Has anyone considered the security repercussions of this idea?
If you trust the planes to tell you where they are, there is a potential that the planes could lie to you. I really hope they take that into account when designing the system.
Personally I don't see the harm if you use windows codecs on Linux as long as you have a valid Windows license.
I see the issue as, "you might be doing something illegal. we can't tell. so we'll warn you and leave it up to you to worry about it."
Since I'm not doing anything illegal, as I have a Windows machine (in addition to my primary workstation, which is Linux), I don't see even the hint of a problem here.
I do not believe that to be true. People that release their works under the creative commons license expect that license to be honored. They are not just throwing their stuff out there for everyone to use, they are releasing their works in the manner they choose to.
I agree. Why would I want to buy a disk that they "guarantee" I won't be able to fully appreciate and that I won't be able to put into my online video jukebox (when and if I finish creating it)?
It definitely does depend on the purpose of the research. From the perspective of a kernel developer, every single linux device counts.
However, if you are concerned about whether or not you need to be concerned how your web page renders in Konqueror or Apache on Linux, then those kind of users count.
If you are releasing a game on Linux then you would be concerned with how many users are running a system capable of running that game.
I actually appreciate the generally intelligent discourse that has taken place on this thread overall. (with the exception of the ridiculous mod-down action of the my first post.)
I don't believe I was wrong in the first place and I still don't. What I am trying to do is come to an understanding of how other people view this issue and why they argue in ways that appear so illogical to me. I am starting to appreciate that people have a problem with the word "God" more than with the actual concepts.
I feel that "God" (or "god") is a generic term. The definition "ultimate reality" was taken directly from the merriam webster dictionary, so I really don't feel bad about using it to support my ideas.
As far as there being people that say those things, my previous posts on the subject have been met with derision and mod-down. The exchanges in this thread, while not always positive, have been very helpful in educating me on the issues involved such as semantics and prejudice. If I can re-phrase my views using terms that are acceptable, I can communicate a lot better on the subject.
I still believe some arguments are very illogical but perhaps I can learn to confront them using terms that they will listen to.
Semantics. As pointed out earlier, even among religions there is no consensus as to the nature of God. The term God is actually very non-specific. Any of the examples you mentioned could turn out to be God. Even the dictionary definition is very non-specific ("the supreme or ultimate reality").
My analogy actually works out more like this. "Which is more likely, someone killed him, or nobody?" The someone would then be the "murderer". If the result is "murder" then the entity that caused the result is the "murderer", regardless of their nature or identity. If the result is "existence of universe" then the entity that brought about that result would, in my view, be known as "God".
I can accept that. Certainly Flying Spaghetti Monster (everyone has their own name for God. If you like this one I am fine with that) could have created the universe five minutes ago. All of your memories could have been written at that time and you wouldn't know the difference.
I'm not advocating that everyone believe that God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I am simply advocating that people accept that possibility and stop claiming that the evidence indicates that he does not exist. There is no such evidence.
Advocates of what I consider to be the "science" religion, prefer to take the existing evidence and take a very non-scientific, non-logical approach to it. The scientific approach would be to accept the evidence for what it shows, that there might be a God, Spaghetti Monster, or something else.
But somehow taking a scientific approach to a scientific question is offensive and they prefer to say that since there is no evidence that proves God exists, that the evidence somehow indicates that he doesn't.
The evidence shows that God could exist. Beyond that, various religions and schools of thought have formed ideas about the nature of God. Whether you choose to accept one or many of those ideas would be acts of faith as they cannot be based on direct physical evidence.
I don't see a giant chasm (or understand why it might exist) between a scientific viewpoint and the idea that God could exist. I can understand it being a big step from there to deciding that you believe God is the God of the Bible, the God of the Native Americans, the Gods of the Romans or Greeks, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Evidence such as "The universe exists in a semi-complex, semi-intelligent state"
If you found a laptop running a computer simulation of the universe would you not assume that some intelligent something was responsible for the creation of that simulation? Would you not consider the simulation itself as circumstantial evidence that the creator of the simulation existed? Finding the simulation would not tell you who did it, where they came from, or what color underwear they preferred to wear, or even if they were one person or many people but it would point to the likeliness of their existence.
