So if I read this right, this paneling also blocks 97% of Wi-Fi (802.11b) signal strength? So if I want to secure my wireless network, I panel the outside walls of my building with this type of paneling, making it so that the warchalkers of the world can't get the signal? And any time I need to go building-to-building, I wire it.
(Yes, I realize this only works if you don't need access outside the building, but many applications wouldn't anyway.)
it takes them about 27 days (they earned 27.5 million per day last quarter) to make 750 million in operating profit.
Sure, but that's because they convinced WorldCom to use Visual Basic for their accounting software, and all the "rounding errors" were transferred into Microsoft's bank account.
how to avoid getting on The Map
on
Mapping the Spam
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
OK,/., here's a question for you:
I'm not a real network geek (just a regular joe programmer), but recently my email address has been co-opted by a spammer. That is, I've received spam from my own email address. (I of course did NOT send it.)
The question is, how can a regular joe like me prevent this from happening in the future so my domain does not appear on some future version of The Map? I know about the guy who hacked into the spammer's laptop and got all their personal information, but I don't have the skills or access for that.
more of a miscalculation than a bug
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 2
Here's one we are all familiar with. I suspect it occurred because the engineers involved used Visual Basic for their calculations and design work.
Sloppy code costs $60 billion a year. Viruses cost billions a year. Piracy costs billions (and hundreds of thousands of jobs) a year. Unauthorized loafing (i.e. surfing the web and photocopying your butt) costs billions a year. Lost productivity due to slashdot reading/posting costs billions a year.
I've always been curious: Who pays these costs, and even more important... how do I get to be one of the ones collecting all these billions every year?
Testing of the software isnt that big of an issue. "Most" bugs that are found by customers are already present in the bug tracking databases of the people that developed the software.
Not necessarily true. The most recent startup I worked for (and got laid off from) had a policy of "ship it at soon as it has a heartbeat, and we'll clean it up during customization."
Get this: 18 developers, one QA person. 6 months development, 3 weeks QA. Some stuff didn't even make it into QA. Yes, I opposed that schedule and spoke out against it but was overruled by The Man.
So, perhaps it's not "more testing" that's required, but rather "more integrity" on the part of management of software companies. I think we all know the valuation games executives play these days, often sacrificing quality or glossing over deficiencies.
They are sending an unmistakeable message here: It's only wrong if you get caught.
While I see your point, I'm not sure I agree that such a message is bad. If you're doing something against the law, you probably already know it's wrong.
I think it's the mission of these departments to illuminate the gray areas and to help guide people to understand that their actions on the computer should be similar to their actions in person. You wouldn't go follow a cute girl around the supermarket, so maybe you shouldn't go sending her lots of emails. That sort of thing.
It's important to remember that they're focusing on the social aspects of using computers, not law enforcement. Their interest is in having everyone get along without hurting each other; their interest is not in protecting copyright or catching hackers.
I like this news because at $2000 a unit, this will not achieve any sort of significant penetration. It will, therefore, not draw a lot of content from the entertainment industry as they wait until platform adoption occurs before investing in production and inventory maintenance and channel development.
This will be a direct piece of evidence refuting Sen. Hollings' claim that
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
OK, so it doesn't exactly refute that assertion, but it will show that protection is not the primary reason that studios aren't filling the channel with digital content. Consumer adoption is the primary driver, and people simply don't adopt things that are not worth their time/money/attention.
The CBDTPA aims to force the public to adopt technology that it doesn't want, need, or value. All in the name of promoting content availability.
While that's true, a lot can be done with beginners in a pseudocode type of "language" that does not actually get run. I recall my first "programming" exposure was BASIC in 7th grade math. We had no computers, and this was shortly before the Apple ][ came out. We wrote very short programs on paper which were then essentially traced by hand by the teacher.
Still, as a beginner with zero exposure to programming at the time, I learned a lot: linear processing of commands, simple loops, printing, and yes, even some syntax such as line numbers and labels.
(back to my point) Pseudocode can help teach the logic and flow and structure aspects of programming without the burden of having to follow syntactical rules at the same time. So, the first step should be to write out the "program" in a lightly structured pseudocode; the second step would be to "compile" that by hand into actual code when syntax had been covered. At that point, the fundamentals of the logic are out of the way and the students can focus on getting the syntax right.
When I think about how my projects have been completed in the real world recently, this is essentially the same process I go through: map out the general logic (either in prose or with a type of pseudocode shorthand) and then program the thing after I've got that worked out.
