You are wrong. Eliminating wrong leads is one thing. Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong. What is not relevant about the FBI asking for reports on innocent activities? Do you really want the FBI researching every dead end that college administrators could generate?
I never said anything about the FBI coming to get us all. They just want to chill the elements in society who might investigate them. Notice, please, that this request was not made to Construction companies or Bankers. So, on this, you are right. They're not after us all, they're only after people in Academia. But that was stated in the article, right?
They are NOT specifying behaviors. They're not saying "Turn in anyone who spends a lot of time picking locks" or "Please let us know if anyone you see buys a lot of diesel fuel and fertilizer." That's behavior. The FBI is asking people to make judgments and then turn someone in based on that judgment. So, Psych Department head says "Gee, does Adjunct Ahmed really need to know how to use a backhoe? Why IS he learning that? " And he speed dials the FBI, and next thing you know, Ahmed is being investigated because he wanted to do some landscaping without telling anyone.
It's not crazy at this point in this administration to expect illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior from the government. In fact I am simply stating the worst case scenario because I will no longer give the benefit of the doubt. If you want me to believe the good intentions of the FBI then the FBI will have to demonstrate those good intentions and not expect me to grant them "the benefit of doubt." In fact, given all the evidence at hand it is ignorant and stupid to not expect the worst from the current administration.
Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know
Look at this list. The problem with it is that it takes things that are NORMAL for intellectuals to try to do and calls them suspicious.
I always thought the "need to know" was assumed to be granted to the people except in special cases where the government classifies information. If it's not specifically restricted then we have a right to it. This mandate from the Feds puts students and professors under a nasty microscope.
How does one explain their affluence? Most rich people are never asked where the money came from. Interrogating affluence leads to nothing more than vindictive sophistry.
Who do I have to report overseas travel to? Isn't it enough to inform the State Department that I travel? now I have to report my summer vacation plans to the school administration?
Information outside the job scope? So, if I'm a humanities student and taking welding classes at night I'm a terrorist?
A lot of people go into academics because of the flexible schedule. In that context what are unusual hours?
Unreported contacts with foreign nationals? Aside from academic and intellectual interest in world affairs and the question of who is the supervisor waiting for a report...this is a violation of the fourth (fifth?) amendment protections which guarantee you to be secure in your personal effects. Oh yeah...there's also something about freedom of speech.
unreported contact with foreign government? same as above. WTF, if I choose to emigrate I have to inform my school administration?
I've only provided one example per case. What it comes down to is that EVERY item on that list has many many legitimate purposes to exist. What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.
C'mon folks. We're not all stupid, just the elected people. Lakes dont mysteriously go missing. They evaporate or drain. When they drain there's usually evidence, like a river or a flood.
A new Mach-6 reconnaissance jet being developed for the Air Force would offer a combination of speed, altitude and stealth that could make it virtually impervious to ground-based missiles, sources said.
My response?
Francis Gary Powers.
Goodnight Folks, you've been a wonderful crowd.
Well, when I first started typing my post there were no other replies. Yes, I was drawn by the sirens call of a successful FP! And I was dashed against the hard, sharp rocks.
Hmm, I would agree with you but I doubt he's prorating his numbers in the quote. I'll bet his 16 billion dollar number includes all law enforcement nationwide. If thats 's the case then my comment is dead-on fair. There is a very good chance he is being disingenuous and I (and the mods too) tend to believe that of corporate representatives these days. Which is why my post got modded up and yours got modded down (sorry, it's just funny how this generality is SO CLEARLY demonstrated in this case.)
But you are right about me. I did take it out of context. I did that mindful of the fact that his original numbers are out of context. And that means I'm just not accepting his arguments on face value. He's asking me to assume his sum only includes property crime, but he also says "all of it" so maybe later he says "I said all of it! That's the number from the Budget!"
So let's not be afraid to make people state their context and take them out of context. It will force us to realize when we're being led around by the nose and force us to ask real questions.
If you add up all the various kinds of property crimes in this country, everything from theft, to fraud, to burglary, bank-robbing, all of it, it costs the country $16 billion a year. But intellectual property crime runs to hundreds of billions [of dollars] a year.
