Yes. It is called trust. However, trust is not something anyone should automagically get....even your kid.
But if you don't trust your kid they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
This device won't actually prevent them from running someone over, it will just teel you how fast they were going when they did it.
They should earn your trust with you in the car.
If you raise your kid right, you sould have no trouble by the time they're 16.
I plan to start teaching my kid when they are 14 or 15, including taking them to a track so they can get some of the desire to speed out of their system. I also plan to buy a car that needs a significant amount of work done to it so that they both actually know something about cars and really value their own car.
Because I AM THE PARENT. So long as he lives in my house, it's my rules in and out of the house. After he leaves, he can get his privacy but not until then.
Which is fine so long as you don't actually care about your relationship with your child or how he turns out. You may be the parent, but he's a human being and soon to be a legal adult. You should acknowedge this fact if you want him to. That, or he could just decide to leave. Maybe not finish high school. He wouldn't be in your house anymore so he doesn't have to respect what you tell him, after all that's what you taught him: Respect is earned via ownership of property, not by acting like a responsible adult who reasons out his actions and seeks the best for those around him!
BZZT! WRONG. Provably flase statement.
Without knowing any more of the situation, but knowing similar people I would lay very good odds that no only is she at the top of her class but she will be far more wildly succesful by the time she graduates college (assuming she goes) than 85% of her class mates.
Which actually dodges the question, not answers it.
Where are you from that tremendous work ethic is not something to be admired?
America, a first-world country where many of us realize that slaving your life away at a menial job is not the end all and be all of existence.
His 16 year old daughter (a high school student) spent every day working, as well as studying and they had nothing but adoration and pride for her.
Did it ever occur to you that 8 hours of work per day might be affecting her performance at school? That they might be tranding off her long-term success and happiness for a short term financial gain?
for crying out loud, you don't need to solve the halting problem in order to figure out approximately whether a certain chunk of code is useful or malicious.
Actually yes you do.
Because code can be self-modifying, you simply cannot disassemble a binary and look for certain sets of operations. Both virues and commercial software routinely use self-modifying code.
Take the simple case of a program that is XOR'ed and contains a small loader program at the beginning with returns the code to it's normal state when it's actually being run. This isn't a theoretical concern, this is something that is really done all the time. You can go online right now and download a program which will automatically obfuscate an executable file for you.
Err, my original statement was in the present tense...
Which doesn't make it any less wrong.
Now you're trying to argue that although innovation happened in the past when it wasn't "protected" if we were to remove these protections today there would be no innovation? Why is that?
My argument still stands: in our market economy IP helps support innovation.
That's not what I was arguing with. I was arguing with you statement that without it there would be no innovation. This is simply not true and is a (probably) deliberate distortion of the actual situation.
You argument was silly and easy to prove wrong. You simply cannot say that no innovation would take place. All it takes is one instance to prove you wrong.
Only in the most trivial cases.
The concept is rather silly. Say I'm a virus writer.
I want my virus to be effective, right? I know there are virus scanners out there.
What do I do?
I download the current versions of all major virus scanners and check my virus against them.
I continue modifying the virus and testing again until they all fail to detect it.
See how simple that was? You think you're protected, yet in reality your ass is hanging out in the wind for anyone who's willing to spend even a modest amount of effort.
Furthermore, I propose that "behavioral" detection will always fall into this category as well. After all, if you can predict what any given piece of code will do without actually running it, you've just solved the halting problem.
Virus scanners have their uses, but the actual security increase you get is pretty small. You will be protected from generic, out-of-date attacks.
The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.
There's also that tradeoff of the deaths of many thousands of people versus the staining of a dress.
however, without IP protection there's really no point in innovating since it's easier & cheaper to knock off somone else's idea.
This is provably false. All one needs to do is look back in history to a time when invention were not protected and realize that it still happend anyways.
Whether or not patents should exist is debatable, but you argument here is simply false.
Consider the impact that paid licensure of Fourier transforms would have on science and engineering.
Negative impact. Very much so.
Or was the money supposed to come from the Magic Unicorn Cave?
What money? What the heck are you talking about?
It seems like you're trying to mak a point, but you didn't actually transfer that point from your brain to your post. Why are we liscensing fourier transforms to give money to unicorns? Why not gnomes?
Innovations can geneate a HUGE amount of money regardless of the compensation their inventor actually receives.
Want to make a lot of money, do something the generates a lot of money. I can understand your point of view, but get real...
