Probably not, except for designing safety protocols for the Holodeck so nobody really gets hurt.
Perfect example. So clearly, there are SOME things that we will want/need to limit. But I don't think it makes drawing the lines any easier. Nonetheless, thanks for the example. It was a perfect example of a situation I was trying to describe.
At what point do you draw the line (if there even is one) and restrict what a simulation can do? Hear me out on this one before you flame me for being a freedom hater...
We all know that "simulations" - be it games, VR, or whatever - are getting more and more realistic. And that trend will continue until things are VERY realistic. We all also know that many simulations are based on a wide variety of behaviors that society would not want to encourage. (ie: killing someone in Doom is fine, doing it in the real world is obviously bad)
So how do you draw a line between these two? Or is there even a line? Obviously a simulation is just that -- a fake environment that mimics a real environment. But from the sound of this article, simulations have a very REAL effect on those who are participating in them - at least according to the military. So their impact stretches beyond their own environment and "spills out" into real, quantifiable behaviors, actions, and feelings.
So, I guess my question is this: is there ever a point where we have to draw some lines about what is and is not allowed in simulations? Be it violence based. Or sexually based. Or behaviorally based. Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?
Touche', my friend. I knew it after I posted it that I'd get nailed on that one. But still - including all of the google searches you can do, SSL cert fraud ranks fairly low in terms of numbers. If you are objective about it, there just aren't a lot of cases where this happens.
I still go back to my original post. The system works fairly well right now so the GP posters suggestion that they are 'only getting rich' is not quite valid.
So what is the alternative? Self signing? I can see obvious holes in that approach. *Someone* has to do the due diligence to identify legit from illegit. And that due diligence has some cost associated with it so nobody is going to do it for free(1). So who does it? And who pays for it?
While not perfect, I'd argue that the current system works pretty darn well. Obviously, improvements in due diligence are needed but on the whole, I'd wager there is fairly low SSL cert fraud out there. I say that because this is the first incident ever being reported where an SSL cert was obtained illegitimately.
You make a statement that signed SSL certs are worthless. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. But since you already stated your position; what, kind sir, is your alternative solution? If all of the companies doing SSL certs are "getting rich", do you think perhaps, that their work has value? I'd say so. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rich would they?
note (1) I realize there may be some ppl who will do it for free or "just because". But not on the scale needed for true due diligence.
"Better than blocking them would be to return a stub web page that explains exactly why customers of a given network don't have access to those sites, as well as the phone number to that network's customer support number.;)"
Well, I agree with you post except for one thing: What if *ALL* of the telcos/networks adopted this policy? It's certainly in their self interest as well as their financial interest to do so.
Sure, in theory, you can switch network providers easily. In practice, that's a little easier said than done. Especially for those of us who don't live in the 25 largest US cities.
I'd love to tell my current ISP to take a flying leap. Unfortunately, the alternative for me is dial-up. My ISP is the lesser of two evils - so I stay. If they were to implement this policy....again, I stay. Why? Because I don't have a *reasonable* alternative. (dial-up is NOT a reasonable substitute for broadband)
Well, except for the fact that MSFT, Google, Apple, and Amazon need the telcos more than the telcos need them. By a wide margin -- and especially true for Google and Amazon (and eBay).
If this is successful, it will be the single largest "limiting" factor in the online world. What if this was the case 10 years ago? We wouldn't have the plethora of online stores we currently have, that's for sure. Or blogs. Or online games. Or P2P for that matter. Or VOIP. NONE of these "cool" technologies would have ever gotten out of the starting gate.
I could go on an on about how bad of an idea it is but I fear I am just wasting my breath. Until internet access is treated as a utility, this nonsense will continue to go on unchecked.
Yea, no argument there. I am not saying the US isn't "slipping" or slowing down a bit - I think it is. Our growth is slowing and their growth is rising. But the difference was a pretty considerable lead to begin with so I don't think "east eclipsing west" scenario is even remotely close. The GP suggested otherwise and got a 4 mod. Couldn't let that stand.:)
Nature just published an article that touches on what you say in your post. I don't think you have a solid grasp of what is ACTUALLY happening. Take a look...
This article seems to suggest that, not only are you wrong, but the countries you cite (China, India and "the east") are actually at the BOTTOM of the scales in terms of scientific output. Now, you can argue that it's an American publication/study (and you may have a point) -- but I think you make my point by doing so. By any measure, American scientific output is at the top of the charts. And by any measure, "the east" trails behind by a wide margin.
I'm not saying that there isn't progress by the East. There is. But there is a loooooong way to go before their output "eclipses" the US in terms of scientific research and production.
