It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition.
If that happens, I'll have to wear a mask constantly. But really, I think we should consider some privacy laws against that. Seeing someone in public is significantly different from recording them and then posting their name and the footage online, complete with geotagging.
Kind of like how we have laws against posting movies and songs online? Good luck with that. When flash drives hold 3EBs and you have a 15Tbps network connection there is no way the police are going to be able to stop everybody from sharing a few hundred GB of video per day on some consolidation site.
If somebody wants to covertly record things, there are far more effective ways to do it than by wearing Glass. There are lots of ways to conceal cameras - why stick it on your face?
Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.
I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?
Somehow I doubt the parent was suggesting that a gunfight in a bar was the solution to somebody being annoyed about somebody else owning a camera. Maybe live and let live is a better solution? The last time I checked everybody at the local bar was carrying a cell phone camera, and I've yet to see somebody get punched in the face over it.
There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?
Honestly, I think what has to change is our expectations. The only reason people value privacy is because we're accustomed to having it. We don't want people to see us naked, or doing things our parents might not approve of (even if they've already died of old age), and so on. And yet, everybody does that stuff (in one way or another).
Sooner or later recording and storage technology will reach a point where we just won't have a choice. Everything, everywhere will be recorded, stored forever, indexed, and posted online. Distributed databases will mine all that data. When you do a Google search for Fred Smith it will ask you whether you meant the guy you used to spend a lot of time with when you were 12, or the creepy guy who urinated on your garden last Tuesday.
How exactly would we be worse off if we were aware of everything that goes on behind closed doors?
What is the individual who records you going to do to you? Post video of you fetching your mail on the internet?
It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition. Curious as to what your employees were doing at 2AM last Tuesday? Just look it up!
Then you can either fire all your employees because all of them do stuff you don't like at some point, or you can decide there are better things to do with your time.
I'm pretty sure the amount of lead in the environment is a more useful predictor of violent behavior than genetics.
This was a study on rats. I think it is a bit premature to conclude anything about humans from it, but certainly it is suggestive.
Lead may very well be a major contributor to violent behavior - it might even be the largest one. That doesn't mean that there aren't others as well. People are complicated; there is no one cause for anything that a person does.
Some people seem to gain weight no matter how hard they try to lose it. That doesn't mean that if you locked them in a cell and fed them 1500 kcal/day that they wouldn't lose weight while they moan in agony. If you then tell them that if they strangle a kitten that you'll give them a steak I imagine that most would refrain from killing the kitten. So, clearly they have some degree of control over their eating tendencies. On the other hand, if you give them a choice of enduring a shock to earn a steak they may very well elect to do so, whereas somebody who normally eats 1500cal/day would never volunteer to be tortured for extra food.
My point is that people can choose to control their behavior, but that doesn't really mean that predispositions don't come into play. Brains are complicated, so those predispositions could be the result of prior conditioning, environmental factors, or genetics/etc.
I agree. I'd be very hesitant to describe a widespread natural biological process that clearly survived intense selection over a very long time as something that doesn't provide an advantage. If organisms were better off starting with "clean programming" then I'm sure that germ cells would avoid applying epigenetic changes to their DNA, or that embryos would somehow reset themselves.
Advantage isn't determined by a panel of judges. Advantage is determined by going out into the world and out-breeding the competition.
Honestly, the powers that be don't care about Kim or his uncle. They don't really care about all the starving people over there either - not enough to do something about it at least.
Really it is all about saving face, looking tough, and all that. If letting the likes of Kim off easy is a way to quickly give freedom to millions of people without fighting a major war then perhaps it is a price worth paying, no matter how sick it might make me feel.
I'm just trying to think of reasons why the UN bothers...
These atrocities have been known for a long time, and there are already several good books on the subject (which hopefully some Slashdotters with more time can link). What I don't understand is why this report came out know? Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that Kim Jong-un only took over for his father in 2011. It might be possible to put pressure on him to clean things up, though I'm not sure what internal power struggles might exist which make Kim Jong-un just a figurehead.