Innovation in math and science generates more money than any movie.
Consider something obviously fundamental to the way we live, like calculus or Fourier transforms.
It is very foolish to think that the direct and immediate monetary rewards a person receives are any real inidcation of the value their work provides to society.
And then there's people who lack the fundamental understanding that sound waves do not propagete at lightspeed.
And then there are people who don't check their facts before correcting someone. Actually, if it was traveling at lightspeed the wavelength would be 3E8/14E3= 21 kilometers.
...where have I seen that before? Where the true Root account is hidden and you have to go through a painstaking procedure to enable it? Where the "admin" account is actually a standard user that has to sudo to do Root-y stuff? Oh yeah, Mac OS X. And Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu, which was influenced by Mac OS X to do the same thing.
You are giving Apple WAY too much credit here.
In the UNIX world people have been running as unpriveledged users for DECADES.
Apple simply followed standard unix operating practice. Not that this is a bad thing, it just does not make them a innovator in this instance.
I never suggested that the entire capitalist system be smashed.
It's a shame you can't see the possibility for small changes that make large differences.
There are things that a fundamentally broken about the way the system is set up now.
BTW, I've also noticed that many of the same people who cry about how "unfair" the system is cry even louder when their Welfare check is late...
Wow! Aren't you a crappy person! Obviously poor people are bad people and we should not listen to them.
Those billions of dollars supposedly spent by the industry on clinical research groups, doctors, lab work, you know medical-type shit goes somewhere.
Yeah, it goes to the shareholders.
The purpose of these companies, first and foremost, is to make a profit.
Do we really want that as a society?
Do really want the price of a new drug be set based on what will make the company the most profit, rather than what will help the most people while still coving their costs?
Consider this hypotheitcal situation:
-Company invents a drug that can stall the advance of AIDS indefinately, so long as the drug is taken
-Company then invents a drug that can cure AIDS in one dose
-Beancounter sits down and realizes that treating the disease is way more profitable that curing it. Company decides to sit on the cure. They refuse to sell it to a single soul, regardless of price, because it would jeapodize a larger revenue stream.
-Society is deprived of this drug for the entire length of the patent term.
Is that really something the we as a society should allow to happen? Right now the above chain of events is both completely legal and incredibly unethical.
Most inventors aren't altruists. They invent because they see a way to make money off of their efforts. Without that potential to profit they aren't going to be motivated to spend their time and effort doing something they'll never get compensated for.
Of course this statement relies on the blatantly false assumption that the only way someone will be compensated is if patents exist.
This is provably false.
According to the Constitution they are.
Actually no they aren't. Instead of insulting other people, perhaps you should actually read the document you are referencing. Patents are mentioned SEPARATELY. You may as well be claiming that freedom of speech is a "property right".
I'm sure your fiery hard-eyed give-no-quarter stand makes you the 'great hero of the people' in your own fevered imagination, but those of us with a firmer grasp of reality are bored by your puerile teen ranting. Get back to us when your pubes have come in and you've calmed down a bit, won't you?
Here's an idea, why don't you quit being an asshole and actually debate this guy's points rationally?
The poster you're responding to actually made rational points and backed his claim. You may think his viewpoint is extreme, but you've offered nothing but ad-hominem and straw-man attacks.
GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad".
That's bullshit.
It not at all about what the hardware is but rather WHO HOLDS THE KEYS. The GPL is about preventing code-signing from making the freedoms protected by the GPL irrelevant.
This isn't some pie-in-the-sky thing. Companys are actively working on making this happen.
What is being done we is in the true spirit of the GPL. "I have produced this work for society to use, I ask in return that any addional work be available as well."
Having the code but having to way to run it is pointless. It's counter to the spirit and intent of the GPL.
But, there are loads of things for which Linux doesn't have any software
And do those things come with windows?
Didn't think so.
Windows, evaluated on its own terms is a fairly poor OS. That fact that software is availible for it does not change this. In short, Stating that applications are availible for it is not supporting evidence for for the claim you are making. Maybe it's the reason you use it, but it does not back your claim.
Now not only can citizens of impoverished countries starve due to gross mismanagement of funds by their governments (who are themselves living very well off of foreign aid intended for the citizens) but they can IM each other about who has more flies.
Yes, what would citzens of a third world country want with INFRASTRUCTURE!
It's madness I tell you. Next thing they'll be setting up businesses and making money!
They're starving, how could that *possibly* help them.