Yes, I did refute the point. "Ownership", for the purposes of this discussion, is in the mind of the beholder. If you think you are owned, then you are. That was the point I was trying to make. And it's not just force that can make this happen. See Jonestown. My guess is that many slaves believed they were owned -- therefore, they were. I am quite certain many resisted but obviously the resistance did not work and thus, time and lack of education contributed to slavery going on far longer than it should have.
Nonetheless, I see where you are coming from. Ownership of a person is a state of mind, which is way different than property ownership or such. And you are also correct that this is FAR from the natural state of man.
You are somewhat correct but from what I know, what they actually do is detain you (note: detain != arrest) and then go get a warrant to search your car. If they can get a warrant in a reasonable time, they will do that. If they can't get it in a reasonable time, then you are probably let go as you describe in your post. It's not like they just say "Oh, ok...you can go now" if they have a reason to believe you are doing something wrong. They *will* take the time to go through due-process if they truly think you are doing something bad enough to warrant attention.
You are right, though, most people say "yes" when asked -- and that gives them all the permission they need to do the search. A "no" response will usually get you what I outlined above.
"The difficulty with this assertion is that human beings cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be property and therefore cannot be capital"
Might I remind you that a person CAN be owned -- if they believe (or are forced to think) they are owned.
Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in one of his standup routines:
"I am sure the first slaves got off the boat and said, 'bail that hay?'. Fuck you masta. You bail the hay. And then about 20 MF's with whips showed up and the rest of the slaves said 'nevermind, we'll bail the shit'".
Intentions are great until you are facing down the barrel of a gun. Then, for some reason (obvious), most men don't take such a pricipled stand.
"so upload bandwidth really doesn't matter as much"
You are partly correct and partly incorrect. While it may not matter for 1 user, it will matter on the macro level. For example, if you have 1000 ppl queued up to download the latest movie and they each want reasonable bandwidth (1.5Mbps), it will take 10 times that many asynchronous uploaders to satisfy the download bandwidth requirement. So the uploaders will NEVER catch up with the downloading demand -- until the download demand receeds a LOT (by ppl finishing, or cancelling, or whatever). The point being....there is X bandwidth required for downloading and only X/10 bandwidth available for uploading. [Note: I am assuming they are totally relying on P2P. I suppose they could put up their own dedicated "super" P2P servers and skew this equation]
Wash, rinse, and repeat for every "new" hit.
Asynchronous *IS* a problem with something as large scale as this. There is a certain level of expectations that have to be met with respect to the speed of the download and asynchronous P2P will not be able to meet those expectations.
Especially, if everyone throttles down after they download (and who can blame them?).
Unless you owned options. Normally, if you are an employee and options-holder and your company gets taken out, you get paid. Unless you are totally clueless and opt for MORE options of the marged company.
I have no idea if that's the case in this deal but it has been true for many others. And yes, I speak from experience (twice).
RICO? You have got to be kidding me. I understand the outrage and I agree - this is terrible.
But RICO does not apply here. Why? Because of this statement, "any act which is indictable...". While you may detest BS'es practices here, what they are doing is NOT illegal and certainly not indictable.
There are no criminal/legal implications here. Only business practices and possibly regulations are at stake.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that meetings are a waste - they aren't. It's that too many ppl schedule wasteful time in their meetings. If you can complete your objectives of the meeting in 15 minutes -- then adjourn and let ppl get back to work.
I've sat in too many meetings that went an hour simply because they were scheduled for that long. Most of the time, the information could have been covered in 15 min or less and the meeting leader winds up "filling" the extra time with mindless bantering and/or information.
As a project mgr, I used to go by the "say what you have to say and be done" philosophy. As such, my meetings hardly ever lasted more then 30 min. And the people on my team actively told me that this style was effective and a nice relief from the normal "schedule an hour" routine.
Although the article claims this is the only one, I have seen another one. Been searching and searching for that link with no luck and I can't recall for the life of me where I saw it. But it's out there. Nonetheless, this should be sufficient to show you that there WILL be HDTV capture cards with CableCard support built in. And if you don't think SOMEONE is going to make on "off-spec" that will work as we want it to, you are kidding yourself.
Yes, this is for Vista only - at this point. But it shows that it is "possible" to make one. And there are plenty of over seas makers that will be happy to create better working cards for us (ie: no Vista DRM). You can count on it.
Agreed, it's not a position I would want to be in either. And I certainly understand your comments about a fighting non-nation armies (Al Q). It is quite different from "going to war with Germany". But it isn't so different from Vietnam. And we faced the same issues there. Cries of "illegal wars" and non-supervision of government activities (Cambodia). And after the fact, I think the nation agreed that Cambodia and the secret activities going on there -- were a "bad thing". So what is so different now that "secret activities" shouldn't be overseen?