He now has two full years under his belt, but conceivably the world could save face and let him declare, "man, my father really messed up, and I've been struggling to fix things on my own and am having trouble, so let's have the UN come in and help me transition this to a more legitimate government." He might remain an interim leader until democracy could be instituted, and perhaps he'd be offered refuge somewhere and immunity for anything that happened under his watch. The argument would be that what exists in NK today are the sins of his ancestors, and his role was to fix things, but he can't just stick around because so much harm was done in the past that he'd be a target.
In theory he could probably live out a nice comfortable life someplace, but he would no longer have any political power. I have no idea what it is like to grow up with the destiny to take over the dictatorship of someplace like NK. However, if I found myself in that position with the personality I have I'd be glad to be offered a way out of it, and just live a nice quiet comfortable life someplace where the entire world isn't having debates over mounting an invasion to try me for crimes against humanity.
For the rest of the world it would be a way out of the mess of NK without having to fight a war and watch Seoul get shelled. The world wouldn't be letting some guy with 30 years of brutality off the hook - leaders could save face and say that they found that Kim Jong-un is new to power and genuinely wants to fix things.
So, the report is the stick, and an offer of a way out is the carrot. I doubt it will work, but perhaps it is possible for a new generation of Koreans (and everybody else) to decide that there is no reason to keep doing things they way they were done.
"No, you shouldn't worry about prioritization, in fact it can help startups."
What? Wasn't that what everyone was worried about to begin with? That those with all the purse strings would be able to lock out these very startups you're claiming will benefit the most from this setup?
You're talking about startup content providers, which the likes of ESPN want to put out of business (do you think they actually want to help their competition?).
ESPN is talking about startup broadband providers, which don't exist. If they did exist ESPN would want to help them as they'd prefer to deal with a bunch of small cable companies and not one big Comcast or whatever. However, the last mile is a natural monopoly, so there won't be any startups.
Really it is about coming up with a bogus argument about helping small business so that they can kill it. The only place you'd actually see startups would be on the content side, which is where ESPN plays.
Presumably this is a problem the cell phone system already has solved. They have maintained routing tables for phone calls for decades. It is just a matter of tuning, and yes, you can optimize for more traffic and battery use, or you can optimize for less table/address space consumed.
If there's a very high probability that we've found a hidden message, then we've probably found a hidden message.
If that isn't an example of the futility of mathematics, I don't know what is.:)
Of course everything that you said makes sense. The bigger point that Sagan was making was that skepticism/rationalism was a bit of a double-edged sword. He wasn't really suggesting that we should stop being skeptical. However, the perfect skeptic isn't automatically assured of finding "the truth."
So, if you find hidden messages in constants that are extremely unlikely to be there mathematically, you've either discovered something profound (either a real hidden message, or something wrong in the laws of statistics) or you've just exerpienced an astoundingly unlikely coincidence.
That's the whole point. An obvious message buried in a physical constant screams message from some intelligent God-like being, but you never can be sure.
Additionally, the DHCP server wouldn't know that a client had left, so the addresses would be occupied long after no longer being in use.
I agree with most of what you said, but there is no reason that the DHCP server couldn't know that the client had left. The cell tower knows what phones are and are not in the area. Plus, lease times could be really short - maybe a minute or two - even if that were not handled.
If you did not have the NAT layer, you only have the challenge of routing packets to the phone as it is moving, there is no need to get it through one particular NAT as well.
Well, that is easy - just make every tower a separate subnet and force a dhcp negotiation each time the tower changes.
I'm not sure how that makes your goal of peer-to-peer transmissions any easier though.
If you wanted the phone IP to remain constant then routing that is no easier or harder than NAT. The packets are still going to go into the provider's network at the same point, since the phone isn't moving as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The only way to get the packets into their network at a more appropriate point is to advertise routes for individual IPs, and that isn't going to happen.
That's the problem with the whole everything-has-an-IP internet of things mindset. IPv6 might give you the address space for this, but you are still dealing with constantly changing dynamic IPs for anything that moves, because nobody has come up with a way to route packets to individual IPs that move around. The IP doesn't really belong to the device as a result - it belongs to the ISP.
It drives me nuts when I run into a website that blocks me for running a Tor RELAY node. No, not an exit node - a relay node. There is no way that somebody is going to hack into them via Tor from my site. But, the various blacklists out there list me as "running Tor" so block, block, block...
