As for false positives, it isn't likely to be a problem.
Without knowing the false positive rate, you can't say anything about if it's a problem or not. If the rate is even 1 in 10,000, this is going to be a useless test. Airports have 10s of thousands of people going through them each day. What are you going to do when you have multiple false positives every day?
How lucky you are. Right there in France, we have a big lab called "Boiron" that's leader in homeopathy, makes regular mess in the media and have a *lot* of the population believe in its lies.
Eh, our nuts believe the earth is 6000 years old, and want to teach that crap in schools as science. If your nuts only make a stink in the media, I'd say you're the lucky ones.
US has one of the most medicalized Birth process of any country, and one of the worst infant mortality rates of any modern world country.
See "correlation does not imply causality". The infant mortality rate can probably be more closely tied to lack of universal health care, and possibly other social factors. Why you chose "medicalization of the Bith process" as your blame is beyond me. The US also feeds babies medicine(infant "formula") instead of food (breastmilk)
Many women breastfeed, I'd even venture it's more like most these days. I'm not sure why you're trying to put everyone in the US into one narrow, inaccurate category.
cuts off functional parts of the male anatomy at birth out of tradition and ignorance.
I think circumcision is stupid, but I'm not aware that it causes any health problems. There actually were some pretty good studies that said it might reduce the spread of STDs (the study I'm thinking of might have been with HIV) but I am saying that psychological response is perhaps more important than chemicals and surgery
Maybe. I think that's an incredibly broad and misleading statement though. I'd say we don't really focus enough on illness brought on by stress... but then I also don't think that "feel good" is going to cure cancer either. and maybe a psudo science of placebo is a nice way to wean lemmings off of "just gimme an antibiotic so I can feel better".
I disagree. I think this is a problem that CAN be addressed without deception. People want something to distract them from their illness and not have it stress them all the time. Why can't this be addressed by not lying to them and saying something is doing something when it's not?
I don't know if that's something we can study via science or not.
The problem is really people are wasting a lot of money, and potentially harming themselves from not seeking treatments that actually work. You might say "who cares?", but eventually those people are likely to wind up in the normal health care system when the snake-oil treatments fail to do anything, and in worse shape than they would have if they had sought "conventional" treatments. That winds up increasing premiums for everyone else.
Homeopathy is controversial, in that some people actually believe it and loudly proclaim its wonders.
"Some people" also claim the holocaust never happened, but I don't think anyone would seriously claim that the holocaust is controversial.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find someone that still believes in geo-centrism as well.
There's always a few nuts around that will believe crap. The existence of those nuts doesn't mean something is controversial. If anything I'd say it's the percentage of the nuts in the general populace. Even for homeopathy, I'd say that percentage is quite low.
Very few people are against court sanctioned and oversought eavesdropping. What people are upset about is eavesdropping without warrants, on US citizens. As far as I can tell from the very brief article, this isn't a case where warrantless wiretapping, or data mining occoured.
What confuses me so much (and I really am ignorant in this department) is why the ethernet chipsets were seemingly conquered right off the bat?
Heh. I suppose it might look that way from the perspective of someone starting at Linux from 2001. As I remember it, getting ethernet support was a very similar battle, and I started with linux in 1994. There certainly was some reverse engineering that had to take place back then. Until only the last 5 years I've been surprised when ethernet "just works". I suspect as ethernet became a commodity, chipset makers were more willing to release specs to linux developers.
The added wrinkle with Wi-Fi support is being able to control the radio via software, and thus being able to broadcast outside the allowed frequency bands. If I understand correctly, that problem is solved by implementing that portion of code in the firmware, but many wi-fi chipsets have eliminated flash memory to reduce costs, so the firmware has to be loaded via software (and is thus part of the driver). I don't know if that's an added licensing problem, (distributing copyrighted firmware), but I can see how this adds to the problem.
Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing.
The problem with that statement is that the "bad guys" think they're the "good guys", and will do the same thing.
I don't exactly know which statement you're talking about McCain and torture... but I guess I liked it better when he was saying (to paraphrase) that "we don't torture because we don't want our guys to be tortured." That was a few years ago, and he's become more wishy-washy since then.
