraid of fails that test in one form or another. Somebody told me once that they were afraid that if electronic identification got too out of control, the gov't would watch what everybody's doing. You could get stopped from boarding an airplane because you were at a Muslim church earlier that day. (Note: That's what he told me, that's not my own idea there.) Everybody worries that it'll be the case, but nobody thinks abou twhat it'd take to do that. Besides requiring a massive computer network and central data archive to store all this information, a computer has to go in and do the analysis on it. Hello?! There are 300 million people in this country. We're a long ways away from having that data available. Then there's the whole matter of false positives. Make it too sensitive, and you'll have a lot of people chasing false leads indefinitely. The only way it would practically work is if it looked for VERY strong stuff. Even then, you still have to have a human review it and make a judgement call. The United States Gov't would have to front a LOT of expense and co-ordinate a massive effort to do what people are afraid of, and the benefit is... What? Total control? Our gov't isn't after that. It's too hard to acquire, too hard to maintain. On top of all that, even those in power find themselves in a not so lovely position. I'm sure Mr. Adolf had a terrible time knowing who his friends were.
It's not that I'm trying to be dismissive here, I'm just not sold on the idea that it's all that scary. I am quite happy to support the right checks and balances, however. If we were talking about electronic law enforcement (as opposed to electronic flagging, which is what this technology is about) you'd be having an entirely different conversation with me.
"Well, it would be kind of interesting to add a smell factor to first-person-shooters. "Look out, I smell bad guys", or "I think there's some food over that way."
"Frrrpbpbpbp... DAMN! I just gave my position away!"
Well, from what I gather, the court rulings are a matter of 'fact' when they're against Microsoft, but they're corrupt when they're not against Microsoft.
"Given that the issue is the fact that it already is turning into a police state your fear is stopping you from acting against the police state."
Ah, I see what you mean now. Sorry, bit slow tonight. But no, I don't agree with you. It's not fear that's stopping me, it's unwillingness to fight that particular battle. There is a very distinct difference between choosing your battles and being afraid to fight.
"Giving in to your fear is. So yes, it is cowardice."
I don't mean to be redundant, but I wanted to point out that my previous sentence addresses this comment too.
"Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right."
Since when? The gov't did not choose your job for you. They didn't choose your house for you. Your inability to have a life without a car is entirely within your control. Your excuses do not even come close to defining your right to drive. Meanwhile, those fancy roads you drive on are a service by the gov't. As part of that service, they have to protect the people that use it. You do not have the right to endanger my life.
"Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it? "
No. If we were talking about drunk walking, then I'd have to say yes. However, driving is not a god-given right. It's a service provided by the country/state/county/city. As it is, there are a lot of things we do not have the right to do. I don't hear an uproar here because somebody got a ticket over a broken taillight.
Yeah, it sucks that a policeman treated you badly. I don't like that. I think you should be protected from that. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a device that won't let the car operate if you have had too much to drink. If it were tattling on you so you'd get a ticket in the mail, well yeah that'd be a different story. But no, this is a safety feature.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the knee-jerk "IT's EVIL!!!!" bandwagon yet.
Slashdot Mirror
"I, for one, welcome the return of our old Vogon overlords. "
I would complain about the idiotic overuse of this joke, but ever since I got my digital watch I've been quite serene.
" the NASA License is still up in the air, so to speak, hehe."
I read that, and immediately knew I was on Slashdot.
"OK, we believe you. 300 gigabyte databases are beyond today's technological limits."
Din't say that. Nice try, though.
"OK, we believe you. real-time two way circuit switched audio systems to every household in america (aka "the phone system") is beyond today's technology. "
Never heard "all circuits are busy"? The phone system can't handle every one used at once. Nice try.
"And nevermind real-time data connections to 2^32 internationally interconnected computer systems across (aka the Internet). totally impossible."
Those aren't to a central server. Nice try.
"Maybe in "the next few decades," you figure?"
Yep. Nice try.
"Since rule 2 is applied recursively, he can easily rule the entire apartment, despite being less than 14 inches tall!."
Now that you mention it, my cat has me trained to walk around him in the hallway... Dammit.
I bought an R2D2 last year, and I love it. It was especially fun at work when it'd roam around and annoy the engineers trying to work. (Hey, I still had status for having the neat toy!) One thing, though, is that there's a small window of opportunity where one can get away with that, and having a stationary mode for it would have been nice. They didn't put any sort of port on it where I could plug in from the wall. Pity because I'd like to have had that thing sitting my desk and turning it's head at everybody that walks by.
I really hope that this robot has a consideration like that. I don't know how appealing that is to others, but I'd love to decorate my office with neat lit up things that move around.
"Yes, trust Microsoft to store your sensitive personal information, like "does not signal left turns in "Gotham" race game" and "would rather play as dwarf than elf". A violation of privacy, I tell you! "
One man's troll is another man's +5, Satire.
Does that make it an android?
What I read about the final judgement doesn't say anything about Bush's influence on it. I have NFI if he said anything or not. But I do agree with the ruling that said that MS hadn't set out to build the monopoly, what they were in trouble for was maintaining it afterwards. There has to be some truth in that. Windows 95 was VERY popular when it came out, it had a hell of a hype wave. Around that time, PCs running Windows were the thing to have in order to get on the net. Thus, the de-facto standard was born, as well as a monopoly for MS. Microsoft could not have bought that success, nobody could have.
Anyway, I forgot why we were discussing this point heh. I do agree, though, that they were not punished severely enough. I don't feel adequate steps were taken to lower the barrier of entry. At the same time, though, I don't feel that anybody's really trying to enter, either. At least not with a strong enough effort.