The basic misconception by the executive in question is that we judge the severity of crime by it's monetary value. Is he seriously suggesting that we should not try to solve rape cases just because there's no profit in it?
Oh...and FP?
It's perfectly legal to build a meeting hall for people to meet in. The owner of the hall is not responsible for murder and rape that happen there. Putting up an open hotspot is pretty much the same as letting people have a meeting in an auditorium.
Someone at IP address X which is assigned to Javier for a period of time sent kiddie porn, via Yahoo IM, to someone in New York. Somehow the FBI found out and raided the apartment of Javier. The yahoo account belonged to Javier's roommate, Robert. The apartment is raided and they are both arrested due to a collection of kiddie porn cd's they have.
Here's the thing. Javier was maintaining an open WAP. He claims that because it is open he has no responsibility for how it is used. He claims that makes the search warrant invalid.
IMHO the court is correct. They did not get the warrant based on the existence of the wirless access point. In fact, the wireless access point is immaterial. The warrant was obtained because kiddie porn camre from that IP address at a given time and the physical address was ascertainable. If the cops had arrived and only found two guys with no kiddie porn collection and an open WAP then there would be a case for wrongful arrest (assuming the cops arrested him in that case). In this case there was probable cause.
There is the temptation to ask about Javier's rights here. Is he responsible for Robert's sending kiddie porn over his WAP? I dont think so. Even if he had secured it and given his pederast roommate the logon info he STILL shouldnt be accountable. His freedom to offer bandwidth should be considered a free speech issue. This is primarily because open WAP's offer a channel for protected speech and therefore we cannot engage in prior restraint of that speech. that's important. Withholding special circumstances, We, as a nation, by Constitutional law, cannot prohibit free speech just because someone MIGHT abuse it. You can tell the guy with the megaphone he cant commit slander, incite riots, or announce his intentions to kill the president, but you cannot tell the guy handing out megaphones to stop.
The most important thing to notice about this case is slipping past everyone. The police and court know that Robert sent the offending IM. They raided the apartment and found all sorts of incrimintating stuff. Instead of assuming Javier's innocence they arrested him as well. This is the core issue. It should not be assumed that because your roommate is a pederast that you are too. The issue in this case is one that does not interest the editors at Ars Technica.
The real issue is that Javier is under arrest and trial for sharing a room with a pederast. This kind of fascism where the laws are designed to force individuals into spies and informers continue to propagate throughout our law system. The law has no right to expect every citizen to act as a member of the executive branch, yet laws which assume the guilt of "everyone in the room" continue to pass. Put a joint in an ashtray at a party and EVERYONE's guilty. A line of coke or a dime bag with crystal meth residue? Get the paddy wagon! Your roommate in college has a cd of kiddie porn? Hire a lawyer! Scared of guilt by association? Preempt the problem and turn them in! Who cares if your right or wrong, just stay safe! The law is designed so that if you have the slightest inkling of what's going on you're supposed to turn someone else in or be held accountable as well.
If we keep settling for this bullshit we'll slowly be conditioned into doing heinous things to innocent people.
Yep, I am acutely aware of that which you mention. I am VERY pro gun, anti-cigarette, and am aware of the legal precedents in both arenas (and IANAL). I didn't use those cases exactly because they deceptively detract from my argument. It's about the basic nature of the tool in question.
See, the major difference is that hammers and hotspots have many uses. Guns and cigarettes, not so many. Essentially a gun IS a tool for killing things and all activities with it support that final goal. Not that I have a big problem with using tools to kill. That's homo sapiens big advantage. Cigarettes will increase your chances of getting sick when used as recommended. And, in spite of the civil cases being resolved against the manufacturers most of the time no one has yet made it totally illegal to own guns or cigarettes. Even in California.
ON the other hand a hotspot might never be used for anything even remotely illegal. Sure, some kid might surf porn sites, or he might not. Telling people they may not provide bandwidth for free because it might be used for something bad by someone else sounds very unconstitutional. It sounds like a violation of restrictions against prior restraint. It also sounds like a restriction against a free press since a hotspot could be a device for publishing. It definitely violates the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
The big difference here is that while there are Civil cases being won in the one example the SCO douchebag is saying it should be a CRIME to put up a hotspot.