I still go back to the same premise: given all this uncertainty, wouldn't you WANT some supervision as to how these investigational activities are being handled?
I understand the need for speed. But I also understand the need for control of the process. And we don't have to look very far back in history to see processes out of control. I just can't see how you can argue that going around the FISA court is acceptable in a time such as this. If we were at war (declared), perhaps I would agree. But this "ambiguous" wartime footing makes me think we need to be watching even closer than if we were at war.
It looks like a PCMCIA card and may even have the same pinouts. Nonetheless, I learned from my CableCard installer that the Cable Co's are required by law to supply them.
I have also recently seen an HDTV capture card with CableCard support. (can't find the link). Plug that in and voila -- you have your HD-PVR.
One thing to consider: Cable Co's HAVE to offer a CableCard. By law. (at least, according to my cable guy who seemed VERY well informed)
And a cablecard is the key to "decrypting" all of those cable signals. Think of the CableCard as a substitute for the cable box. It looks just like a PCMCIA card and may even have the same pinout (hacks anyone?). I've even seen HDTV capture cards with CableCard support built in.
So that's how we will have some level of interoperability. I noticed the TiVO 3 supports CableCard and I suspect that's why. Because they know the cable co's have to supply them, if asked.
Wow....I missed that you were of the female persuasion. Please accept my humble apology for my faux paux! Apparently, I am in geek stereotype mode this afternoon.
But the only market for HTPC, right now, is "power users". Joe Average has no idea that an HTPC is even possible, sans MS Media Center. So when I say "MANY", I mean many power users. And yes, most of us know how to create a network share.
And doesn't a network share make sense? Store your "stuff" in one place. Access it from many devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not, except for designing safety protocols for the Holodeck so nobody really gets hurt.
Perfect example. So clearly, there are SOME things that we will want/need to limit. But I don't think it makes drawing the lines any easier. Nonetheless, thanks for the example. It was a perfect example of a situation I was trying to describe.
At what point do you draw the line (if there even is one) and restrict what a simulation can do? Hear me out on this one before you flame me for being a freedom hater...
We all know that "simulations" - be it games, VR, or whatever - are getting more and more realistic. And that trend will continue until things are VERY realistic. We all also know that many simulations are based on a wide variety of behaviors that society would not want to encourage. (ie: killing someone in Doom is fine, doing it in the real world is obviously bad)
So how do you draw a line between these two? Or is there even a line? Obviously a simulation is just that -- a fake environment that mimics a real environment. But from the sound of this article, simulations have a very REAL effect on those who are participating in them - at least according to the military. So their impact stretches beyond their own environment and "spills out" into real, quantifiable behaviors, actions, and feelings.
So, I guess my question is this: is there ever a point where we have to draw some lines about what is and is not allowed in simulations? Be it violence based. Or sexually based. Or behaviorally based. Is there ever a point where we have to say NO?
Touche', my friend. I knew it after I posted it that I'd get nailed on that one. But still - including all of the google searches you can do, SSL cert fraud ranks fairly low in terms of numbers. If you are objective about it, there just aren't a lot of cases where this happens.
I still go back to my original post. The system works fairly well right now so the GP posters suggestion that they are 'only getting rich' is not quite valid.
So what is the alternative? Self signing? I can see obvious holes in that approach. *Someone* has to do the due diligence to identify legit from illegit. And that due diligence has some cost associated with it so nobody is going to do it for free(1). So who does it? And who pays for it?
While not perfect, I'd argue that the current system works pretty darn well. Obviously, improvements in due diligence are needed but on the whole, I'd wager there is fairly low SSL cert fraud out there. I say that because this is the first incident ever being reported where an SSL cert was obtained illegitimately.
You make a statement that signed SSL certs are worthless. Perhaps they are and perhaps they aren't. But since you already stated your position; what, kind sir, is your alternative solution? If all of the companies doing SSL certs are "getting rich", do you think perhaps, that their work has value? I'd say so. Otherwise, they wouldn't be rich would they?
note (1) I realize there may be some ppl who will do it for free or "just because". But not on the scale needed for true due diligence.
"Better than blocking them would be to return a stub web page that explains exactly why customers of a given network don't have access to those sites, as well as the phone number to that network's customer support number. ;)"
me likey
Well, I agree with you post except for one thing: What if *ALL* of the telcos/networks adopted this policy? It's certainly in their self interest as well as their financial interest to do so.
