Yes, it should be "2011." In the/. submission form, there used to be a form-imposed length-limit on titles.
Now the limit appears to have been removed, but it is still enforced after submission.
So while I was preparing the story, the "2011" was in the Title field, but it got nixed on submission. My bad for not noticing the single missing word when I previewed the story.
Of course there is no Edit command on submissions. But I figured if the article got approved, someone would fix the title before sending it to the front page.
The above are good resources, but also check out the OS X Server list. It is a good, geeky community of people actively building and working on OS X Server networks.
I had seen this previously, and always thought there was a flaw in the experiment...
I would have done very well in this simply because as a kid, I didn't really like marshmallows. Roasted on a fire, maybe... but raw? I could let that sit for as long as they wanted.
Fact is, the researchers didn't have a good enough budget. They got away with cheaping out on a couple bags of marshmallows instead of investing in some more sure-fire chocolate bars.
Then again, if somebody said I can't have a marshmallow, I might want it more...:)
No, I don't. Well... I have no evidence of such. My main motivation was to let people know this sort of tech is coming, since geeks like to know these things.
And it is entirely believable that a draconian company could use such tech to report back on people. But if you're going to worry about that, clearly the GPS component would be far more worrisome than something that measures your acceleration.
As for reporting tampering... if Apple actually started remote-killing phones which have been jaibroken, I'm sure the backlash would be outstandingly remarkable.
I have done this, but found it practical only for limited implementation. I know that Netgear, Sonicwall, and ZyXel all support some form of blocking, and I am sure others do as well.
BUT... you certainly don't want to over-block, causing corporate peons to wonder why needed content is missing. They're not going to think to ask IT and instead are just going to do their job less effectively. Or worse, devise stupid workarounds. And even if they do ask IT, it still may be complicated to whitelist their content. With some routers it may require a reboot, which is a no-no during business hours.
However, certainly you can have a router block some really clearly defined stuff without any damage.
Microsoft is probably just following the example of FoxNews, which of course is "Fair and Balanced." Says so right in the credits (and on the website and every couple minutes throughout the broadcast, so you just know it has to be true).
If you wear wrist weights, then simple typing will be a bit of a workout. Though I imagine you would be more likely to suffer from ergonomic problems in that case.
Which is why my first two suggestions make so much sense (and are pretty much sysadmin 101). Don't let kids be admins and don't let kids execute anything but allowed apps.
As for whether or not people could actually be expected to follow these simple rules... well, you got me there. Plenty of sysadmins aren't even clever enough to deny admin privileges to their users.
How exactly do you protect against your child clicking on a link, downloading a program, and executing it?
I can think of several ways, all of which should be practiced.
1. Don't let your kids log in with an admin account. Heck, don't let ANYONE log in with an admin account, including yourself.
2. Only let your kids run certain apps (at least on a Mac, this is as easy as clicking the Parental Controls option and choosing which apps to allow; dunno on Windows, but if nothing else there are 3rd party utilities for this).
3. Tell your kids not to open e-mail from strangers.
4. Tell your kids not to give out their e-mail address to anyone without asking you first (or have them use your account and only let them see it when you log in).
5. Tell your kids never to open an application they are unfamiliar with. Sheeze, you would think a 12 year old could understand the value of this.
Whatever you do, don't blame the parents for: 1. Putting sensitive info on their computer, then 2. Letting their kid use that computer unsupervised, while 3. Leaving that computer relatively unguarded against intrusion.
Sure, not every parent can be expected to be a genius, but if you're going to let children use a computer on the internet, you have responsibilities to act as a sysadmin.
Not to mention responsibilities to act as a guardian. Just as with TV, the computer is not a babysitter. Worse, a net-connected computer is a social interaction tool where every pervert and scammer in the world has direct access to your child. And you're really going to just let them hang out alone with those people?
Democracy is not strictly defined as majority rule. If you read the linked site, most of the developing governance systems are about consensus democracy, liquid democracy, or other more advanced and thought-provoking forms than mere rule by the 51%.
The scenarios you suggest don't play out when consensus governance systems start in small communities and gradually scale to larger and larger ones. instead, you find that interested people work to make their communities genuinely better.
The article gets it right in saying it is a "suggestion box." All we can do is suggest to our rulers what we want them to do: they still get to decide. This is still not democracy. It's barely even a democratic republic.
If you want real democracy, please consider joining the Metagovernment project which is a collective of projects working to make governance a truly open system for everyone.
Also, consider attending Participation Camp. The virtual meeting started this morning, and there will be a brainstorm session tomorrow morning (1500GMT, ie 11:00 AM Eastern).
If you believe that, I have an asteroid belt you may be interested in purchasing.
(Said entirely for comic effect... I actually think commercial space tech will do just fine. So. How about $70 trillion for that asteroid belt? It's hardly used and only a few billion years old.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it should be "2011." In the /. submission form, there used to be a form-imposed length-limit on titles.
Now the limit appears to have been removed, but it is still enforced after submission.
So while I was preparing the story, the "2011" was in the Title field, but it got nixed on submission. My bad for not noticing the single missing word when I previewed the story.
Of course there is no Edit command on submissions. But I figured if the article got approved, someone would fix the title before sending it to the front page.
Sorry, I flippantly posted without really R'ingTFA. Apparently is really is Zune-brown:
http://gizmodo.com/5365297///gallery?selectedImage=4
Ya know... it looks a little bit like the Apple Knowledge Navigator, a 1987 concept.
Does it come in brown?
The above are good resources, but also check out the OS X Server list. It is a good, geeky community of people actively building and working on OS X Server networks.