Well, it seems to me like forcing people to have a license to sell, print, or publish books. If you start making it illegal to put up hotspots then you are de facto preempting a channel (no pun intended) for free speech.
A lot of people don't understand that you cant blame the provider for what is done with the bandwidth. And, more importantly you can't restrain my right to free speech. If I want to put up a free access point to promote a cause then I must be allowed to do that as a matter of free speech. Only under extreme circumstances should that speech be curtailed (yelling fire in a theater, or where there is limited resources that MUST be regulated.) It's the responsibility of the individual to not commit a crime.
For instance, you don't arrest the CEO of Chevrolet when a drunk driver smacks into you with his Camaro. You don't arrest factory workers from Stanley tools if someone hits you with a hammer. Why would you place the blame for kiddie porn in the hands of the bandwidth provider.
The only reason SCO comes out against free, open hotspots is because they see the potential for financial benefit from forcing difficult technology on people.
So you tell me that your last good dollar is gone and you say that your pockets are bare. And you tell me that your clothes are tattered and torn and nobody seems to care.
Now don't tell me your troubles, no I don't have the time to spare. But if you want to get together and fight good buddy that's what I want to hear.
And you tell me that your job was taken away by a big ol' greasy machine. And you tell me that you don't collect no more pay and your belly is growing lean.
Now if I had the jobs to give you know I'd give them all away. But don't waste your breath calling out my name if you don't have nothing to say.
And you tell me that you don't have nothing to do and you keep on wasting your time. And you say when you want to get your family some food you gotta stand in a relief line.
Now it's a sin and a bloody shame 'bout the way they're pushing you 'round. But when you decide not to take no more you know I'll put my money down.
'Cause I've seen your kind many times before And I'll see 'em many times again. Oh but every bad thing that's happened to you has happened to better men.
So don't explain that you've lost your way that you've got no place to go. You've got a hand and a voice and you're not alone Brother that's all you need to know.
And if you're still wondering what I'm trying to say let me tell you what it's all about. Now nobody listens to a single man when he's walkin' 'round down and out.
So if you're looking for an answer he's standing there by your side. And you'll never really know how far you'll go 'til you join together and try.
I'm a fan of Star Trek. All of it. Even Nemesis and Enterprise.
However, I am also a fan of Frank Herbert, Isaac Asmiov, Kurt Vonnegut, William Gibson, and Phillip K. Dick.
With all that said I'm going to reiterate something I said in college.
Star Trek killed science fiction. With a phaser. Star Wars helped, but Gene Rodenberry has a lot to answer for.
See, what they both did was take the science out of the fiction. Dune too, to a great extent. More and more often these stories are less about how science changes the human condition and instead are about how science simply enables a new setting for the same old story. The fiction goes from involving the scientific aspect to working around it.
For instance if anyone ever tells Oedipus Rex as a science fiction story you will know it's horseshit. In any scientific culture Oedipus would have had his DNA tested to reveal his ancestry.
IEEE Spectrum had an article on this many years ago where they pointed out that for all the SCIENCE in TOS it was always the captain and rarely the science officer or engineer who finally saved the day.
In all fairness maybe we shouldnt blame the writers but the publishers. Whose idea is it to put Sci-fi and fantasy in the same section of the bookstore. There's nothing more iritating than browsing in a bookstore for a good scifi book and finding something with sword laden dragon hunters or somesuch. What I'm saying is that Tolkein, Leguinn, and Pratchett should go find their own damn shelves.
Someone just needs to develop a live distro for gaming.
The user interface would be simple. Put CD/DVD in drive, reboot. The live distro would boot, install the game to a partition (on a first run), and start the game. Variations that enable the use of USB drives for game and client data as well as multi disc games could be engineered.
This has many benefits. It enables gaming across a wide range of available hardware. Problems due to driver variations disappear. Hell, system performance suddenly goes through the roof because of all the non-game related processes that wont be running.
