Paul Allen might have invested in SpaceShip One, but computer modelling indicates spacecraft based asteroid countermeasures to have limited effectiveness.
Remember the huge number of craters that exist on the far side of the moon compared with the near side?
Your persepctive is backwards. What you're seeing there is the near side of the moon being shielded by the much larger target called earth (and there are still plenty of visible craters, so it obviously isn't that effective). The moon only protects us from objects appraching on the elliptic plane, and even then across a few arc-minutes of sky. Think of it this way: any part of the sky not containing the moon is a possible approach vector, and that's a lot of sky.
Proportionally, you're about as likely to be saved from a bullet by a coin in your pocket; that's dumb luck, not a system.
we'd certainly be living in a different world if even a small percentage of them had struck.
Nine out of ten dinosaurs agree;). Seriously though, more objects have struck the earth than the moon simply because the earth is bigger, but erosion has erased most of the evidence.
No, I believe the only thing between us and certain death is that comets and asteroids know if they're thinking of colliding with earth we'll shoot Bruce Willis at them. Die Hard 4 might be dreadful, but it guarantees our continued survival.
It depends. Vin Diesel is only effective against B-list asteroids, and Chuck Norris only takes on meteors heading for Texas (note the rather large hole in Arizona: out of his jurisdiction).
Any company can see this example and determine that this kind of software should not be used.
By that rationale, Microsoft should have learned a lot from IBM, and everyone who insists Apple should license their OS should have learned from...well, Apple doing just that in the mid 90's.
Sadly, the urge to reinvent the wheel is far more common than the good sense to avoid being run over.
I don't hit my hand with a hammer, even though no law that restrains me from doing it.
There is, it's called Og's law (after the caveman who invented the hammer and the finger-splint, in that order), and it goes like this: "Hand hurts when hit". And like the law of gravity it applies whether it's codified or not, so setting it in legislation is redundant. The negative impact (pardon the pun) of hitting your hand with a hammer is immediately obvious; even if you've never done it before, you probably have enough experience of the world to know that at the intersection of hard and squishy is pain. You can probably also extend that: hitting someone else with a hammer will most likely hurt them, too. Whether you care is another matter entirely.
Which nicely segues to Sony. There have been numerous articles on/. about how management roles favour the psychopathic, so we're probably* talking about people who tend to disregard the negative effects their actions have on others and over estimate the value of their own "good" ideas. Combine that with a lack of understanding of what a rootkit actually is, whether it has any function besides what they want, and how hard is it to repair any damage ("hey, I get malware all the time. It only takes a two minute call to IT to get it fixed, how serious can it be?"), and you've got the perfect hot house for repeated bone-headed decisions. I think Sony's history speaks for itself on that score.
That brings me to the error of thinking of a company as a sentient organism that learns from mistakes. Individuals learn, but in companies individuals come and go, so there's a constant turn over of knowledge and experience (and if you're expecting empathy I'd really like to help you but it's against policy). Laws, relatively speaking, are much more static and extend beyond the culture of one corporation, so new arrivals are more likely to be aware of them. Of course corporations flout laws, but burglary isn't legal simply because a lock won't stop a determined thief.
The legal solutions mentioned in the abstract are, IMO, quite sound (even without the rootkit fiasco). From the paper:
Until average users are better equipped with intuitive tools and concise, compelling information describing relevant risks and benefits, they will be unable to manage the security of their machines. And unless users can take control of their security, we will be forced to choose between an increasingly insecure networked environment and one with diminished adherence to the end-to-end principle as security management migrates from the desktop towards the center of the network....[snip]....But the availability of information exposing these threats alone is insufficient. Both technology and law have a role to play in shaping usable security and privacy solutions. Technology can help to inform users and enforce their preferences to the extent those preferences can be accurately expressed and their violation detected. Users need the law to force the honest disclosure of terms and risks, and to protect them against over-reaching license terms. And, in some rare circumstances, the law must prohibit certain risks that we cannot afford for users to accept in highly networked environments, regardless of their willingness.
So the proposed legal solutions are (1) relaxing the DMCA to allow tools that can also be used for security research, (2) forcing disclosure of the exact nature of software, and (3) framing laws that allow prosecution of a company whose software causes harm even when the immediate user is either too ignorant or apathetic to do anything about it, but other users are also affected by way of sharing a common network. Is there a problem with those suggestions I've missed?
*OK, it's Sony Music, so there's no "probably" about it.
If you care to count, it actually took more keystrokes for you to type that mangled sentence than if you'd used the shortest correct form. So it took you longer to type, it took me longer to understand, so that mode of communication is less efficient; transmission of information certainly was affected (you inadvertantly used the correct word there). And if I'd chosen to dismiss it as illiterate gibberish your message wouldn't have got through at all, so you're assuming I'm going to be patient enough to bother working out what you're trying to say, which would be incorrect if you post was longer than two sentences and not written that way specifically to demonstrate a single simple concept.