Indeed the ability to filter out the bad outcomes of certain actions and go for the better ones.
That's kind of what I'm getting at here. "bad" and "good" are value dependent. What's good and bad? Simply survivability? That's fine, but I'd say most humans would have objections to that value system.
Many "smart" people tend to ovethink things and do nothing in the end, since they see too many ways something can fail
I don't think that's really a lack of smart, or too smart, or whatever. That's really the inability to see that inaction is a choice as well.
Anyway, I think it's instructive, and important to separate out vision (ability to see what will happen from what you do) from values (choosing what you want to do).
It's kind of silly to argue about what a super-intelligent AI can do before we've even defined what intelligence is, and isn't. Intelligence seems to be defined as "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it". That's fun way to put it for entertainment or philosophical purposes, but if you want to answer a scientific question it's a horrible one. That's what no one is discussing, and there's an assumed context here that may or may not have anything to do with the real issue.
I think you're confusing intelligence (whatever that is exactly), with values. Values are (hopefully) supposed to lead to survivability. You could define intelligence as the ability to see the consequences of an action. Without a value system to guide you though, intelligence (as I just defined it) doesn't lead to survivability.
Of course, you're completely correct that intelligence isn't the end-all-be-all to survivability. Being adaptable to environments, having low energy requirements, etc, are all very good survival strategies as well. If you count organisms by number (and I think even mass), the single celled organisms win out by a mile.
So, with that definition of intelligence, separating it from values, I'd say there's not such thing as "too intelligent". There's only a "poor value system", or not intelligent enough for a given value system.
On the whole I think we agree though, it's just we're defining intelligence differently. Intelligence is a strange word, since it's really more about throwing a bunch of different concepts and ideas together into one single word.
If I have a company with 10k employees and an employee trashes somebody's rebate form, you can't hold the CEO responsible.
The thing is we all find it a bit hard to believe that this is an isolated incident. Do you really think someone investigated this rebate processor and just happened to catch them on the day they threw out 1300 rebate forms?
People not getting rebates after having filled them out is commonplace. The idea here is this is the smoking gun about what's happening to these rebates.
If you really buy the line that this was just "one bad employee", then I've got some nice swampland in Florida right in front of the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you for real cheap.
You could configure your computer to reject RST packets, but then you'd end up leaving connections open all over the place and cause all sorts of other problems. It's not something that you can trivially work around.
How about just wait until some specified timeout and see if you receive any other packets? If someone sends RST, but you receive a bunch more packets, there's a very good chance the RST was faked. Better yet, wait for timeout1, then wait timeout2 for any more packets. (Since packets can be received out of order). Then if you receive more packets during timeout2, ignore the RST. I'd say that's pretty trivial. It could even be implemented on a NAT router so you wouldn't even have to modify your OS.
Why? The allegation here is that this is an action of the church, not just a few misguided individuals. If this is the case, punishing a few individuals won't solve anything.
The people running your company seem to be total dicks.
Dicks? Naw. They're just monopolists slowly loosing their grip on the industry. They're where IBM was 20-25 years ago where they think they can still push a couple buttons and make everyone Buy Microsoft because "that's the way it's always been". We all know that's changing, it's just that the guys running Microsoft try to resist it at every turn and don't know how to run a company without that monopoly power.
The cracks are starting to show. Communication between companies/people/etc has become commonplace, and people need common means to communicate. They aren't willing to put up with the same proprietary formats anymore.
This whole battle isn't anything new, really. IBM went through the same thing when they were king with EBCDIC (the crappy IBM standard for encoding text) competing with ASCII. We all know which one won.
I don't see how having a random strangers name attached to the list makes the data published any more or less accurate.
It doesn't, obviously. Publishing anonymously makes it easier for governments to simply SAY the published information is inaccurate. Having someone that's standing behind that statement makes it more difficult to play that game. People don't tend to trust anonymous sources. Look no further than slashdot for evidence of that (where anonymous is different from a pseudonym).