You've seen universe before too. Or at least a small view of it. You can accept that a universe exists. It isn't really a big jump from there to accept that a "God" might exist. Going beyond that and saying that God does exist, likes to wear beat up sneakers, and got an "F" in his creation class for allowing Rosie O'Donnell and Paris Hilton to exist in his universe would be too much of a stretch and something the existing evidence does not show.
It is counterintuitive to assume that because I believe a creator to be likely that I would then have answers about the nature of such a creator.
Say there's been a murder. Question 1: Was it murder? Question 2: Who did it? You don't have to answer Question 2 to know the answer to Question 1.
In the case of the creator discussion, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to prove the creator exists. I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that it is likely but that is not the same thing.
If it were a human we were talking about, you could accept that they exist without in-depth knowledge of their parentage, upbringing, and whatnot.
That is a reasonable position. It allows for faith and doesn't try to postulate something the evidence can't show (that God doesn't exist). At the same time it says that we don't have evidence that God does exist either.
Personally I believe that the existence of the VMWare machine itself is evidence of the outer container or the higher intelligence but I can accept that the VMWare machine and its contents can never have any reasonable understanding of what that is or how that might work.
I never said that "Nothing created God". I never even said God exists.
OK. Hope you're familiar with VMWare virtual machines.
Say the Universe is running on VMWare virtual machine on the cosmic mainframe. It can be argued that "something" has to run the program but since VMWare provides an isolation from the host hardware, determining the nature of the host machine is difficult to impossible from within the VMWare environment. Since programs within the VMWare environment cannot break out into the host environment, they are not in a position to make an intelligent deduction about what that environment is.
Arguing that the host environment does not exist simply because we cannot properly interface with it is not really very logical. Should we assume that the VMWare environment is the totality of existence, simply because we cannot show that another environment exists?
Or, in different terms, one does not need to show that one has grandparents to be able to show that one has parents.
Good idea. Change the subject. I didn't claim in my post that God exists and my assertion does not depend on it. My assertion only depends on the universe existing.
Assuming one of the following to be true, pick the most ludicrous: 1. God created the universe 2. Unicorns created the universe 3. Santa Clause created the universe 4. Nobody created the universe
I have to vote for number 4 as most ludicrous, yet that seems to be the one many "scientists" pick as their first choice.
Personally I believe the correct answer to be either "'Unknown' created the universe" or "God (whose nature is up for debate) created the universe"
(IANAL) The law doesn't allow for this kind of fact finding until the prima facie case is made. They are arguing that the prima facie case has not been made.
What this means (as I understand it), is that it is first the duty of the plaintiff to establish the basics of the case. The argument here is that there are not any actual allegations of wrongdoing, therefore there is no basis to allow the fishing expedition to continue.
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?
The idea that if you purchase counterfeit CDs that the money may go to fund someone's murder or some other crime doesn't hold up because the same thing can be said of legitimate music purchases. We hear all the time of famous stars committing all kinds of crimes, including murders.
The Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel with various sections that can be enabled, disabled, or compiled as a module that can be added into the running kernel later. The standard kernel includes support for a number of devices, file systems, and other functions.
The IPTables code allows the user control over his/her network traffic by passing the traffic through "tables" of rules.
IRS: We're looking for the money you stole from the bank? Criminal Gang Leader: I don't know what you're talking about. I got this money from selling counterfeit CDs IRS: Aha! Lock him up boys!
Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.
That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.
Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric. If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money. And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label. According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars. How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.
ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale. Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little. Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it. However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.
Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners. Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI. Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently. If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
1. Long distance calling cards 2. Online delivery of movies, software products, porn, or anything else with instant gratification. 3. Print Fake Credit Cards with the numbers on them and go shopping (Yes. This is in the hands of the common criminal)
My wife's card number was stolen and used to purchase hundreds of dollars of items at a mall over 1000 miles from our home. We did get the charges reversed but it took a number of phone calls (even though their fraud department proactively discovered the fraud on the day it happened and called us right away)
He's referring to his own mother. Many of us support parents who are not very technically capable. Neither my mom or dad are technically knowledgeable and my wife's parents are even worse, needing technical support using things like remote controls, answering machines, or DVD players.
I am sorry if it seems offensive. I know many parents and women are quite capable but I also realize that my parents are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone considered the security repercussions of this idea?
If you trust the planes to tell you where they are, there is a potential that the planes could lie to you. I really hope they take that into account when designing the system.
I have applied at their Council Bluffs location but they definitely won't get me for $50k.