This method would give the game developer a far greater level of control to produce a game that does a better job of utilizing the available hardware. The problem is that the open source stuff out there is not as nice and MS's current offerings in sound and graphics.
Still and all, this is the time to launch such a project, with the threat of MS not bringing dx10 to the XP platforms. There is an opening in the market if game companies can offer live distro gaming at dx10 levels on machines MS won't support.
So, someday some future linguist will be saying "This system was once used in a security capacity. And, clearly this screen is of EXTREME importance. It is all blue with white lettering and states that there has been a General Protection Fault, and it gives a location. I expect that the infrastructure that this system monitored is no longer in existence, though the machine still generates these warnings at unexpected intervals. Oddly, to clear the message one must restart the security device."
Almost anyone can check on anyone's credit report. All you have to do is contact one of the three credit reporting companies and ask. They'll name a price.
I cant imagine anyone being surprised that government agencies use commercially available data. It's like being surprised that the D.A. has a Lexis-Nexis subscription, or reads Groklaw (ok, that might be surprising), or reads the newspaper. Once we were aware that credit checks were being factored into job interviews it should have become common knowledge that this is information that is de facto in the oublic domain for anyone to use.
I cant believe I'm responding to an AC.
All the variables you mention only factor into the price structure. If MS wanted to they could sell windows for a single flat fee to everyone.
See, volume pricing only makes sense if you are a)getting a price break on shipping because the truck is going there anyway so you might as well fill it up, b)if the vendor is trying to unload excess stock, c)or if you're offering an incentive to introduce more units into play. Dont confuse volume pricing with the wholesale price. These are two different things.
You dont have to obey the dictates of supply and demand. You can offer your goods for one price and NOT raise the price as demand rises, thereby allowing greater market saturation.
As for incentives and mutual benefit...which keiretsu are you working for? Or are you just playing Monopoly?
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong. Eliminating wrong leads is one thing. Investigating people where no crime has been committed? That is wrong. What is not relevant about the FBI asking for reports on innocent activities? Do you really want the FBI researching every dead end that college administrators could generate?
I never said anything about the FBI coming to get us all. They just want to chill the elements in society who might investigate them. Notice, please, that this request was not made to Construction companies or Bankers. So, on this, you are right. They're not after us all, they're only after people in Academia. But that was stated in the article, right?
They are NOT specifying behaviors. They're not saying "Turn in anyone who spends a lot of time picking locks" or "Please let us know if anyone you see buys a lot of diesel fuel and fertilizer." That's behavior. The FBI is asking people to make judgments and then turn someone in based on that judgment. So, Psych Department head says "Gee, does Adjunct Ahmed really need to know how to use a backhoe? Why IS he learning that? " And he speed dials the FBI, and next thing you know, Ahmed is being investigated because he wanted to do some landscaping without telling anyone.
It's not crazy at this point in this administration to expect illegal, unethical, and immoral behavior from the government. In fact I am simply stating the worst case scenario because I will no longer give the benefit of the doubt. If you want me to believe the good intentions of the FBI then the FBI will have to demonstrate those good intentions and not expect me to grant them "the benefit of doubt." In fact, given all the evidence at hand it is ignorant and stupid to not expect the worst from the current administration.
Look at this list. The problem with it is that it takes things that are NORMAL for intellectuals to try to do and calls them suspicious.
I always thought the "need to know" was assumed to be granted to the people except in special cases where the government classifies information. If it's not specifically restricted then we have a right to it. This mandate from the Feds puts students and professors under a nasty microscope.
How does one explain their affluence? Most rich people are never asked where the money came from. Interrogating affluence leads to nothing more than vindictive sophistry.
Who do I have to report overseas travel to? Isn't it enough to inform the State Department that I travel? now I have to report my summer vacation plans to the school administration?
Information outside the job scope? So, if I'm a humanities student and taking welding classes at night I'm a terrorist?
A lot of people go into academics because of the flexible schedule. In that context what are unusual hours?