They'd say that if they depended on Firefox, and Firefox "understood" that as a developer community, that Firefox could influence the direction of Windows development because it would be a core component - and one that Microsoft doesn't control.
Which is completely false.
One of the great things about OSS is that YOU can push the code in any direction you want. Microsoft is no exception to this.
They're free to fork the project any time they wish. The would NEVER be held hostage by an outside team. The worst that would ever happen is that someone else would no longer be maintaing it for them for free. (Oh the horror!)
I think on a corporate level, anti-virus is a *must*|
And I think it's a joke.
AV protects you from two things:
-KNOWN vulnerabilities
-Stupid users
You shouldn't be running systems with known vulnerabilities and you shouldn't be giving stupid users access permissions to important data. Either sandbox them or educate them.
AV software does pretty much nothing but create a false sense of security. It is usually used as a (non)subsititute for decent security practices.
If you designed a rocket just for this specific purpose, it would be cheaper.
Yes! If only someone had thought of designing a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload outside the earth's atmosphere:P
It would obviously be MUCH cheaper than the current rockets we have which were designed to carry a nuclear payload outside the earth's atmosphere as part of the cold war..... wait a minute!
Look, in all seriousness, uranium is HEAVY. Launching things into orbit requires a lot of expensive fuel. These are facts which aren't going to change any time soon. Using up our precious natural resources and taking crazy risks simply because we can't solve a political problem of where to store this waste is absurd.
Only a person who:
A) Has no idea how heavy uranium is
B) Has no idea how much fuel it takes to put even a pound into orbit
C) Doesn't understand sheer idiocy of strapping a large amount of radioactive matter to a gaint fuel tank
would suggest such an idea.
(It's not that I'm calling the poster stupid. Just his idea. It's like a man who knows nothing about electricity asking why you can't stick a fork in a wall outlet.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It is called trust. However, trust is not something anyone should automagically get....even your kid.
But if you don't trust your kid they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
This device won't actually prevent them from running someone over, it will just teel you how fast they were going when they did it.
They should earn your trust with you in the car.
If you raise your kid right, you sould have no trouble by the time they're 16.
I plan to start teaching my kid when they are 14 or 15, including taking them to a track so they can get some of the desire to speed out of their system. I also plan to buy a car that needs a significant amount of work done to it so that they both actually know something about cars and really value their own car.
Because I AM THE PARENT. So long as he lives in my house, it's my rules in and out of the house. After he leaves, he can get his privacy but not until then.
Which is fine so long as you don't actually care about your relationship with your child or how he turns out. You may be the parent, but he's a human being and soon to be a legal adult. You should acknowedge this fact if you want him to. That, or he could just decide to leave. Maybe not finish high school. He wouldn't be in your house anymore so he doesn't have to respect what you tell him, after all that's what you taught him: Respect is earned via ownership of property, not by acting like a responsible adult who reasons out his actions and seeks the best for those around him!
no one has any pride in the work they do
BZZT! WRONG. Provably flase statement.
Without knowing any more of the situation, but knowing similar people I would lay very good odds that no only is she at the top of her class but she will be far more wildly succesful by the time she graduates college (assuming she goes) than 85% of her class mates.
Which actually dodges the question, not answers it.
Where are you from that tremendous work ethic is not something to be admired?
America, a first-world country where many of us realize that slaving your life away at a menial job is not the end all and be all of existence.
His 16 year old daughter (a high school student) spent every day working, as well as studying and they had nothing but adoration and pride for her.
Did it ever occur to you that 8 hours of work per day might be affecting her performance at school? That they might be tranding off her long-term success and happiness for a short term financial gain?
for crying out loud, you don't need to solve the halting problem in order to figure out approximately whether a certain chunk of code is useful or malicious.
Actually yes you do.
Because code can be self-modifying, you simply cannot disassemble a binary and look for certain sets of operations. Both virues and commercial software routinely use self-modifying code.
Take the simple case of a program that is XOR'ed and contains a small loader program at the beginning with returns the code to it's normal state when it's actually being run. This isn't a theoretical concern, this is something that is really done all the time. You can go online right now and download a program which will automatically obfuscate an executable file for you.
Err, my original statement was in the present tense...
Which doesn't make it any less wrong.
Now you're trying to argue that although innovation happened in the past when it wasn't "protected" if we were to remove these protections today there would be no innovation? Why is that?
My argument still stands: in our market economy IP helps support innovation.