Sure. I guess when I say force, I don't mean one of the fundamental 4 known forces (strong, weak, electro-magnetic, gravity), I just mean an agent that can effect the universe. I say something we don't fully understand because presumably this is unexpected. So there must be something happening we don't understand, perhaps a complex interaction between different knowns.
can someone give me the 'play by play' brief on the significance of the orientation of the galaxies and why the chance is so slim that they align as they do?
I'm not a Cosmologist, but one would expect galaxy orientation to be pretty much random. As an example, think about if you threw a bunch of nails in the air. At any given time you'd expect the nails orientation to be pretty random (ignoring air effects, and any bias given by your throw). If they all aligned in a certain way though, you'd be surprised and start looking for a cause. (In this case say a strong magnetic field in the room).
If this is true, there must be something orienting the alignment of galaxies. That could be either some bias in the big-bang, some outside force we don't understand, or something else.
A virus could check for the existence of one of these rootkits
Why check, when you can copy the installed driver and do the same thing? If this is going to be considered "legitimate" software, it's an excellent way to hide from malware detectors. It's not like virus or worm writers are really concerned about breaking copyright laws.
This case obviously has no merit. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that libel in the United States is knowingly making incorrect factual statements. I.e. saying "John raped sue", when you know that not to be the case.
A value judgment like "this guy is a crackpot", or "the food at restaurant X is bad" is not libelous. Read the wikipedia article for a more in depth description.
Because no one has shown any ability to make any money doing it for games.
Uh huh. So because no one has done it yet, it's not possible to do it. You're not much for new advancements or developments are you? That stuff wears out its welcome after a while, even if you agree with it.
This isn't a movie we're talking about here, it's a game. A games politics would be inherent in the game world, not a 10+ hour documentary. Also, Moore makes his movies specifically with his audience in mind. His audience is a distinct subculture. He has a goal to appeal to them.
There are countless examples of other movies that have similar political or cultural motives but don't attempt to appeal to their audience.
So you're saying that successful entertainment needs to appeal to it's audience? I guess I don't understand how that means you can't do the same thing with a game.
To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else
Right. That's why Michael Moore is out of business and makes no money. Agree with him or not, you can't deny the fact his films are political, and quite popular (and make money).
The fact is that people are entertained by political, cultural, etc films. Why should games be any different? The problem is so far those political, cultural, etc games are just bad, racist, or both (super-columbine-massacre was bad, those nazi extermination camp games are racist (and likely very bad, I've never played them). In any media it's a lot harder to make politics or culture entertaining. Just because YOU don't want those games doesn't mean others don't.
I don't understand your comment at all. The motherboard in question is about 5 years old, with a newer graphics card and 2 gigs of memory. It's older than Ubuntu itself. Anyway, for me at least an OS is pretty ephemeral. I'll run it for a few years and switch to something else. The hardware tends to last a lot longer than the OS. Usually through a couple major revisions. My box before this went from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. That transition was a little better, but similar to the 2000/XP->Vista transition.
People would never think this way for any OS other than Linux. People don't buy random processors and hope it works on Windows
heh. That used to be a HELL of a lot more true than it is now (and in fact isn't even true now). I just bought a memory card reader and it worked just perfectly under Ubuntu, but didn't work worth a damn under Vista (and nope, no drivers available from the manufacturer, trendnet yet). Kind of a switcheroo that I find incredibly funny. Sleep mode isn't a hell of a lot better. It never actually worked properly under Windows 2000, and (as I mentioned) eventually works perfectly under Vista. So all-in-all, I'd say that Windows IS an OS where they buy "random" hardware and say "I hope it'll work under windows".
As far as "magically become supported since then", I would say yes. Hardware becomes supported all the time, and I've seen it happen time and time again (and no, this is NOT just a linux phenomenon). My mad-wifi wireless card "magically became supported" after people wrote a driver for it. That driver didn't exist when I bought the card a few years ago. So sleep mode under Ubuntu might just "magically work".
Sorry to say, but you strike me as someone who's just parroting something they read 5 years ago, and hasn't adapted with the times. Linux support is becoming quite standard these days. In many ways it's actually way better than Windows since there's no "download the drivers" crap to worry about. Just about everything on my Dell laptop worked under Ubuntu, and perhaps the next release of Ubuntu even the modem (which I don't really care about anyway) will work.
