Terrorism is not the core ideology that triggered anti-terrorism. It is anti-terrorisme that is a central dogma that arrange to generate as much terrorists as possible to justify its own existence.
Actually one hand does not know what the other does. Open source acceptance is not widespread in French public offices, but when one does manage to keep lobbies at bay, these kind of initiatives happen.
Let's do that then: Trustbird is a project led by the French Gendarmerie (a kind of police) in order to add military cryptography and chain-of-command features into thunderbird. It has been released publicly.
The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure.
I doubt the deployement of the landing gear is the only one-way procedure of re-entry.
I doubt that a human pilot is less susceptible to glitches that a redundant array of 5 (IIRC) computer systems.
You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
You always have the programmer in control. A computer never controls or decide anything. It just follows procedures. Humans are bad at that. In Feynmann's book he tells how the engineers were worried about this human command, exactly because it could fail if deployed at the wrong timing.
Exactly. I think that when people blame Google for doing something clever and legal that they had not anticipated, they choose the wrong target for their anger. You think it is not normal Google can do that ? Well, maybe there is a need for a debate about privacy & the public place then. For too long, people suppose that the vastness of the "public space" works as an anonymizer. With video-surveillance, wireless-thingies tracking, etc... this becomes less and less the case. Soon we will have to assume that a simple google search under your name will reveal your address, the place where you go buy condoms, the place you entered yesterday evening, etc... It would be legal under the premise that the public space is, well, public. Is that something we want ? Maybe not, but then we don't have to be angry at google, we have to be angry at lawmakers and urge them to redefine what "privacy" means in legal terms.
The key factor that is changing is that in order to track someone, one used to have to spend considerable resources to spy him, to track his habits, etc... This practice was proactive and well defined. Now, tracking or spying someone can be an almost passive process. Put an antenna or a good cam in your street, and register bluetooth IDs of phones that pass by and use an OCR to capture all the car plates. New practices need new laws.
According to Feynman's book on the Shuttle, the only non-automatic procedure for the Space Shuttle reentry is the landing gear command. Why ? Because astronaut required to have at least some actions to do. It could have been handled by computer. In fact, IIRC, it was bypassable by ground control, so that in case all astronauts became unconscious, they could be brought safely back to earth.
But instead of building the future, so much brilliant minds are busy correcting the present. I do not find this acceptable or desirable. Yes, this might lead to a friendly clique taking power, so what ? Couldn't we go forward without it ?
I would even argue that making it mandatory to give this option is a national security issue but, you know, I'm always blowing things out or proportions...
This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.
Heh, if only people were not bitching about losing their teeth in a life-saving treatment and asking damages to the company that did not go through the whole FDA process...
You say that jokingly, however, your point is rather poignant. If Wall Street types were presented with a way to transmit their methods and assumptions in a non-human readable way like a programming language, it becomes less transparent, not more.
You are assuming that legalese is human-parsable, that it is a consistent language and that humans can easily spot and demonstrate errors in it. With a programming language, you can give a test case that fails and point out this precisely. You can more easily argue that a rate or a progression is not defined, or defined in a way impossible to parse. You can't sweet talk an interpreter.
Sure, it doesn't remove all dishonesty magically but it does remove the ability for some elaborate lies. It will make justing rulings easier and faster, and when it comes to bring morality somewhere, the fact that you will get caught and punished if you do a wrong is a strong factor.
There are many studies that show that humans are quite bad at evaluating randomness and probabilities. A very common error or typo could be interpreted as a copy with no good reason. How do you protect against human bias.
Cheaters are lazy but often smart. How long do you thing it would take them to find a code randomizer that changes style without changing function ?
Another thing. In everything that involves rules and blames, a sense of justice must be respected. One has to refuse to tolerate even the possibility of a false positive. I see no way to ensure that.
Mother Nature is a bitch. That's not out of love that we want to protect her. It is out of mutual necessity. Cause you know, we don't have anything more efficient than plants to convert volcano breath into something breathable.
Yeah, Disney's angelism is despicable, but we have yet to outmatch nature in its efficiency at making our love livable. Once we match that, hey, I'll have this chainsaw trip with you.
Agreed. I think it has the same appeal as it used to have, there are simply more people trying to get there and the most competent developers are older.
Slashdot Mirror
Terrorism is not the core ideology that triggered anti-terrorism. It is anti-terrorisme that is a central dogma that arrange to generate as much terrorists as possible to justify its own existence.
Actually one hand does not know what the other does. Open source acceptance is not widespread in French public offices, but when one does manage to keep lobbies at bay, these kind of initiatives happen.
Let's do that then :
Trustbird is a project led by the French Gendarmerie (a kind of police) in order to add military cryptography and chain-of-command features into thunderbird. It has been released publicly.