Re:Piracy? PIRACY? -- It's illegal
on
What Free Cable?
·
· Score: 2
Ignoring for the moment that you entirely missed the point of my post...
Are you sure it's illegal? I'm pretty sure you can't go to jail for it, and I'm not even convinced it's breach of contract.
Consider this hypothetical situation: I pay for daily newspaper delivery to my house. My neighbor pays for the newspaper and a banana to be delivered every day to his house. The delivery people give me the newspaper and the banana too, even though I'm not paying for the banana.
If I eat the banana, is that illegal? I am simply using what was delivered to me unrequested.
Now, it is possible that the newspaper agreement I signed specifically said I did not want any bananas to be delivered. But if they're going to deliver them even when I specifically decline the service, then I am going to keep and eat them as I see fit.
I don't see the difference with delivery of a signal--I may have declined the service, but if they're delivering it to my home in the cables already, then they are delivering an unrequested service for free.
PS: Just for the record, I pay for all my signals from a single provider.
I don't have a problem with the word itself, but the word has been raised recently to the lofty status of "buzzword." I'm waiting for the day when politicians start saying things like, "We MUST pass the CBDTPA or the pirates will have won," or "If we don't buy 50 more B-2 bombers than the pirates will have won."
It is interesting to note two additional things: (1) The term "pirate" has not been used much. Mostly it's "consumers engaged in piracy" or "hackers." (2) The bad-guy noun being thrown around constantly is "terrorists."
The coincidence of imagery is undeniable: technically, hijacking an airplane is an act of piracy. Pirates have the image coincident with that of a terrorist--marauding, violent, destructive, counter-culture and counter-establishment, lurking out there somewhere and vaguely unidentifiable until it's too late.
Is this one of the reasons that "piracy" of digital music, video, and software has seemed to capture the imagination of mass media (and held it hostage, I might add)? It's just a word, but a word with imagery associated that plays conveniently to the current fears of the uneducated masses, who look to The Government for guidance and security.
I predict that more and more mostly harmless activities that go against someone's agenda will be marked with the term "piracy." I can't wait until the day when Critical Mass is referred to as being engaged in "traffic piracy," or environmental groups are refferred to as being engaged in "land piracy" by (for example) forcing certain areas not to be drilled for oil.
Of course, this term can cut both ways. Senator Hollings is engaged in "freedom piracy" and Aschroft and the FBI are engaged in "privacy piracy" (say that three times fast). Wondrous will be the day when we can label large campaign contributors as "vote pirates" engaged in "election piracy."
Here are some claims in the bill submitted by Sen. Hollings et. al. that could potentially be affected by this law (the interesting ones in bold):
The Congress finds: (1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programming and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible. (6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet.[OK, this is probably true since it does not mention the level of protection.]
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on digital broadcast television. (8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks. (9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or satellite. (12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content. (18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries. (19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes.
Now, I don't have a clue whether the above document falls under the new law or not. Certainly it makes a number of claims and conclusions without using statistics (except the vague "millions"), so perhaps it would be protected by its ambiguity. But: If it is subject to the new law, then that means that any citizen can challenge the veracity of any phrase in proposed legislation. Big can o' worms! And if it's not subject, then expect even less actual background information in future bills as they are made more and more ambiguous so they do not become subject to the new law.
The Supreme Court overturns today's CIPA ruling, so people can no longer go to the library to see this photo of a young woman, shirtless, on a soccer field. It was deemed pr0nographic by the government censors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H officials.
Well, From June 19 through the 25th, we can have a daily article or three on World Cup as long as we tie it in to RoboCup stories. What I'd like to see on the front page are the daily scores and stats from THAT. (I'll get my soccer stats live and from sources other than/. thankyouverymuch.)
I guess without knowing what the sensors measure it's hard to say.
They're measuring the amount of nunocloreans, tiny creatures that live in symbiosis with all living beings, preventing injuries, particularly during athletic events and hand-to-hand combat. People who have many nunocloreans are very forceful and have few injuries. But the nunocloreans decrease with age, leading to things like broken hips.
Too bad France didn't have this AI, or they might have held Zidane out of the last match to rest him.
And I say "pppppptttttthhhhpppppt" to France.
The really valuable AI would be to predict player personalities... not only would it have helped the Irish to avoid losing Roy Keane, but it would be invaluable for the 49ers, nearly any NBA team, etc. The stress test case could be to set it to work on Mike Tyson's personality.