Well, the hoarded IPv4s might be useful, but the organizations with them will probably take quite a while to switch to IPv6, and I doubt releasing the hoarded ones without deploying IPv6 would be any more than a temporary solution.
There really aren't a lot of clean solutions for undersized address fields. Computing is full of hacks to get around them (starting with EMS on x86). I just hope that when 64-bit is no longer good enough programmers will not have gone back to making assumptions about the size of types like long int/etc.
Yup. NAT isn't really too troublesome on phones since they rarely run servers, are usually connecting to cloud-based services, and they move around so much that they'd probably have an IP change every 10 minutes if you handled them like a traditional routable IP.
If I were using cellular service as my actual home ISP it would drive me nuts, though.
IPv6 is needed more than it ever was. We just haven't reached the end of v4 yet.
Yeah, I think the 3D stuff is often used poorly. I've been watching Soviet Storm and it is basically a Russian/BBC version of Battle 360 or whatever the US show was called.
The show itself is decent, but the 3D stuff is used poorly. They don't use illustrations to show how the battles actually went. They just have lots of pictures of tanks getting blown up or whatever with lots of bullets frozen in mid-air while the camera moves around. Sure, it looks pretty, but it does nothing to tell me what happened. I'd take a 2D map where they actually plot out how the battles developed over random photos of people standing in trenches or 3D animations that don't actually give any sense of what actually happened (well, besides the fact that people were getting shot at).
I'm not saying that you can't show actual film of the siege of Stalingrad in a show about the Siege of Stalingrad. I'm just saying that on its own it doesn't really explain what happened, and half of it is generic stuff that could have been shot anywhere, and half of that probably was.
Slashdot Mirror
It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition.
If that happens, I'll have to wear a mask constantly. But really, I think we should consider some privacy laws against that. Seeing someone in public is significantly different from recording them and then posting their name and the footage online, complete with geotagging.
Kind of like how we have laws against posting movies and songs online? Good luck with that. When flash drives hold 3EBs and you have a 15Tbps network connection there is no way the police are going to be able to stop everybody from sharing a few hundred GB of video per day on some consolidation site.
Nobody was ever hurt from having a camera pointed at them.
If it really bothers you try combing your hair.
We've outsourced data cleanup to Bobby Tables. His rates are low, and we haven't had a problem yet...
If somebody wants to covertly record things, there are far more effective ways to do it than by wearing Glass. There are lots of ways to conceal cameras - why stick it on your face?
Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.
I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?
Somehow I doubt the parent was suggesting that a gunfight in a bar was the solution to somebody being annoyed about somebody else owning a camera. Maybe live and let live is a better solution? The last time I checked everybody at the local bar was carrying a cell phone camera, and I've yet to see somebody get punched in the face over it.
There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?
Honestly, I think what has to change is our expectations. The only reason people value privacy is because we're accustomed to having it. We don't want people to see us naked, or doing things our parents might not approve of (even if they've already died of old age), and so on. And yet, everybody does that stuff (in one way or another).
Sooner or later recording and storage technology will reach a point where we just won't have a choice. Everything, everywhere will be recorded, stored forever, indexed, and posted online. Distributed databases will mine all that data. When you do a Google search for Fred Smith it will ask you whether you meant the guy you used to spend a lot of time with when you were 12, or the creepy guy who urinated on your garden last Tuesday.
How exactly would we be worse off if we were aware of everything that goes on behind closed doors?
What is the individual who records you going to do to you? Post video of you fetching your mail on the internet?
It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition. Curious as to what your employees were doing at 2AM last Tuesday? Just look it up!
Then you can either fire all your employees because all of them do stuff you don't like at some point, or you can decide there are better things to do with your time.
I'm pretty sure the amount of lead in the environment is a more useful predictor of violent behavior than genetics.
This was a study on rats. I think it is a bit premature to conclude anything about humans from it, but certainly it is suggestive.
Lead may very well be a major contributor to violent behavior - it might even be the largest one. That doesn't mean that there aren't others as well. People are complicated; there is no one cause for anything that a person does.