Sure, in theory, you can switch network providers easily. In practice, that's a little easier said than done. Especially for those of us who don't live in the 25 largest US cities.
I'd love to tell my current ISP to take a flying leap. Unfortunately, the alternative for me is dial-up. My ISP is the lesser of two evils - so I stay. If they were to implement this policy....again, I stay. Why? Because I don't have a *reasonable* alternative. (dial-up is NOT a reasonable substitute for broadband)
Well, except for the fact that MSFT, Google, Apple, and Amazon need the telcos more than the telcos need them. By a wide margin -- and especially true for Google and Amazon (and eBay).
If this is successful, it will be the single largest "limiting" factor in the online world. What if this was the case 10 years ago? We wouldn't have the plethora of online stores we currently have, that's for sure. Or blogs. Or online games. Or P2P for that matter. Or VOIP. NONE of these "cool" technologies would have ever gotten out of the starting gate.
I could go on an on about how bad of an idea it is but I fear I am just wasting my breath. Until internet access is treated as a utility, this nonsense will continue to go on unchecked.
Yea, no argument there. I am not saying the US isn't "slipping" or slowing down a bit - I think it is. Our growth is slowing and their growth is rising. But the difference was a pretty considerable lead to begin with so I don't think "east eclipsing west" scenario is even remotely close. The GP suggested otherwise and got a 4 mod. Couldn't let that stand. :)
"the east is beginnig to eclipse the west"
Are you kidding?
Nature just published an article that touches on what you say in your post. I don't think you have a solid grasp of what is ACTUALLY happening. Take a look...
This article seems to suggest that, not only are you wrong, but the countries you cite (China, India and "the east") are actually at the BOTTOM of the scales in terms of scientific output. Now, you can argue that it's an American publication/study (and you may have a point) -- but I think you make my point by doing so. By any measure, American scientific output is at the top of the charts. And by any measure, "the east" trails behind by a wide margin.
I'm not saying that there isn't progress by the East. There is. But there is a loooooong way to go before their output "eclipses" the US in terms of scientific research and production.
Yes, I did refute the point. "Ownership", for the purposes of this discussion, is in the mind of the beholder. If you think you are owned, then you are. That was the point I was trying to make. And it's not just force that can make this happen. See Jonestown. My guess is that many slaves believed they were owned -- therefore, they were. I am quite certain many resisted but obviously the resistance did not work and thus, time and lack of education contributed to slavery going on far longer than it should have.
Nonetheless, I see where you are coming from. Ownership of a person is a state of mind, which is way different than property ownership or such. And you are also correct that this is FAR from the natural state of man.
You are somewhat correct but from what I know, what they actually do is detain you (note: detain != arrest) and then go get a warrant to search your car. If they can get a warrant in a reasonable time, they will do that. If they can't get it in a reasonable time, then you are probably let go as you describe in your post. It's not like they just say "Oh, ok...you can go now" if they have a reason to believe you are doing something wrong. They *will* take the time to go through due-process if they truly think you are doing something bad enough to warrant attention.
You are right, though, most people say "yes" when asked -- and that gives them all the permission they need to do the search. A "no" response will usually get you what I outlined above.
"The difficulty with this assertion is that human beings cannot be owned, and therefore cannot be property and therefore cannot be capital"
Might I remind you that a person CAN be owned -- if they believe (or are forced to think) they are owned.
Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in one of his standup routines:
"I am sure the first slaves got off the boat and said, 'bail that hay?'. Fuck you masta. You bail the hay. And then about 20 MF's with whips showed up and the rest of the slaves said 'nevermind, we'll bail the shit'".
Intentions are great until you are facing down the barrel of a gun. Then, for some reason (obvious), most men don't take such a pricipled stand.
"so upload bandwidth really doesn't matter as much"
You are partly correct and partly incorrect. While it may not matter for 1 user, it will matter on the macro level. For example, if you have 1000 ppl queued up to download the latest movie and they each want reasonable bandwidth (1.5Mbps), it will take 10 times that many asynchronous uploaders to satisfy the download bandwidth requirement. So the uploaders will NEVER catch up with the downloading demand -- until the download demand receeds a LOT (by ppl finishing, or cancelling, or whatever). The point being....there is X bandwidth required for downloading and only X/10 bandwidth available for uploading. [Note: I am assuming they are totally relying on P2P. I suppose they could put up their own dedicated "super" P2P servers and skew this equation]
Wash, rinse, and repeat for every "new" hit.
Asynchronous *IS* a problem with something as large scale as this. There is a certain level of expectations that have to be met with respect to the speed of the download and asynchronous P2P will not be able to meet those expectations.