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that being able to predict injuries implies the ability to prevent them. Not through inaction but rather through preventative medicine such as physical therapy to strengthen certain muscles around a particularly dodgy ligament or something.
Such AI would also be useful in correcting improper training--if someone is slowly degrading their ankle/rotator cuff/lower vertebrae/what have you by doing something slightly wrong, such tests and analysis could predict the injury before it happens, allowing the coach/trainer to stop the athlete from doing that bad thing any more.
Re:REAL reason for dot.com bust
on
The Venture Cafe
·
· Score: 2
"What we found is a
disturbing behavioral trend
that violates copyright laws
and
costs billions of dollars
and hundreds of thousands
of jobs every year," BSA
CEO Robert Holleyman said
in a statement.
No, the "disturbing behavioral trend" was not bad management or wasteful practices... but software piracy!
I think it's pretty easy to distinguish a medical or artistic site that contains nudity from "Hard-Core Ass-Pumping Barely-Legal Teens".
It may be easy for you to distinguish between those two extremes, but what happens if David Duke is in charge of the rules?
The problem is that if you allow the government to classify speech into categories and to force restrictions on certain categories, you are effectively endorsing censorship. Censorship in any form is a reduction of freedom of speech, which is against the very nature of our (American) society.
There are red-light districts and adult-only shops in the real world, but you can also get Playboy and worse at newsstands and bookstores, and you can rent pr0n videos from your local video rental place (unless it's Blockbuster, which does not have them for branding purposes).
I, for one, do not want to see National Geographic relegated to the.xxx section of the Web by some overzealous government censor who is upset at the sight of third-world boobs.
Voter solution would be best, though I think we can be reasonably assured that that won't happen, either by ignorance, or by well... ignorance. People mostly want a "fun, safe" internet, but have no grasp of what consiquences that would mean.
Agreed. Still, tracing these laws to their roots may indicate what is driving them through the legislation. Part of it is sheer ignorance on the part of lawmakers, part of it is politicking (I'll pass your bill if you pass mine), and part of it is serving constituencies (all the angry soccer moms in my district want me to protect their kids from online porn).
This ruling is essentially the third strike against mandated net restrictions. The Communications Decency Act was killed. COPPA is not being enforced but has not been entirely killed. CIPA is now dead. One would think that eventually the source of these laws would begin to think, "Hey, maybe I should learn WHY they're getting killed, and stop doing that!"
By figuring out who the primary offenders are, a counter-campaign of education could be aimed at those groups/individuals to help them understand why these laws are being sniped off one by one.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's another product they do well: trade show booths.
So if I read this right, this paneling also blocks 97% of Wi-Fi (802.11b) signal strength? So if I want to secure my wireless network, I panel the outside walls of my building with this type of paneling, making it so that the warchalkers of the world can't get the signal? And any time I need to go building-to-building, I wire it.
(Yes, I realize this only works if you don't need access outside the building, but many applications wouldn't anyway.)
"there are only two industries that call their customers users -- those selling technology and those selling drugs"
unfortunately, I can't recall the origin of the quote
Sure, but that's because they convinced WorldCom to use Visual Basic for their accounting software, and all the "rounding errors" were transferred into Microsoft's bank account.
OK, /., here's a question for you:
I'm not a real network geek (just a regular joe programmer), but recently my email address has been co-opted by a spammer. That is, I've received spam from my own email address. (I of course did NOT send it.)
The question is, how can a regular joe like me prevent this from happening in the future so my domain does not appear on some future version of The Map? I know about the guy who hacked into the spammer's laptop and got all their personal information, but I don't have the skills or access for that.
Here's one we are all familiar with. I suspect it occurred because the engineers involved used Visual Basic for their calculations and design work.
the "bug"
worth noting that they've fixed the mistake already. Someone over at msnbc is clearly popping in on /.
No, no... it's correct, mostly. It wasn't meant to be "Finnish college student" but rather "finishing school student."
The only question is which finishing school... Google lists several: The Finishing School, Miss Vera's Finishing School, En Vogue, P.A.F, etc.
Sloppy code costs $60 billion a year. Viruses cost billions a year. Piracy costs billions (and hundreds of thousands of jobs) a year. Unauthorized loafing (i.e. surfing the web and photocopying your butt) costs billions a year. Lost productivity due to slashdot reading/posting costs billions a year.
I've always been curious: Who pays these costs, and even more important... how do I get to be one of the ones collecting all these billions every year?
Not necessarily true. The most recent startup I worked for (and got laid off from) had a policy of "ship it at soon as it has a heartbeat, and we'll clean it up during customization."