"300 million people isn't a big deal to a computer."
.DOC has. It's not like they're using 12k to describe each character. It may not be the most efficient use of disk space, but then again, that's not the strength it's touting is it?
300 gigabytes is nothing to sneeze at. It's also a very big underestimation of the resources that'd be needed. First there's the tracking devices. Then there's getting the data from the tracking devices to the computer. Then there's the computer taking the info from those devices and doing something. You really think they can build a computer that'll handle 300 million real time connections?
" (*note, do note use the bloated MS Word format where "hello world" takes up 128K)"
Actually the 'bloat' is the 32k header file that every Word
"Hell, Google can sift through that much data in the blink of an eye. The technology is already there, and it's too damned easy to implement."
No, it's not. Google's not keeping an eye on 300 million websites in real time. It's crawling around the web looking for keywords to pick up on. It provides thousands of results per search, which is the opposite of what the gov't would need in order to use this sort of technology to to find would-be terrorists. They don't have thousands of agents to go sending after each hit. They also don't have a way of profiling individuals in a meaningful way. That work still has to be done by humans, and that will be the case for the next few decades.
Sorry, we're closed. The moose out front should have told ya.
"My dad always thought that the best security meassure for these iris scans would be some sort of icepick-like tip that pokes you hard in the eye if the scan fails."
Boy you really gotta laugh at the guy that fails the test twice.
"I fear a bleak future run along the lines of Minority Report's eye scanning. Honestly, this technology is scary."
I don't. Hollywood's been predicting that the world will rot for decades. Instead, it slowly gets better and better.
Technology can be dangerous if it is absorbed too quickly. There's no time for thought and adjustment. However, we have a very big population, and that means technology is very slow to be adopted, and by then proper precautions are usually taken.
It's also worth noting that nearly everything people imagine happening that would be real 'bad' has large problems with practicality. The benefit has to outweigh the practicality, and nearly everything that people are afraid of fails that test in one form or another. Somebody told me once that they were afraid that if electronic identification got too out of control, the gov't would watch what everybody's doing. You could get stopped from boarding an airplane because you were at a Muslim church earlier that day. (Note: That's what he told me, that's not my own idea there.) Everybody worries that it'll be the case, but nobody thinks abou twhat it'd take to do that. Besides requiring a massive computer network and central data archive to store all this information, a computer has to go in and do the analysis on it. Hello?! There are 300 million people in this country. We're a long ways away from having that data available. Then there's the whole matter of false positives. Make it too sensitive, and you'll have a lot of people chasing false leads indefinitely. The only way it would practically work is if it looked for VERY strong stuff. Even then, you still have to have a human review it and make a judgement call. The United States Gov't would have to front a LOT of expense and co-ordinate a massive effort to do what people are afraid of, and the benefit is... What? Total control? Our gov't isn't after that. It's too hard to acquire, too hard to maintain. On top of all that, even those in power find themselves in a not so lovely position. I'm sure Mr. Adolf had a terrible time knowing who his friends were.
It's not that I'm trying to be dismissive here, I'm just not sold on the idea that it's all that scary. I am quite happy to support the right checks and balances, however. If we were talking about electronic law enforcement (as opposed to electronic flagging, which is what this technology is about) you'd be having an entirely different conversation with me.
"Anyone have any info on how hard it would be to fool an iris (or retina) scanner?"
Print an image onto a contact lens?
Well this does explain why talented *nix developers always have beards. My goatee probably tells them I'm a cadet.
Why are they naked?
"Well, it would be kind of interesting to add a smell factor to first-person-shooters. "Look out, I smell bad guys", or "I think there's some food over that way."
"Frrrpbpbpbp... DAMN! I just gave my position away!"
"What smell would you send to Darl?"
Is Cowboy Neil an option?
"Personally, I don't want to know what sort of smell would be associated with penis enlargement spam..."
Must... resist... yo mama.... joke....
That's the guy who owns reflectionsoldiers.com. Nice try.
Well, from what I gather, the court rulings are a matter of 'fact' when they're against Microsoft, but they're corrupt when they're not against Microsoft.
I understand.
:)
Good night
"Given that the issue is the fact that it already is turning into a police state your fear is stopping you from acting against the police state."
Ah, I see what you mean now. Sorry, bit slow tonight. But no, I don't agree with you. It's not fear that's stopping me, it's unwillingness to fight that particular battle. There is a very distinct difference between choosing your battles and being afraid to fight.
"Giving in to your fear is. So yes, it is cowardice."
I don't mean to be redundant, but I wanted to point out that my previous sentence addresses this comment too.
To abort the program, you have to shout ARMAGEDDON!
:P)
(Before modding me off-topic, look it up.
"Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right."
Since when? The gov't did not choose your job for you. They didn't choose your house for you. Your inability to have a life without a car is entirely within your control. Your excuses do not even come close to defining your right to drive. Meanwhile, those fancy roads you drive on are a service by the gov't. As part of that service, they have to protect the people that use it. You do not have the right to endanger my life.
"Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it? "
No. If we were talking about drunk walking, then I'd have to say yes. However, driving is not a god-given right. It's a service provided by the country/state/county/city. As it is, there are a lot of things we do not have the right to do. I don't hear an uproar here because somebody got a ticket over a broken taillight.
Yeah, it sucks that a policeman treated you badly. I don't like that. I think you should be protected from that. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a device that won't let the car operate if you have had too much to drink. If it were tattling on you so you'd get a ticket in the mail, well yeah that'd be a different story. But no, this is a safety feature.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the knee-jerk "IT's EVIL!!!!" bandwagon yet.