Unreported contacts with foreign nationals? Aside from academic and intellectual interest in world affairs and the question of who is the supervisor waiting for a report...this is a violation of the fourth (fifth?) amendment protections which guarantee you to be secure in your personal effects. Oh yeah...there's also something about freedom of speech.
unreported contact with foreign government? same as above. WTF, if I choose to emigrate I have to inform my school administration?
I've only provided one example per case. What it comes down to is that EVERY item on that list has many many legitimate purposes to exist. What the FBI might really be on about here is the chance that aggressive academics might be able to make a case for toppling this government by legal means. I think the Feds are circling wagons and playing defense.
C'mon folks. We're not all stupid, just the elected people. Lakes dont mysteriously go missing. They evaporate or drain. When they drain there's usually evidence, like a river or a flood.
Well, when I first started typing my post there were no other replies. Yes, I was drawn by the sirens call of a successful FP! And I was dashed against the hard, sharp rocks.
Hmm, I would agree with you but I doubt he's prorating his numbers in the quote. I'll bet his 16 billion dollar number includes all law enforcement nationwide. If thats 's the case then my comment is dead-on fair. There is a very good chance he is being disingenuous and I (and the mods too) tend to believe that of corporate representatives these days. Which is why my post got modded up and yours got modded down (sorry, it's just funny how this generality is SO CLEARLY demonstrated in this case.) But you are right about me. I did take it out of context. I did that mindful of the fact that his original numbers are out of context. And that means I'm just not accepting his arguments on face value. He's asking me to assume his sum only includes property crime, but he also says "all of it" so maybe later he says "I said all of it! That's the number from the Budget!" So let's not be afraid to make people state their context and take them out of context. It will force us to realize when we're being led around by the nose and force us to ask real questions.
Ok, ok, not FP.
Ahh, just what online gaming REALLY needs to gain notice. A simple, clean RICO prosecution.
It's perfectly legal to build a meeting hall for people to meet in. The owner of the hall is not responsible for murder and rape that happen there. Putting up an open hotspot is pretty much the same as letting people have a meeting in an auditorium.
Summary of the events form the article...
Someone at IP address X which is assigned to Javier for a period of time sent kiddie porn, via Yahoo IM, to someone in New York. Somehow the FBI found out and raided the apartment of Javier. The yahoo account belonged to Javier's roommate, Robert. The apartment is raided and they are both arrested due to a collection of kiddie porn cd's they have.
Here's the thing. Javier was maintaining an open WAP. He claims that because it is open he has no responsibility for how it is used. He claims that makes the search warrant invalid.
IMHO the court is correct. They did not get the warrant based on the existence of the wirless access point. In fact, the wireless access point is immaterial. The warrant was obtained because kiddie porn camre from that IP address at a given time and the physical address was ascertainable. If the cops had arrived and only found two guys with no kiddie porn collection and an open WAP then there would be a case for wrongful arrest (assuming the cops arrested him in that case). In this case there was probable cause.
There is the temptation to ask about Javier's rights here. Is he responsible for Robert's sending kiddie porn over his WAP? I dont think so. Even if he had secured it and given his pederast roommate the logon info he STILL shouldnt be accountable. His freedom to offer bandwidth should be considered a free speech issue. This is primarily because open WAP's offer a channel for protected speech and therefore we cannot engage in prior restraint of that speech. that's important. Withholding special circumstances, We, as a nation, by Constitutional law, cannot prohibit free speech just because someone MIGHT abuse it. You can tell the guy with the megaphone he cant commit slander, incite riots, or announce his intentions to kill the president, but you cannot tell the guy handing out megaphones to stop.
The most important thing to notice about this case is slipping past everyone. The police and court know that Robert sent the offending IM. They raided the apartment and found all sorts of incrimintating stuff. Instead of assuming Javier's innocence they arrested him as well. This is the core issue. It should not be assumed that because your roommate is a pederast that you are too. The issue in this case is one that does not interest the editors at Ars Technica.