Get this: 18 developers, one QA person. 6 months development, 3 weeks QA. Some stuff didn't even make it into QA. Yes, I opposed that schedule and spoke out against it but was overruled by The Man.
So, perhaps it's not "more testing" that's required, but rather "more integrity" on the part of management of software companies. I think we all know the valuation games executives play these days, often sacrificing quality or glossing over deficiencies.
While I see your point, I'm not sure I agree that such a message is bad. If you're doing something against the law, you probably already know it's wrong.
I think it's the mission of these departments to illuminate the gray areas and to help guide people to understand that their actions on the computer should be similar to their actions in person. You wouldn't go follow a cute girl around the supermarket, so maybe you shouldn't go sending her lots of emails. That sort of thing.
It's important to remember that they're focusing on the social aspects of using computers, not law enforcement. Their interest is in having everyone get along without hurting each other; their interest is not in protecting copyright or catching hackers.
I like this news because at $2000 a unit, this will not achieve any sort of significant penetration. It will, therefore, not draw a lot of content from the entertainment industry as they wait until platform adoption occurs before investing in production and inventory maintenance and channel development.
This will be a direct piece of evidence refuting Sen. Hollings' claim that
OK, so it doesn't exactly refute that assertion, but it will show that protection is not the primary reason that studios aren't filling the channel with digital content. Consumer adoption is the primary driver, and people simply don't adopt things that are not worth their time/money/attention.
The CBDTPA aims to force the public to adopt technology that it doesn't want, need, or value. All in the name of promoting content availability.
While that's true, a lot can be done with beginners in a pseudocode type of "language" that does not actually get run. I recall my first "programming" exposure was BASIC in 7th grade math. We had no computers, and this was shortly before the Apple ][ came out. We wrote very short programs on paper which were then essentially traced by hand by the teacher.
Still, as a beginner with zero exposure to programming at the time, I learned a lot: linear processing of commands, simple loops, printing, and yes, even some syntax such as line numbers and labels.
(back to my point) Pseudocode can help teach the logic and flow and structure aspects of programming without the burden of having to follow syntactical rules at the same time. So, the first step should be to write out the "program" in a lightly structured pseudocode; the second step would be to "compile" that by hand into actual code when syntax had been covered. At that point, the fundamentals of the logic are out of the way and the students can focus on getting the syntax right.
When I think about how my projects have been completed in the real world recently, this is essentially the same process I go through: map out the general logic (either in prose or with a type of pseudocode shorthand) and then program the thing after I've got that worked out.
Ignoring for the moment that you entirely missed the point of my post...
Are you sure it's illegal? I'm pretty sure you can't go to jail for it, and I'm not even convinced it's breach of contract.
Consider this hypothetical situation: I pay for daily newspaper delivery to my house. My neighbor pays for the newspaper and a banana to be delivered every day to his house. The delivery people give me the newspaper and the banana too, even though I'm not paying for the banana.
If I eat the banana, is that illegal? I am simply using what was delivered to me unrequested.
Now, it is possible that the newspaper agreement I signed specifically said I did not want any bananas to be delivered. But if they're going to deliver them even when I specifically decline the service, then I am going to keep and eat them as I see fit.
I don't see the difference with delivery of a signal--I may have declined the service, but if they're delivering it to my home in the cables already, then they are delivering an unrequested service for free.
PS: Just for the record, I pay for all my signals from a single provider.
I was going to post something really witty about cable piracy costing the brodband industry billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs a year, but I realized that there's a serious language phenomenon happening today centered on the word "piracy."
I don't have a problem with the word itself, but the word has been raised recently to the lofty status of "buzzword." I'm waiting for the day when politicians start saying things like, "We MUST pass the CBDTPA or the pirates will have won," or "If we don't buy 50 more B-2 bombers than the pirates will have won."
It is interesting to note two additional things: (1) The term "pirate" has not been used much. Mostly it's "consumers engaged in piracy" or "hackers." (2) The bad-guy noun being thrown around constantly is "terrorists."
The coincidence of imagery is undeniable: technically, hijacking an airplane is an act of piracy. Pirates have the image coincident with that of a terrorist--marauding, violent, destructive, counter-culture and counter-establishment, lurking out there somewhere and vaguely unidentifiable until it's too late.
Is this one of the reasons that "piracy" of digital music, video, and software has seemed to capture the imagination of mass media (and held it hostage, I might add)? It's just a word, but a word with imagery associated that plays conveniently to the current fears of the uneducated masses, who look to The Government for guidance and security.