That's not what I was arguing with. I was arguing with you statement that without it there would be no innovation. This is simply not true and is a (probably) deliberate distortion of the actual situation.
You argument was silly and easy to prove wrong. You simply cannot say that no innovation would take place. All it takes is one instance to prove you wrong.
AV software WILL protect you from new viruses
Only in the most trivial cases.
The concept is rather silly. Say I'm a virus writer.
I want my virus to be effective, right? I know there are virus scanners out there.
What do I do?
I download the current versions of all major virus scanners and check my virus against them.
I continue modifying the virus and testing again until they all fail to detect it.
See how simple that was? You think you're protected, yet in reality your ass is hanging out in the wind for anyone who's willing to spend even a modest amount of effort.
Furthermore, I propose that "behavioral" detection will always fall into this category as well. After all, if you can predict what any given piece of code will do without actually running it, you've just solved the halting problem.
Virus scanners have their uses, but the actual security increase you get is pretty small. You will be protected from generic, out-of-date attacks.
The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.
There's also that tradeoff of the deaths of many thousands of people versus the staining of a dress.
however, without IP protection there's really no point in innovating since it's easier & cheaper to knock off somone else's idea.
This is provably false. All one needs to do is look back in history to a time when invention were not protected and realize that it still happend anyways.
Whether or not patents should exist is debatable, but you argument here is simply false.
So if you wanted to make the trip between say Chicago and Amsterdam how exactly would you go about it besides flying and do so in a timely matter?
And why do you have to get there inside a day?
I think I'd rather take a cruise ship and have lots of drinks than take a plane and not be allowed any.
Consider the impact that paid licensure of Fourier transforms would have on science and engineering.
Negative impact. Very much so.
Or was the money supposed to come from the Magic Unicorn Cave?
What money? What the heck are you talking about?
It seems like you're trying to mak a point, but you didn't actually transfer that point from your brain to your post. Why are we liscensing fourier transforms to give money to unicorns? Why not gnomes?
Innovations can geneate a HUGE amount of money regardless of the compensation their inventor actually receives.
As long as you pack it well (and insure it, of course) it will be waiting for you in your room when you arrive.
Of course it may be there in many, many more pices than when you last saw it.....
Want to make a lot of money, do something the generates a lot of money. I can understand your point of view, but get real...
Innovation in math and science generates more money than any movie.
Consider something obviously fundamental to the way we live, like calculus or Fourier transforms.
It is very foolish to think that the direct and immediate monetary rewards a person receives are any real inidcation of the value their work provides to society.
And then there's people who lack the fundamental understanding that sound waves do not propagete at lightspeed.
And then there are people who don't check their facts before correcting someone. Actually, if it was traveling at lightspeed the wavelength would be 3E8/14E3= 21 kilometers.
MiniDisc found new life in NetMD
Nope. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but NetMD was too little, too late.
MiniDisc should have been the next floppy disc, but Sony royally fucked themselves on that one.
...where have I seen that before? Where the true Root account is hidden and you have to go through a painstaking procedure to enable it? Where the "admin" account is actually a standard user that has to sudo to do Root-y stuff? Oh yeah, Mac OS X. And Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu, which was influenced by Mac OS X to do the same thing.
You are giving Apple WAY too much credit here.
In the UNIX world people have been running as unpriveledged users for DECADES.
Apple simply followed standard unix operating practice. Not that this is a bad thing, it just does not make them a innovator in this instance.
Your response is nothing but extremism.
I never suggested that the entire capitalist system be smashed.
It's a shame you can't see the possibility for small changes that make large differences.
There are things that a fundamentally broken about the way the system is set up now.
BTW, I've also noticed that many of the same people who cry about how "unfair" the system is cry even louder when their Welfare check is late...
Wow! Aren't you a crappy person! Obviously poor people are bad people and we should not listen to them.
Those billions of dollars supposedly spent by the industry on clinical research groups, doctors, lab work, you know medical-type shit goes somewhere.
Yeah, it goes to the shareholders.
The purpose of these companies, first and foremost, is to make a profit.
Do we really want that as a society?
Do really want the price of a new drug be set based on what will make the company the most profit, rather than what will help the most people while still coving their costs?
Consider this hypotheitcal situation:
-Company invents a drug that can stall the advance of AIDS indefinately, so long as the drug is taken
-Company then invents a drug that can cure AIDS in one dose
-Beancounter sits down and realizes that treating the disease is way more profitable that curing it. Company decides to sit on the cure. They refuse to sell it to a single soul, regardless of price, because it would jeapodize a larger revenue stream.