Personally I don't see the harm if you use windows codecs on Linux as long as you have a valid Windows license.
I see the issue as, "you might be doing something illegal. we can't tell. so we'll warn you and leave it up to you to worry about it."
Since I'm not doing anything illegal, as I have a Windows machine (in addition to my primary workstation, which is Linux), I don't see even the hint of a problem here.
I do not believe that to be true. People that release their works under the creative commons license expect that license to be honored. They are not just throwing their stuff out there for everyone to use, they are releasing their works in the manner they choose to.
I agree. Why would I want to buy a disk that they "guarantee" I won't be able to fully appreciate and that I won't be able to put into my online video jukebox (when and if I finish creating it)?
It definitely does depend on the purpose of the research. From the perspective of a kernel developer, every single linux device counts.
However, if you are concerned about whether or not you need to be concerned how your web page renders in Konqueror or Apache on Linux, then those kind of users count.
If you are releasing a game on Linux then you would be concerned with how many users are running a system capable of running that game.
I actually appreciate the generally intelligent discourse that has taken place on this thread overall. (with the exception of the ridiculous mod-down action of the my first post.)
I don't believe I was wrong in the first place and I still don't. What I am trying to do is come to an understanding of how other people view this issue and why they argue in ways that appear so illogical to me. I am starting to appreciate that people have a problem with the word "God" more than with the actual concepts.
I feel that "God" (or "god") is a generic term. The definition "ultimate reality" was taken directly from the merriam webster dictionary, so I really don't feel bad about using it to support my ideas.
As far as there being people that say those things, my previous posts on the subject have been met with derision and mod-down. The exchanges in this thread, while not always positive, have been very helpful in educating me on the issues involved such as semantics and prejudice. If I can re-phrase my views using terms that are acceptable, I can communicate a lot better on the subject.
I still believe some arguments are very illogical but perhaps I can learn to confront them using terms that they will listen to.
Semantics. As pointed out earlier, even among religions there is no consensus as to the nature of God. The term God is actually very non-specific. Any of the examples you mentioned could turn out to be God. Even the dictionary definition is very non-specific ("the supreme or ultimate reality").
My analogy actually works out more like this. "Which is more likely, someone killed him, or nobody?" The someone would then be the "murderer".
If the result is "murder" then the entity that caused the result is the "murderer", regardless of their nature or identity.
If the result is "existence of universe" then the entity that brought about that result would, in my view, be known as "God".
I can accept that. Certainly Flying Spaghetti Monster (everyone has their own name for God. If you like this one I am fine with that) could have created the universe five minutes ago. All of your memories could have been written at that time and you wouldn't know the difference.
I'm not advocating that everyone believe that God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I am simply advocating that people accept that possibility and stop claiming that the evidence indicates that he does not exist. There is no such evidence.
Advocates of what I consider to be the "science" religion, prefer to take the existing evidence and take a very non-scientific, non-logical approach to it. The scientific approach would be to accept the evidence for what it shows, that there might be a God, Spaghetti Monster, or something else.
But somehow taking a scientific approach to a scientific question is offensive and they prefer to say that since there is no evidence that proves God exists, that the evidence somehow indicates that he doesn't.
The evidence shows that God could exist. Beyond that, various religions and schools of thought have formed ideas about the nature of God. Whether you choose to accept one or many of those ideas would be acts of faith as they cannot be based on direct physical evidence.
I don't see a giant chasm (or understand why it might exist) between a scientific viewpoint and the idea that God could exist. I can understand it being a big step from there to deciding that you believe God is the God of the Bible, the God of the Native Americans, the Gods of the Romans or Greeks, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Evidence such as "The universe exists in a semi-complex, semi-intelligent state"
If you found a laptop running a computer simulation of the universe would you not assume that some intelligent something was responsible for the creation of that simulation? Would you not consider the simulation itself as circumstantial evidence that the creator of the simulation existed? Finding the simulation would not tell you who did it, where they came from, or what color underwear they preferred to wear, or even if they were one person or many people but it would point to the likeliness of their existence.
You've seen universe before too. Or at least a small view of it. You can accept that a universe exists. It isn't really a big jump from there to accept that a "God" might exist. Going beyond that and saying that God does exist, likes to wear beat up sneakers, and got an "F" in his creation class for allowing Rosie O'Donnell and Paris Hilton to exist in his universe would be too much of a stretch and something the existing evidence does not show.