I predict that more and more mostly harmless activities that go against someone's agenda will be marked with the term "piracy." I can't wait until the day when Critical Mass is referred to as being engaged in "traffic piracy," or environmental groups are refferred to as being engaged in "land piracy" by (for example) forcing certain areas not to be drilled for oil.
Of course, this term can cut both ways. Senator Hollings is engaged in "freedom piracy" and Aschroft and the FBI are engaged in "privacy piracy" (say that three times fast). Wondrous will be the day when we can label large campaign contributors as "vote pirates" engaged in "election piracy."
Here are some claims in the bill submitted by Sen. Hollings et. al. that could potentially be affected by this law (the interesting ones in bold):
The Congress finds:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programming and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet. [OK, this is probably true since it does not mention the level of protection.]
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on digital broadcast television.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes.
(I got the above text from the politechbot page.)
Now, I don't have a clue whether the above document falls under the new law or not. Certainly it makes a number of claims and conclusions without using statistics (except the vague "millions"), so perhaps it would be protected by its ambiguity. But: If it is subject to the new law, then that means that any citizen can challenge the veracity of any phrase in proposed legislation. Big can o' worms! And if it's not subject, then expect even less actual background information in future bills as they are made more and more ambiguous so they do not become subject to the new law.
The Supreme Court overturns today's CIPA ruling, so people can no longer go to the library to see this photo of a young woman, shirtless, on a soccer field. It was deemed pr0nographic by the government censors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H officials.
Well, From June 19 through the 25th, we can have a daily article or three on World Cup as long as we tie it in to RoboCup stories. What I'd like to see on the front page are the daily scores and stats from THAT. (I'll get my soccer stats live and from sources other than /. thankyouverymuch.)
They're measuring the amount of nunocloreans, tiny creatures that live in symbiosis with all living beings, preventing injuries, particularly during athletic events and hand-to-hand combat. People who have many nunocloreans are very forceful and have few injuries. But the nunocloreans decrease with age, leading to things like broken hips.
Too bad France didn't have this AI, or they might have held Zidane out of the last match to rest him.
And I say "pppppptttttthhhhpppppt" to France.
The really valuable AI would be to predict player personalities... not only would it have helped the Irish to avoid losing Roy Keane, but it would be invaluable for the 49ers, nearly any NBA team, etc. The stress test case could be to set it to work on Mike Tyson's personality.
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is that being able to predict injuries implies the ability to prevent them. Not through inaction but rather through preventative medicine such as physical therapy to strengthen certain muscles around a particularly dodgy ligament or something.
Such AI would also be useful in correcting improper training--if someone is slowly degrading their ankle/rotator cuff/lower vertebrae/what have you by doing something slightly wrong, such tests and analysis could predict the injury before it happens, allowing the coach/trainer to stop the athlete from doing that bad thing any more.
humor, ark ark
nanu nanu
The real reason for the dot-com bust was revealed in yesterday's article:
No, the "disturbing behavioral trend" was not bad management or wasteful practices... but software piracy!
It may be easy for you to distinguish between those two extremes, but what happens if David Duke is in charge of the rules?
The problem is that if you allow the government to classify speech into categories and to force restrictions on certain categories, you are effectively endorsing censorship. Censorship in any form is a reduction of freedom of speech, which is against the very nature of our (American) society.
There are red-light districts and adult-only shops in the real world, but you can also get Playboy and worse at newsstands and bookstores, and you can rent pr0n videos from your local video rental place (unless it's Blockbuster, which does not have them for branding purposes).
I, for one, do not want to see National Geographic relegated to the .xxx section of the Web by some overzealous government censor who is upset at the sight of third-world boobs.
Agreed. Still, tracing these laws to their roots may indicate what is driving them through the legislation. Part of it is sheer ignorance on the part of lawmakers, part of it is politicking (I'll pass your bill if you pass mine), and part of it is serving constituencies (all the angry soccer moms in my district want me to protect their kids from online porn).
This ruling is essentially the third strike against mandated net restrictions. The Communications Decency Act was killed. COPPA is not being enforced but has not been entirely killed. CIPA is now dead. One would think that eventually the source of these laws would begin to think, "Hey, maybe I should learn WHY they're getting killed, and stop doing that!"
By figuring out who the primary offenders are, a counter-campaign of education could be aimed at those groups/individuals to help them understand why these laws are being sniped off one by one.