-Society is deprived of this drug for the entire length of the patent term.
Is that really something the we as a society should allow to happen? Right now the above chain of events is both completely legal and incredibly unethical.
Most inventors aren't altruists. They invent because they see a way to make money off of their efforts. Without that potential to profit they aren't going to be motivated to spend their time and effort doing something they'll never get compensated for.
Of course this statement relies on the blatantly false assumption that the only way someone will be compensated is if patents exist.
This is provably false.
According to the Constitution they are.
Actually no they aren't. Instead of insulting other people, perhaps you should actually read the document you are referencing. Patents are mentioned SEPARATELY. You may as well be claiming that freedom of speech is a "property right".
I'm sure your fiery hard-eyed give-no-quarter stand makes you the 'great hero of the people' in your own fevered imagination, but those of us with a firmer grasp of reality are bored by your puerile teen ranting. Get back to us when your pubes have come in and you've calmed down a bit, won't you?
Here's an idea, why don't you quit being an asshole and actually debate this guy's points rationally?
The poster you're responding to actually made rational points and backed his claim. You may think his viewpoint is extreme, but you've offered nothing but ad-hominem and straw-man attacks.
GPLv3 prohibits users from using signed binaries on hardware that the FSF deems "bad".
That's bullshit.
It not at all about what the hardware is but rather WHO HOLDS THE KEYS. The GPL is about preventing code-signing from making the freedoms protected by the GPL irrelevant.
This isn't some pie-in-the-sky thing. Companys are actively working on making this happen.
What is being done we is in the true spirit of the GPL. "I have produced this work for society to use, I ask in return that any addional work be available as well."
Having the code but having to way to run it is pointless. It's counter to the spirit and intent of the GPL.
But, there are loads of things for which Linux doesn't have any software
And do those things come with windows?
Didn't think so.
Windows, evaluated on its own terms is a fairly poor OS. That fact that software is availible for it does not change this. In short, Stating that applications are availible for it is not supporting evidence for for the claim you are making. Maybe it's the reason you use it, but it does not back your claim.
Now not only can citizens of impoverished countries starve due to gross mismanagement of funds by their governments (who are themselves living very well off of foreign aid intended for the citizens) but they can IM each other about who has more flies.
Yes, what would citzens of a third world country want with INFRASTRUCTURE!
It's madness I tell you. Next thing they'll be setting up businesses and making money!
They're starving, how could that *possibly* help them.
They'd say that if they depended on Firefox, and Firefox "understood" that as a developer community, that Firefox could influence the direction of Windows development because it would be a core component - and one that Microsoft doesn't control.
Which is completely false.
One of the great things about OSS is that YOU can push the code in any direction you want. Microsoft is no exception to this.
They're free to fork the project any time they wish. The would NEVER be held hostage by an outside team.
The worst that would ever happen is that someone else would no longer be maintaing it for them for free. (Oh the horror!)
I think on a corporate level, anti-virus is a *must*|
And I think it's a joke.
AV protects you from two things:
-KNOWN vulnerabilities
-Stupid users
You shouldn't be running systems with known vulnerabilities and you shouldn't be giving stupid users access permissions to important data. Either sandbox them or educate them.
AV software does pretty much nothing but create a false sense of security. It is usually used as a (non)subsititute for decent security practices.
If you designed a rocket just for this specific purpose, it would be cheaper.
:P
Yes! If only someone had thought of designing a rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload outside the earth's atmosphere
It would obviously be MUCH cheaper than the current rockets we have which were designed to carry a nuclear payload outside the earth's atmosphere as part of the cold war..... wait a minute!
Look, in all seriousness, uranium is HEAVY. Launching things into orbit requires a lot of expensive fuel. These are facts which aren't going to change any time soon. Using up our precious natural resources and taking crazy risks simply because we can't solve a political problem of where to store this waste is absurd.
What's wrong with just launching it into the sun?
Only a person who:
A) Has no idea how heavy uranium is
B) Has no idea how much fuel it takes to put even a pound into orbit
C) Doesn't understand sheer idiocy of strapping a large amount of radioactive matter to a gaint fuel tank
would suggest such an idea.
(It's not that I'm calling the poster stupid. Just his idea. It's like a man who knows nothing about electricity asking why you can't stick a fork in a wall outlet.)
The idea is deeply flawed on many levels.