Especially, if everyone throttles down after they download (and who can blame them?).
Unless you owned options. Normally, if you are an employee and options-holder and your company gets taken out, you get paid. Unless you are totally clueless and opt for MORE options of the marged company.
I have no idea if that's the case in this deal but it has been true for many others. And yes, I speak from experience (twice).
RICO? You have got to be kidding me. I understand the outrage and I agree - this is terrible.
But RICO does not apply here. Why? Because of this statement, "any act which is indictable...". While you may detest BS'es practices here, what they are doing is NOT illegal and certainly not indictable.
There are no criminal/legal implications here. Only business practices and possibly regulations are at stake.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that meetings are a waste - they aren't. It's that too many ppl schedule wasteful time in their meetings. If you can complete your objectives of the meeting in 15 minutes -- then adjourn and let ppl get back to work.
I've sat in too many meetings that went an hour simply because they were scheduled for that long. Most of the time, the information could have been covered in 15 min or less and the meeting leader winds up "filling" the extra time with mindless bantering and/or information.
As a project mgr, I used to go by the "say what you have to say and be done" philosophy. As such, my meetings hardly ever lasted more then 30 min. And the people on my team actively told me that this style was effective and a nice relief from the normal "schedule an hour" routine.
Alright smartass, here's your link
Although the article claims this is the only one, I have seen another one. Been searching and searching for that link with no luck and I can't recall for the life of me where I saw it. But it's out there. Nonetheless, this should be sufficient to show you that there WILL be HDTV capture cards with CableCard support built in. And if you don't think SOMEONE is going to make on "off-spec" that will work as we want it to, you are kidding yourself.
Yes, this is for Vista only - at this point. But it shows that it is "possible" to make one. And there are plenty of over seas makers that will be happy to create better working cards for us (ie: no Vista DRM). You can count on it.
Yea, it'll be even funnier when the rest of the world leapfrogs us.
I don't seem to see that "bias" over in Korea. Or India. Or half a dozen other "asian tigers". But of course, since we're American, we're the best.
Right? RIGHT?
Agreed, it's not a position I would want to be in either. And I certainly understand your comments about a fighting non-nation armies (Al Q). It is quite different from "going to war with Germany". But it isn't so different from Vietnam. And we faced the same issues there. Cries of "illegal wars" and non-supervision of government activities (Cambodia). And after the fact, I think the nation agreed that Cambodia and the secret activities going on there -- were a "bad thing". So what is so different now that "secret activities" shouldn't be overseen?
I still go back to the same premise: given all this uncertainty, wouldn't you WANT some supervision as to how these investigational activities are being handled?
I understand the need for speed. But I also understand the need for control of the process. And we don't have to look very far back in history to see processes out of control. I just can't see how you can argue that going around the FISA court is acceptable in a time such as this. If we were at war (declared), perhaps I would agree. But this "ambiguous" wartime footing makes me think we need to be watching even closer than if we were at war.
Wrong. I have a CableCard right now.
It looks like a PCMCIA card and may even have the same pinouts. Nonetheless, I learned from my CableCard installer that the Cable Co's are required by law to supply them.
I have also recently seen an HDTV capture card with CableCard support. (can't find the link). Plug that in and voila -- you have your HD-PVR.
One thing to consider: Cable Co's HAVE to offer a CableCard. By law. (at least, according to my cable guy who seemed VERY well informed)
And a cablecard is the key to "decrypting" all of those cable signals. Think of the CableCard as a substitute for the cable box. It looks just like a PCMCIA card and may even have the same pinout (hacks anyone?). I've even seen HDTV capture cards with CableCard support built in.
So that's how we will have some level of interoperability. I noticed the TiVO 3 supports CableCard and I suspect that's why. Because they know the cable co's have to supply them, if asked.
Wow....I missed that you were of the female persuasion. Please accept my humble apology for my faux paux! Apparently, I am in geek stereotype mode this afternoon.
Funny, I switched from a Pronto as well. To me, there is no comparison. I have a 659 Harmony (cheap-o) and it was ridiculously easy to setup and use.
Yea, I see what you are saying.
But the only market for HTPC, right now, is "power users". Joe Average has no idea that an HTPC is even possible, sans MS Media Center. So when I say "MANY", I mean many power users. And yes, most of us know how to create a network share.
And doesn't a network share make sense? Store your "stuff" in one place. Access it from many devices.
Seriously, get a Harmony remote. The 2nd best electronics purchase I've ever made. (Tivo was my first).
It will make you (and wife/gf?) very happy.
They really do work as well as advertised.