The real issue is that Javier is under arrest and trial for sharing a room with a pederast. This kind of fascism where the laws are designed to force individuals into spies and informers continue to propagate throughout our law system. The law has no right to expect every citizen to act as a member of the executive branch, yet laws which assume the guilt of "everyone in the room" continue to pass. Put a joint in an ashtray at a party and EVERYONE's guilty. A line of coke or a dime bag with crystal meth residue? Get the paddy wagon! Your roommate in college has a cd of kiddie porn? Hire a lawyer! Scared of guilt by association? Preempt the problem and turn them in! Who cares if your right or wrong, just stay safe! The law is designed so that if you have the slightest inkling of what's going on you're supposed to turn someone else in or be held accountable as well.
If we keep settling for this bullshit we'll slowly be conditioned into doing heinous things to innocent people.
LOL @ Mormonland
Yep, I am acutely aware of that which you mention. I am VERY pro gun, anti-cigarette, and am aware of the legal precedents in both arenas (and IANAL). I didn't use those cases exactly because they deceptively detract from my argument. It's about the basic nature of the tool in question.
See, the major difference is that hammers and hotspots have many uses. Guns and cigarettes, not so many. Essentially a gun IS a tool for killing things and all activities with it support that final goal. Not that I have a big problem with using tools to kill. That's homo sapiens big advantage. Cigarettes will increase your chances of getting sick when used as recommended. And, in spite of the civil cases being resolved against the manufacturers most of the time no one has yet made it totally illegal to own guns or cigarettes. Even in California.
ON the other hand a hotspot might never be used for anything even remotely illegal. Sure, some kid might surf porn sites, or he might not. Telling people they may not provide bandwidth for free because it might be used for something bad by someone else sounds very unconstitutional. It sounds like a violation of restrictions against prior restraint. It also sounds like a restriction against a free press since a hotspot could be a device for publishing. It definitely violates the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
The big difference here is that while there are Civil cases being won in the one example the SCO douchebag is saying it should be a CRIME to put up a hotspot.
Well, it seems to me like forcing people to have a license to sell, print, or publish books. If you start making it illegal to put up hotspots then you are de facto preempting a channel (no pun intended) for free speech.
IMHO
A lot of people don't understand that you cant blame the provider for what is done with the bandwidth. And, more importantly you can't restrain my right to free speech. If I want to put up a free access point to promote a cause then I must be allowed to do that as a matter of free speech. Only under extreme circumstances should that speech be curtailed (yelling fire in a theater, or where there is limited resources that MUST be regulated.) It's the responsibility of the individual to not commit a crime.
For instance, you don't arrest the CEO of Chevrolet when a drunk driver smacks into you with his Camaro. You don't arrest factory workers from Stanley tools if someone hits you with a hammer. Why would you place the blame for kiddie porn in the hands of the bandwidth provider.
The only reason SCO comes out against free, open hotspots is because they see the potential for financial benefit from forcing difficult technology on people.
OK folks, before you all get worked up dont forget that this is the UK with no first amendment and radio recievers require licensing.
With that said...If I wanted to set up a public access wifi spot how would I do it if people were barred from logging into anonymous access points?
So you tell me that your last good dollar is gone
and you say that your pockets are bare.
And you tell me that your clothes are tattered and torn
and nobody seems to care.
Now don't tell me your troubles,
no I don't have the time to spare.
But if you want to get together and fight
good buddy that's what I want to hear.
And you tell me that your job was taken away
by a big ol' greasy machine.
And you tell me that you don't collect no more pay
and your belly is growing lean.
Now if I had the jobs to give
you know I'd give them all away.
But don't waste your breath calling out my name
if you don't have nothing to say.
And you tell me that you don't have nothing to do
and you keep on wasting your time.
And you say when you want to get your family some food
you gotta stand in a relief line.
Now it's a sin and a bloody shame
'bout the way they're pushing you 'round.
But when you decide not to take no more
you know I'll put my money down.
'Cause I've seen your kind many times before
And I'll see 'em many times again.
Oh but every bad thing that's happened to you
has happened to better men.
So don't explain that you've lost your way
that you've got no place to go.
You've got a hand and a voice and you're not alone
Brother that's all you need to know.
And if you're still wondering what I'm trying to say
let me tell you what it's all about.