Some people seem to gain weight no matter how hard they try to lose it. That doesn't mean that if you locked them in a cell and fed them 1500 kcal/day that they wouldn't lose weight while they moan in agony. If you then tell them that if they strangle a kitten that you'll give them a steak I imagine that most would refrain from killing the kitten. So, clearly they have some degree of control over their eating tendencies. On the other hand, if you give them a choice of enduring a shock to earn a steak they may very well elect to do so, whereas somebody who normally eats 1500cal/day would never volunteer to be tortured for extra food.
My point is that people can choose to control their behavior, but that doesn't really mean that predispositions don't come into play. Brains are complicated, so those predispositions could be the result of prior conditioning, environmental factors, or genetics/etc.
I agree. I'd be very hesitant to describe a widespread natural biological process that clearly survived intense selection over a very long time as something that doesn't provide an advantage. If organisms were better off starting with "clean programming" then I'm sure that germ cells would avoid applying epigenetic changes to their DNA, or that embryos would somehow reset themselves.
Advantage isn't determined by a panel of judges. Advantage is determined by going out into the world and out-breeding the competition.
Honestly, the powers that be don't care about Kim or his uncle. They don't really care about all the starving people over there either - not enough to do something about it at least.
Really it is all about saving face, looking tough, and all that. If letting the likes of Kim off easy is a way to quickly give freedom to millions of people without fighting a major war then perhaps it is a price worth paying, no matter how sick it might make me feel.
I'm just trying to think of reasons why the UN bothers...
These atrocities have been known for a long time, and there are already several good books on the subject (which hopefully some Slashdotters with more time can link). What I don't understand is why this report came out know? Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that Kim Jong-un only took over for his father in 2011. It might be possible to put pressure on him to clean things up, though I'm not sure what internal power struggles might exist which make Kim Jong-un just a figurehead.
He now has two full years under his belt, but conceivably the world could save face and let him declare, "man, my father really messed up, and I've been struggling to fix things on my own and am having trouble, so let's have the UN come in and help me transition this to a more legitimate government." He might remain an interim leader until democracy could be instituted, and perhaps he'd be offered refuge somewhere and immunity for anything that happened under his watch. The argument would be that what exists in NK today are the sins of his ancestors, and his role was to fix things, but he can't just stick around because so much harm was done in the past that he'd be a target.
In theory he could probably live out a nice comfortable life someplace, but he would no longer have any political power. I have no idea what it is like to grow up with the destiny to take over the dictatorship of someplace like NK. However, if I found myself in that position with the personality I have I'd be glad to be offered a way out of it, and just live a nice quiet comfortable life someplace where the entire world isn't having debates over mounting an invasion to try me for crimes against humanity.
For the rest of the world it would be a way out of the mess of NK without having to fight a war and watch Seoul get shelled. The world wouldn't be letting some guy with 30 years of brutality off the hook - leaders could save face and say that they found that Kim Jong-un is new to power and genuinely wants to fix things.
So, the report is the stick, and an offer of a way out is the carrot. I doubt it will work, but perhaps it is possible for a new generation of Koreans (and everybody else) to decide that there is no reason to keep doing things they way they were done.
"No, you shouldn't worry about prioritization, in fact it can help startups."
What? Wasn't that what everyone was worried about to begin with? That those with all the purse strings would be able to lock out these very startups you're claiming will benefit the most from this setup?
You're talking about startup content providers, which the likes of ESPN want to put out of business (do you think they actually want to help their competition?).
ESPN is talking about startup broadband providers, which don't exist. If they did exist ESPN would want to help them as they'd prefer to deal with a bunch of small cable companies and not one big Comcast or whatever. However, the last mile is a natural monopoly, so there won't be any startups.
Really it is about coming up with a bogus argument about helping small business so that they can kill it. The only place you'd actually see startups would be on the content side, which is where ESPN plays.
Presumably this is a problem the cell phone system already has solved. They have maintained routing tables for phone calls for decades. It is just a matter of tuning, and yes, you can optimize for more traffic and battery use, or you can optimize for less table/address space consumed.
If there's a very high probability that we've found a hidden message, then we've probably found a hidden message.