If you were using that style to explain how a nuclear reactor works, for example, I simply wouldn't bother reading it, and I doubt anyone else would either. Information transmitted: zero. You can't get more affected than that.
Clarity and precision may not be absolutely necessary, but they are desirable because they allow your audience to focus on understanding the concepts rather than subjectively (and therefore possibly inaccurately) translating the language used. Making yourself understood is the definition of effective communication.
There's no indication on the drawing as to which parts are factual, and which are guesswork.
I'm guessing that when they say they found "a claw" (and show a picture of the rock containing said fossil), it means the other bits are guesswork. Maybe I assume too much.
For all we know, this could have been a lobster, or a crab, rather than a scorpion.
The fact that this creature appeared over 200 million years before crabs and lobsters evolved could be a clue.
Unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of knowing.
Correction: unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of you knowing. But I would say that when you have a fossil record crammed with claws that you know are from sea scorpions, and you find one that's similar but much larger, it's a fairly safe assumption that what you've found is a claw from a really big sea scorpion, unless there's some compelling evidence to the contrary.
We call this application of logic to evidence "science". It seems to work pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
... a product they never released anyway.
Only because Woz called up Jobs and pointed out Atari already .
I don't think this will fly.
I don't know, a if it goes critical it just might fly.
Lithium seems to be a bit of a hot item now and in the future.
Sure is; just add water.
Paul Allen might have invested in SpaceShip One, but computer modelling indicates spacecraft based asteroid countermeasures to have limited effectiveness.
Remember the huge number of craters that exist on the far side of the moon compared with the near side?
;). Seriously though, more objects have struck the earth than the moon simply because the earth is bigger, but erosion has erased most of the evidence.
Your persepctive is backwards. What you're seeing there is the near side of the moon being shielded by the much larger target called earth (and there are still plenty of visible craters, so it obviously isn't that effective). The moon only protects us from objects appraching on the elliptic plane, and even then across a few arc-minutes of sky. Think of it this way: any part of the sky not containing the moon is a possible approach vector, and that's a lot of sky.
Proportionally, you're about as likely to be saved from a bullet by a coin in your pocket; that's dumb luck, not a system.
we'd certainly be living in a different world if even a small percentage of them had struck.
Nine out of ten dinosaurs agree
No, I believe the only thing between us and certain death is that comets and asteroids know if they're thinking of colliding with earth we'll shoot Bruce Willis at them. Die Hard 4 might be dreadful, but it guarantees our continued survival.
It depends. Vin Diesel is only effective against B-list asteroids, and Chuck Norris only takes on meteors heading for Texas (note the rather large hole in Arizona: out of his jurisdiction).
Well, no offence, but Santa's sleigh is a pretty high tech piece of equipment
It can't be that high tech, considering how long he's been in business for. And that in itself raises a few questions that can't be answered by technology (assuming it's the same person; and if not, who the hell is this modern imposter?).
deliver presents to all the children in the world
I think you'll find that claim is vastly exaggerated.
Stop trying to defend this morbidly obese, drunken, discriminating, self-aggrandising home invader.
Descriptive...does that mean it provides a path to enlightenment or it resembles the ship's computer from Blake's 7? Either would be pretty cool for an MP3 player, IMO.
(Joking aside, I respect your choice of function over popularity. It's the Way of the Nerd)
Santa crashing in June? No wonder he's so fat, if he goes on six month long eggnog benders...
Do we have systems in place that will allow us to destroy or divert any large asteroids that are determined to be on a path to impact with earth?
Only one. Be very afraid.
Creative Labs Zen Vision M? I don't want an iPod, but at least it doesn't take all day to say it.
This might be a good place to start, but the development option links to the iPhone developer page.
Any company can see this example and determine that this kind of software should not be used.
/. about how management roles favour the psychopathic, so we're probably* talking about people who tend to disregard the negative effects their actions have on others and over estimate the value of their own "good" ideas. Combine that with a lack of understanding of what a rootkit actually is, whether it has any function besides what they want, and how hard is it to repair any damage ("hey, I get malware all the time. It only takes a two minute call to IT to get it fixed, how serious can it be?"), and you've got the perfect hot house for repeated bone-headed decisions. I think Sony's history speaks for itself on that score.
...[snip]....But the availability of information exposing these threats alone is insufficient. Both technology and law have a role to play in shaping usable security and privacy solutions. Technology can help to inform users and enforce their preferences to the extent those preferences can be accurately expressed and their violation detected. Users need the law to force the honest disclosure of terms and risks, and to protect them against over-reaching license terms. And, in some rare circumstances, the law must prohibit certain risks that we cannot afford for users to accept in highly networked environments, regardless of their willingness.