Who cares?
It is counterintuitive to assume that because I believe a creator to be likely that I would then have answers about the nature of such a creator.
Say there's been a murder. Question 1: Was it murder? Question 2: Who did it?
You don't have to answer Question 2 to know the answer to Question 1.
In the case of the creator discussion, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to prove the creator exists. I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that it is likely but that is not the same thing.
If it were a human we were talking about, you could accept that they exist without in-depth knowledge of their parentage, upbringing, and whatnot.
That is a reasonable position. It allows for faith and doesn't try to postulate something the evidence can't show (that God doesn't exist). At the same time it says that we don't have evidence that God does exist either.
Personally I believe that the existence of the VMWare machine itself is evidence of the outer container or the higher intelligence but I can accept that the VMWare machine and its contents can never have any reasonable understanding of what that is or how that might work.
I never said that "Nothing created God". I never even said God exists.
OK. Hope you're familiar with VMWare virtual machines.
Say the Universe is running on VMWare virtual machine on the cosmic mainframe. It can be argued that "something" has to run the program but since VMWare provides an isolation from the host hardware, determining the nature of the host machine is difficult to impossible from within the VMWare environment. Since programs within the VMWare environment cannot break out into the host environment, they are not in a position to make an intelligent deduction about what that environment is.
Arguing that the host environment does not exist simply because we cannot properly interface with it is not really very logical. Should we assume that the VMWare environment is the totality of existence, simply because we cannot show that another environment exists?
Or, in different terms, one does not need to show that one has grandparents to be able to show that one has parents.
So God is an entity? How do you know God isn't a computer program running on some cosmic mainframe?
Good idea. Change the subject. I didn't claim in my post that God exists and my assertion does not depend on it. My assertion only depends on the universe existing.
Fine. Substitute "brought into existence". The universe exists, doesn't it?
It came into existence (the word "creation" seems to offend people) somehow.
Assuming one of the following to be true, pick the most ludicrous:
1. God created the universe
2. Unicorns created the universe
3. Santa Clause created the universe
4. Nobody created the universe
I have to vote for number 4 as most ludicrous, yet that seems to be the one many "scientists" pick as their first choice.
Personally I believe the correct answer to be either "'Unknown' created the universe" or "God (whose nature is up for debate) created the universe"
(IANAL) The law doesn't allow for this kind of fact finding until the prima facie case is made. They are arguing that the prima facie case has not been made.
What this means (as I understand it), is that it is first the duty of the plaintiff to establish the basics of the case. The argument here is that there are not any actual allegations of wrongdoing, therefore there is no basis to allow the fishing expedition to continue.
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?
The idea that if you purchase counterfeit CDs that the money may go to fund someone's murder or some other crime doesn't hold up because the same thing can be said of legitimate music purchases. We hear all the time of famous stars committing all kinds of crimes, including murders.
The Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel with various sections that can be enabled, disabled, or compiled as a module that can be added into the running kernel later.
The standard kernel includes support for a number of devices, file systems, and other functions.
The IPTables code allows the user control over his/her network traffic by passing the traffic through "tables" of rules.
The latest version of the kernel source may be obtained from http://www.kernel.org/
IRS: We're looking for the money you stole from the bank?
Criminal Gang Leader: I don't know what you're talking about. I got this money from selling counterfeit CDs
IRS: Aha! Lock him up boys!
The ifpi news release is labeled "Music piracy - ten inconvenient truths". html
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531
Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.
That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.
Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat
Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.
ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it.
However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.
Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
Ways to personal gain from a CC number
1. Long distance calling cards
2. Online delivery of movies, software products, porn, or anything else with instant gratification.
3. Print Fake Credit Cards with the numbers on them and go shopping (Yes. This is in the hands of the common criminal)
My wife's card number was stolen and used to purchase hundreds of dollars of items at a mall over 1000 miles from our home. We did get the charges reversed but it took a number of phone calls (even though their fraud department proactively discovered the fraud on the day it happened and called us right away)
Did no one consider the irony that creating a web site ratting out the rats is rather a ratty thing to do?
He's referring to his own mother. Many of us support parents who are not very technically capable. Neither my mom or dad are technically knowledgeable and my wife's parents are even worse, needing technical support using things like remote controls, answering machines, or DVD players.
I am sorry if it seems offensive. I know many parents and women are quite capable but I also realize that my parents are not.