I can just imagine it...
Status: Robbing a house at 319 Elm St. ROTFL!
Is it just me, or is the image in the article missing the burgers?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/fatty-foods-affect-memory-and-exercise/
It looks like a nice semi-healthy lettuce sandwich with a little cheese.
Perhaps the photographer is a hindu or something...?
I'm kinda surprised that I don't see the word Phrenology in this thread. :)
If that's the case, then the conclusion would be: "Delayed gratification is a good indicator of future success, for people who like marshmallows." :P
I had seen this previously, and always thought there was a flaw in the experiment...
I would have done very well in this simply because as a kid, I didn't really like marshmallows. Roasted on a fire, maybe... but raw? I could let that sit for as long as they wanted.
Fact is, the researchers didn't have a good enough budget. They got away with cheaping out on a couple bags of marshmallows instead of investing in some more sure-fire chocolate bars.
Then again, if somebody said I can't have a marshmallow, I might want it more... :)
On Twitter, he was under 400 when this article was published. Now he's at 447. Now, 449 since I started typing.
Have a look to see what he's at now: http://twitter.com/cyxymu
P.S. Some of it is in English.
So if you ever hear of a simultaneous attack on SlashDot and Twitter... that's aimed at me. See, I have accounts on both sites, so clearly...
No, I don't. Well... I have no evidence of such. My main motivation was to let people know this sort of tech is coming, since geeks like to know these things.
And it is entirely believable that a draconian company could use such tech to report back on people. But if you're going to worry about that, clearly the GPS component would be far more worrisome than something that measures your acceleration.
As for reporting tampering... if Apple actually started remote-killing phones which have been jaibroken, I'm sure the backlash would be outstandingly remarkable.
I have done this, but found it practical only for limited implementation. I know that Netgear, Sonicwall, and ZyXel all support some form of blocking, and I am sure others do as well.
BUT... you certainly don't want to over-block, causing corporate peons to wonder why needed content is missing. They're not going to think to ask IT and instead are just going to do their job less effectively. Or worse, devise stupid workarounds. And even if they do ask IT, it still may be complicated to whitelist their content. With some routers it may require a reboot, which is a no-no during business hours.
However, certainly you can have a router block some really clearly defined stuff without any damage.
Microsoft is probably just following the example of FoxNews, which of course is "Fair and Balanced." Says so right in the credits (and on the website and every couple minutes throughout the broadcast, so you just know it has to be true).
And wear ankle weights and such so that your simple motions are more workout-like.
If you wear wrist weights, then simple typing will be a bit of a workout. Though I imagine you would be more likely to suffer from ergonomic problems in that case.
...except that people who run Firefox are probably (just guessing here) more likely to perform better computing habits anyway.
Making Firefox safer for surfers is like trying to make people who live in the country safer from street crime.
Which is why my first two suggestions make so much sense (and are pretty much sysadmin 101). Don't let kids be admins and don't let kids execute anything but allowed apps.
As for whether or not people could actually be expected to follow these simple rules... well, you got me there. Plenty of sysadmins aren't even clever enough to deny admin privileges to their users.
How exactly do you protect against your child clicking on a link, downloading a program, and executing it?
I can think of several ways, all of which should be practiced.
1. Don't let your kids log in with an admin account. Heck, don't let ANYONE log in with an admin account, including yourself.
2. Only let your kids run certain apps (at least on a Mac, this is as easy as clicking the Parental Controls option and choosing which apps to allow; dunno on Windows, but if nothing else there are 3rd party utilities for this).
3. Tell your kids not to open e-mail from strangers.
4. Tell your kids not to give out their e-mail address to anyone without asking you first (or have them use your account and only let them see it when you log in).
5. Tell your kids never to open an application they are unfamiliar with. Sheeze, you would think a 12 year old could understand the value of this.
Whatever you do, don't blame the parents for:
1. Putting sensitive info on their computer, then
2. Letting their kid use that computer unsupervised, while
3. Leaving that computer relatively unguarded against intrusion.
Sure, not every parent can be expected to be a genius, but if you're going to let children use a computer on the internet, you have responsibilities to act as a sysadmin.
Not to mention responsibilities to act as a guardian. Just as with TV, the computer is not a babysitter. Worse, a net-connected computer is a social interaction tool where every pervert and scammer in the world has direct access to your child. And you're really going to just let them hang out alone with those people?
So you want rule by our betters, the natural elitist minority, since all us idiots can't be trusted with knowing what's good for ourselves, right?
How should these rulers be chosen, by their superior genetics?
Democracy is not strictly defined as majority rule. If you read the linked site, most of the developing governance systems are about consensus democracy, liquid democracy, or other more advanced and thought-provoking forms than mere rule by the 51%.
The scenarios you suggest don't play out when consensus governance systems start in small communities and gradually scale to larger and larger ones. instead, you find that interested people work to make their communities genuinely better.
The article gets it right in saying it is a "suggestion box." All we can do is suggest to our rulers what we want them to do: they still get to decide. This is still not democracy. It's barely even a democratic republic.
If you want real democracy, please consider joining the Metagovernment project which is a collective of projects working to make governance a truly open system for everyone.
Also, consider attending Participation Camp. The virtual meeting started this morning, and there will be a brainstorm session tomorrow morning (1500GMT, ie 11:00 AM Eastern).
If you believe that, I have an asteroid belt you may be interested in purchasing.
(Said entirely for comic effect... I actually think commercial space tech will do just fine. So. How about $70 trillion for that asteroid belt? It's hardly used and only a few billion years old.)
Just for the edification of the reader... the AP also is a not-for-profit cooperative.