By that rationale, Microsoft should have learned a lot from IBM, and everyone who insists Apple should license their OS should have learned from...well, Apple doing just that in the mid 90's.
Sadly, the urge to reinvent the wheel is far more common than the good sense to avoid being run over.
I don't hit my hand with a hammer, even though no law that restrains me from doing it.
There is, it's called Og's law (after the caveman who invented the hammer and the finger-splint, in that order), and it goes like this: "Hand hurts when hit". And like the law of gravity it applies whether it's codified or not, so setting it in legislation is redundant. The negative impact (pardon the pun) of hitting your hand with a hammer is immediately obvious; even if you've never done it before, you probably have enough experience of the world to know that at the intersection of hard and squishy is pain. You can probably also extend that: hitting someone else with a hammer will most likely hurt them, too. Whether you care is another matter entirely.
Which nicely segues to Sony. There have been numerous articles on
That brings me to the error of thinking of a company as a sentient organism that learns from mistakes. Individuals learn, but in companies individuals come and go, so there's a constant turn over of knowledge and experience (and if you're expecting empathy I'd really like to help you but it's against policy). Laws, relatively speaking, are much more static and extend beyond the culture of one corporation, so new arrivals are more likely to be aware of them. Of course corporations flout laws, but burglary isn't legal simply because a lock won't stop a determined thief.
The legal solutions mentioned in the abstract are, IMO, quite sound (even without the rootkit fiasco). From the paper:
Until average users are better equipped with intuitive tools and concise, compelling information describing relevant risks and benefits, they will be unable to manage the security of their machines. And unless users can take control of their security, we will be forced to choose between an increasingly insecure networked environment and one with diminished adherence to the end-to-end principle as security management migrates from the desktop towards the center of the network.
So the proposed legal solutions are (1) relaxing the DMCA to allow tools that can also be used for security research, (2) forcing disclosure of the exact nature of software, and (3) framing laws that allow prosecution of a company whose software causes harm even when the immediate user is either too ignorant or apathetic to do anything about it, but other users are also affected by way of sharing a common network. Is there a problem with those suggestions I've missed?
*OK, it's Sony Music, so there's no "probably" about it.
I've been very bad...
If you care to count, it actually took more keystrokes for you to type that mangled sentence than if you'd used the shortest correct form. So it took you longer to type, it took me longer to understand, so that mode of communication is less efficient; transmission of information certainly was affected (you inadvertantly used the correct word there). And if I'd chosen to dismiss it as illiterate gibberish your message wouldn't have got through at all, so you're assuming I'm going to be patient enough to bother working out what you're trying to say, which would be incorrect if you post was longer than two sentences and not written that way specifically to demonstrate a single simple concept.
If you were using that style to explain how a nuclear reactor works, for example, I simply wouldn't bother reading it, and I doubt anyone else would either. Information transmitted: zero. You can't get more affected than that.
Clarity and precision may not be absolutely necessary, but they are desirable because they allow your audience to focus on understanding the concepts rather than subjectively (and therefore possibly inaccurately) translating the language used. Making yourself understood is the definition of effective communication.
When you're tied up clapping is as much use as an off switch.
Besides, where sex is involved I try to avoid the word "clap". "My robot gave me nanites!"
A robot must never harm a human, unless "kinky mode" is enabled.
I wonder how many knol's Slashdot is worth?
Zero. The factually incorrect posts mostly cancel out the informative ones, and any knols left over are nullified by poor grammar and spelling.
That's odd, I left some helium-5 here a second ago, and now I can't find it...
You come down under my bridge and say that!
Oh and eating fish lol.
That depends on where the fish came from.
Global Warming Alarmists will deny that it has any varying influence a mere 93 million miles away on the Earth.
You realise there's a slight difference between a planet with a magnetic field and charged particles in a near vaccuum...
It's Carl Sagan's g-g-g-ghost!!! [/me runs and hides]
Or will they "recently discover" that too.
Only after Windows 7 is released.
There's no indication on the drawing as to which parts are factual, and which are guesswork.
I'm guessing that when they say they found "a claw" (and show a picture of the rock containing said fossil), it means the other bits are guesswork. Maybe I assume too much.
For all we know, this could have been a lobster, or a crab, rather than a scorpion.
The fact that this creature appeared over 200 million years before crabs and lobsters evolved could be a clue.
Unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of knowing.
Correction: unless they find the whole creature, there's no way of you knowing. But I would say that when you have a fossil record crammed with claws that you know are from sea scorpions, and you find one that's similar but much larger, it's a fairly safe assumption that what you've found is a claw from a really big sea scorpion, unless there's some compelling evidence to the contrary.
We call this application of logic to evidence "science". It seems to work pretty well.