If that isn't an example of the futility of mathematics, I don't know what is. :)
Of course everything that you said makes sense. The bigger point that Sagan was making was that skepticism/rationalism was a bit of a double-edged sword. He wasn't really suggesting that we should stop being skeptical. However, the perfect skeptic isn't automatically assured of finding "the truth."
That is Youtube's fault. I'm not aware of any DMCA provision that requires the site to stay down for 10 days even after a counter-notice is filed.
So, if you find hidden messages in constants that are extremely unlikely to be there mathematically, you've either discovered something profound (either a real hidden message, or something wrong in the laws of statistics) or you've just exerpienced an astoundingly unlikely coincidence.
That's the whole point. An obvious message buried in a physical constant screams message from some intelligent God-like being, but you never can be sure.
Additionally, the DHCP server wouldn't know that a client had left, so the addresses would be occupied long after no longer being in use.
I agree with most of what you said, but there is no reason that the DHCP server couldn't know that the client had left. The cell tower knows what phones are and are not in the area. Plus, lease times could be really short - maybe a minute or two - even if that were not handled.
The benefit to preemptive multitasking is in the way it simplifies programs that are written correctly.
The benefit to preemptive multitasking is that there are no programs that are written correctly.
They may very well use IPv6, but they're still NATed, and I imagine the IP changes fairly often as well.
If you did not have the NAT layer, you only have the challenge of routing packets to the phone as it is moving, there is no need to get it through one particular NAT as well.
Well, that is easy - just make every tower a separate subnet and force a dhcp negotiation each time the tower changes.
I'm not sure how that makes your goal of peer-to-peer transmissions any easier though.
If you wanted the phone IP to remain constant then routing that is no easier or harder than NAT. The packets are still going to go into the provider's network at the same point, since the phone isn't moving as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The only way to get the packets into their network at a more appropriate point is to advertise routes for individual IPs, and that isn't going to happen.
That's the problem with the whole everything-has-an-IP internet of things mindset. IPv6 might give you the address space for this, but you are still dealing with constantly changing dynamic IPs for anything that moves, because nobody has come up with a way to route packets to individual IPs that move around. The IP doesn't really belong to the device as a result - it belongs to the ISP.
Find a better solution than IP banning?
It drives me nuts when I run into a website that blocks me for running a Tor RELAY node. No, not an exit node - a relay node. There is no way that somebody is going to hack into them via Tor from my site. But, the various blacklists out there list me as "running Tor" so block, block, block...
Well, the hoarded IPv4s might be useful, but the organizations with them will probably take quite a while to switch to IPv6, and I doubt releasing the hoarded ones without deploying IPv6 would be any more than a temporary solution.
There really aren't a lot of clean solutions for undersized address fields. Computing is full of hacks to get around them (starting with EMS on x86). I just hope that when 64-bit is no longer good enough programmers will not have gone back to making assumptions about the size of types like long int/etc.
Yup. NAT isn't really too troublesome on phones since they rarely run servers, are usually connecting to cloud-based services, and they move around so much that they'd probably have an IP change every 10 minutes if you handled them like a traditional routable IP.
If I were using cellular service as my actual home ISP it would drive me nuts, though.
IPv6 is needed more than it ever was. We just haven't reached the end of v4 yet.
Nope, FOX. The original Cosmos was PBS.
Yeah, I think the 3D stuff is often used poorly. I've been watching Soviet Storm and it is basically a Russian/BBC version of Battle 360 or whatever the US show was called.
The show itself is decent, but the 3D stuff is used poorly. They don't use illustrations to show how the battles actually went. They just have lots of pictures of tanks getting blown up or whatever with lots of bullets frozen in mid-air while the camera moves around. Sure, it looks pretty, but it does nothing to tell me what happened. I'd take a 2D map where they actually plot out how the battles developed over random photos of people standing in trenches or 3D animations that don't actually give any sense of what actually happened (well, besides the fact that people were getting shot at).
I'm not saying that you can't show actual film of the siege of Stalingrad in a show about the Siege of Stalingrad. I'm just saying that on its own it doesn't really explain what happened, and half of it is generic stuff that could have been shot anywhere, and half of that probably was.