The Reason for not letting the computer control the landing gear deployment is simple: It's a one-way procedure.
I doubt the deployement of the landing gear is the only one-way procedure of re-entry.
I doubt that a human pilot is less susceptible to glitches that a redundant array of 5 (IIRC) computer systems.
You know, folks, sometimes having a human in control isn't all that bad.
You always have the programmer in control. A computer never controls or decide anything. It just follows procedures. Humans are bad at that. In Feynmann's book he tells how the engineers were worried about this human command, exactly because it could fail if deployed at the wrong timing.
Exactly. I think that when people blame Google for doing something clever and legal that they had not anticipated, they choose the wrong target for their anger. You think it is not normal Google can do that ? Well, maybe there is a need for a debate about privacy & the public place then. For too long, people suppose that the vastness of the "public space" works as an anonymizer. With video-surveillance, wireless-thingies tracking, etc... this becomes less and less the case. Soon we will have to assume that a simple google search under your name will reveal your address, the place where you go buy condoms, the place you entered yesterday evening, etc... It would be legal under the premise that the public space is, well, public. Is that something we want ? Maybe not, but then we don't have to be angry at google, we have to be angry at lawmakers and urge them to redefine what "privacy" means in legal terms.
The key factor that is changing is that in order to track someone, one used to have to spend considerable resources to spy him, to track his habits, etc... This practice was proactive and well defined. Now, tracking or spying someone can be an almost passive process. Put an antenna or a good cam in your street, and register bluetooth IDs of phones that pass by and use an OCR to capture all the car plates. New practices need new laws.
In 30 years, brain cancer may very well be a curable disease.
Heh, or you could go cheap and employ Chineses to do that :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_921-2
(China plans a space station for 2012)
Which makes it more urgent to correct. But, well, activists would laugh at that article. Police harassment is really common these days.
According to Feynman's book on the Shuttle, the only non-automatic procedure for the Space Shuttle reentry is the landing gear command. Why ? Because astronaut required to have at least some actions to do. It could have been handled by computer. In fact, IIRC, it was bypassable by ground control, so that in case all astronauts became unconscious, they could be brought safely back to earth.
Yeah. I'll keep my system open, thank you very much.
Wouldn't it be void as being signed under a life threat ?
Buy in those that sell pitchforks and torches.
In my opinion, the primary goal is to forbid Linux. Free speech will be an unintentional victim.
But instead of building the future, so much brilliant minds are busy correcting the present. I do not find this acceptable or desirable. Yes, this might lead to a friendly clique taking power, so what ? Couldn't we go forward without it ?
Is that the newspeak for "thought crime" ?
I would even argue that making it mandatory to give this option is a national security issue but, you know, I'm always blowing things out or proportions...
This is the major problem with FDA interference with medicines that can control or cure life-ending diseases.
Heh, if only people were not bitching about losing their teeth in a life-saving treatment and asking damages to the company that did not go through the whole FDA process...
And we will call these lenses an OS...
Even the U.S. criminal justice system does not "refuse to tolerate even the possibility of a false positive". Not even in theory.
Yeah, that's another problem you have too...
You say that jokingly, however, your point is rather poignant. If Wall Street types were presented with a way to transmit their methods and assumptions in a non-human readable way like a programming language, it becomes less transparent, not more.
You are assuming that legalese is human-parsable, that it is a consistent language and that humans can easily spot and demonstrate errors in it. With a programming language, you can give a test case that fails and point out this precisely. You can more easily argue that a rate or a progression is not defined, or defined in a way impossible to parse. You can't sweet talk an interpreter.
Sure, it doesn't remove all dishonesty magically but it does remove the ability for some elaborate lies. It will make justing rulings easier and faster, and when it comes to bring morality somewhere, the fact that you will get caught and punished if you do a wrong is a strong factor.
And the past says that trusting a not-so-friendly country to have all your manufacturing capacities is not a good thing to do...
There are many studies that show that humans are quite bad at evaluating randomness and probabilities. A very common error or typo could be interpreted as a copy with no good reason. How do you protect against human bias.
Cheaters are lazy but often smart. How long do you thing it would take them to find a code randomizer that changes style without changing function ?
Another thing. In everything that involves rules and blames, a sense of justice must be respected. One has to refuse to tolerate even the possibility of a false positive. I see no way to ensure that.
Which is a common mistake. So yes, false positive for you.
Mother Nature is a bitch. That's not out of love that we want to protect her. It is out of mutual necessity. Cause you know, we don't have anything more efficient than plants to convert volcano breath into something breathable.
Yeah, Disney's angelism is despicable, but we have yet to outmatch nature in its efficiency at making our love livable. Once we match that, hey, I'll have this chainsaw trip with you.
Agreed. I think it has the same appeal as it used to have, there are simply more people trying to get there and the most competent developers are older.