Now nobody listens to a single man
when he's walkin' 'round down and out.
So if you're looking for an answer
he's standing there by your side.
And you'll never really know how far you'll go
'til you join together and try.
It's funny that 3 of the 7 you mention are Michael Crichton's fault.
Check out Children of Men. It's excellent.
I'm a fan of Star Trek. All of it. Even Nemesis and Enterprise.
However, I am also a fan of Frank Herbert, Isaac Asmiov, Kurt Vonnegut, William Gibson, and Phillip K. Dick.
With all that said I'm going to reiterate something I said in college.
Star Trek killed science fiction. With a phaser. Star Wars helped, but Gene Rodenberry has a lot to answer for.
See, what they both did was take the science out of the fiction. Dune too, to a great extent. More and more often these stories are less about how science changes the human condition and instead are about how science simply enables a new setting for the same old story. The fiction goes from involving the scientific aspect to working around it.
For instance if anyone ever tells Oedipus Rex as a science fiction story you will know it's horseshit. In any scientific culture Oedipus would have had his DNA tested to reveal his ancestry.
IEEE Spectrum had an article on this many years ago where they pointed out that for all the SCIENCE in TOS it was always the captain and rarely the science officer or engineer who finally saved the day.
In all fairness maybe we shouldnt blame the writers but the publishers. Whose idea is it to put Sci-fi and fantasy in the same section of the bookstore. There's nothing more iritating than browsing in a bookstore for a good scifi book and finding something with sword laden dragon hunters or somesuch. What I'm saying is that Tolkein, Leguinn, and Pratchett should go find their own damn shelves.
Hey, I have a much more important question...
With the advanced steel alloys we have these days is iron mining still important? How relevant is mining, smelting, and refining ore anyway?
Someone just needs to develop a live distro for gaming.
The user interface would be simple. Put CD/DVD in drive, reboot. The live distro would boot, install the game to a partition (on a first run), and start the game. Variations that enable the use of USB drives for game and client data as well as multi disc games could be engineered.
This has many benefits. It enables gaming across a wide range of available hardware. Problems due to driver variations disappear. Hell, system performance suddenly goes through the roof because of all the non-game related processes that wont be running.
This method would give the game developer a far greater level of control to produce a game that does a better job of utilizing the available hardware. The problem is that the open source stuff out there is not as nice and MS's current offerings in sound and graphics.
Still and all, this is the time to launch such a project, with the threat of MS not bringing dx10 to the XP platforms. There is an opening in the market if game companies can offer live distro gaming at dx10 levels on machines MS won't support.
So, someday some future linguist will be saying "This system was once used in a security capacity. And, clearly this screen is of EXTREME importance. It is all blue with white lettering and states that there has been a General Protection Fault, and it gives a location. I expect that the infrastructure that this system monitored is no longer in existence, though the machine still generates these warnings at unexpected intervals. Oddly, to clear the message one must restart the security device."
is that this is news.
Almost anyone can check on anyone's credit report. All you have to do is contact one of the three credit reporting companies and ask. They'll name a price.
I cant imagine anyone being surprised that government agencies use commercially available data. It's like being surprised that the D.A. has a Lexis-Nexis subscription, or reads Groklaw (ok, that might be surprising), or reads the newspaper. Once we were aware that credit checks were being factored into job interviews it should have become common knowledge that this is information that is de facto in the oublic domain for anyone to use.
It's so bad that the editors of the article forgot to include a scale to indicate the actual size of the area in the image.
I cant believe I'm responding to an AC. All the variables you mention only factor into the price structure. If MS wanted to they could sell windows for a single flat fee to everyone. See, volume pricing only makes sense if you are a)getting a price break on shipping because the truck is going there anyway so you might as well fill it up, b)if the vendor is trying to unload excess stock, c)or if you're offering an incentive to introduce more units into play. Dont confuse volume pricing with the wholesale price. These are two different things. You dont have to obey the dictates of supply and demand. You can offer your goods for one price and NOT raise the price as demand rises, thereby allowing greater market saturation. As for incentives and mutual benefit...which keiretsu are you working for? Or are you just playing Monopoly?