Slashdot Mirror
As for false positives, it isn't likely to be a problem.
Without knowing the false positive rate, you can't say anything about if it's a problem or not. If the rate is even 1 in 10,000, this is going to be a useless test. Airports have 10s of thousands of people going through them each day. What are you going to do when you have multiple false positives every day?
How lucky you are. Right there in France, we have a big lab called "Boiron" that's leader in homeopathy, makes regular mess in the media and have a *lot* of the population believe in its lies.
Eh, our nuts believe the earth is 6000 years old, and want to teach that crap in schools as science. If your nuts only make a stink in the media, I'd say you're the lucky ones.
US has one of the most medicalized Birth process of any country, and one of the worst infant mortality rates of any modern world country.
See "correlation does not imply causality". The infant mortality rate can probably be more closely tied to lack of universal health care, and possibly other social factors. Why you chose "medicalization of the Bith process" as your blame is beyond me.
The US also feeds babies medicine(infant "formula") instead of food (breastmilk)
Many women breastfeed, I'd even venture it's more like most these days. I'm not sure why you're trying to put everyone in the US into one narrow, inaccurate category.
cuts off functional parts of the male anatomy at birth out of tradition and ignorance.
I think circumcision is stupid, but I'm not aware that it causes any health problems. There actually were some pretty good studies that said it might reduce the spread of STDs (the study I'm thinking of might have been with HIV)
but I am saying that psychological response is perhaps more important than chemicals and surgery
Maybe. I think that's an incredibly broad and misleading statement though. I'd say we don't really focus enough on illness brought on by stress... but then I also don't think that "feel good" is going to cure cancer either.
and maybe a psudo science of placebo is a nice way to wean lemmings off of "just gimme an antibiotic so I can feel better".
I disagree. I think this is a problem that CAN be addressed without deception. People want something to distract them from their illness and not have it stress them all the time. Why can't this be addressed by not lying to them and saying something is doing something when it's not?
I don't know if that's something we can study via science or not.
I see no problems with such things as homeopathy.
The problem is really people are wasting a lot of money, and potentially harming themselves from not seeking treatments that actually work. You might say "who cares?", but eventually those people are likely to wind up in the normal health care system when the snake-oil treatments fail to do anything, and in worse shape than they would have if they had sought "conventional" treatments. That winds up increasing premiums for everyone else.
Homeopathy is controversial, in that some people actually believe it and loudly proclaim its wonders.
"Some people" also claim the holocaust never happened, but I don't think anyone would seriously claim that the holocaust is controversial.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find someone that still believes in geo-centrism as well.
There's always a few nuts around that will believe crap. The existence of those nuts doesn't mean something is controversial. If anything I'd say it's the percentage of the nuts in the general populace. Even for homeopathy, I'd say that percentage is quite low.
This poses a big threat to governments, and possibly financial institutions, but not individuals.
As an individual, I consider threats to governments and financial institutions "a big deal".
I don't think it's reasonable to call it spying.
You're right, it's not spying, it's surveillance.
That doesn't really make it any better, however.
Very few people are against court sanctioned and oversought eavesdropping. What people are upset about is eavesdropping without warrants, on US citizens. As far as I can tell from the very brief article, this isn't a case where warrantless wiretapping, or data mining occoured.
What confuses me so much (and I really am ignorant in this department) is why the ethernet chipsets were seemingly conquered right off the bat?
Heh. I suppose it might look that way from the perspective of someone starting at Linux from 2001. As I remember it, getting ethernet support was a very similar battle, and I started with linux in 1994. There certainly was some reverse engineering that had to take place back then. Until only the last 5 years I've been surprised when ethernet "just works". I suspect as ethernet became a commodity, chipset makers were more willing to release specs to linux developers.
The added wrinkle with Wi-Fi support is being able to control the radio via software, and thus being able to broadcast outside the allowed frequency bands. If I understand correctly, that problem is solved by implementing that portion of code in the firmware, but many wi-fi chipsets have eliminated flash memory to reduce costs, so the firmware has to be loaded via software (and is thus part of the driver). I don't know if that's an added licensing problem, (distributing copyrighted firmware), but I can see how this adds to the problem.
Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing.
The problem with that statement is that the "bad guys" think they're the "good guys", and will do the same thing.
I don't exactly know which statement you're talking about McCain and torture... but I guess I liked it better when he was saying (to paraphrase) that "we don't torture because we don't want our guys to be tortured." That was a few years ago, and he's become more wishy-washy since then.
Indeed the ability to filter out the bad outcomes of certain actions and go for the better ones.
That's kind of what I'm getting at here. "bad" and "good" are value dependent. What's good and bad? Simply survivability? That's fine, but I'd say most humans would have objections to that value system.
Many "smart" people tend to ovethink things and do nothing in the end, since they see too many ways something can fail
I don't think that's really a lack of smart, or too smart, or whatever. That's really the inability to see that inaction is a choice as well.
Anyway, I think it's instructive, and important to separate out vision (ability to see what will happen from what you do) from values (choosing what you want to do).
It's kind of silly to argue about what a super-intelligent AI can do before we've even defined what intelligence is, and isn't. Intelligence seems to be defined as "I don't know what it is, but I'll know it when I see it". That's fun way to put it for entertainment or philosophical purposes, but if you want to answer a scientific question it's a horrible one. That's what no one is discussing, and there's an assumed context here that may or may not have anything to do with the real issue.
I think you're confusing intelligence (whatever that is exactly), with values. Values are (hopefully) supposed to lead to survivability. You could define intelligence as the ability to see the consequences of an action. Without a value system to guide you though, intelligence (as I just defined it) doesn't lead to survivability.
Of course, you're completely correct that intelligence isn't the end-all-be-all to survivability. Being adaptable to environments, having low energy requirements, etc, are all very good survival strategies as well. If you count organisms by number (and I think even mass), the single celled organisms win out by a mile.
So, with that definition of intelligence, separating it from values, I'd say there's not such thing as "too intelligent". There's only a "poor value system", or not intelligent enough for a given value system.
On the whole I think we agree though, it's just we're defining intelligence differently. Intelligence is a strange word, since it's really more about throwing a bunch of different concepts and ideas together into one single word.
If I have a company with 10k employees and an employee trashes somebody's rebate form, you can't hold the CEO responsible.
The thing is we all find it a bit hard to believe that this is an isolated incident. Do you really think someone investigated this rebate processor and just happened to catch them on the day they threw out 1300 rebate forms?
People not getting rebates after having filled them out is commonplace. The idea here is this is the smoking gun about what's happening to these rebates.
If you really buy the line that this was just "one bad employee", then I've got some nice swampland in Florida right in front of the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you for real cheap.
You could configure your computer to reject RST packets, but then you'd end up leaving connections open all over the place and cause all sorts of other problems. It's not something that you can trivially work around.
How about just wait until some specified timeout and see if you receive any other packets? If someone sends RST, but you receive a bunch more packets, there's a very good chance the RST was faked. Better yet, wait for timeout1, then wait timeout2 for any more packets. (Since packets can be received out of order). Then if you receive more packets during timeout2, ignore the RST. I'd say that's pretty trivial. It could even be implemented on a NAT router so you wouldn't even have to modify your OS.
I stress individuals.
Why? The allegation here is that this is an action of the church, not just a few misguided individuals. If this is the case, punishing a few individuals won't solve anything.
The people running your company seem to be total dicks.
Dicks? Naw. They're just monopolists slowly loosing their grip on the industry. They're where IBM was 20-25 years ago where they think they can still push a couple buttons and make everyone Buy Microsoft because "that's the way it's always been". We all know that's changing, it's just that the guys running Microsoft try to resist it at every turn and don't know how to run a company without that monopoly power.
The cracks are starting to show. Communication between companies/people/etc has become commonplace, and people need common means to communicate. They aren't willing to put up with the same proprietary formats anymore.
This whole battle isn't anything new, really. IBM went through the same thing when they were king with EBCDIC (the crappy IBM standard for encoding text) competing with ASCII. We all know which one won.
I don't see how having a random strangers name attached to the list makes the data published any more or less accurate.
It doesn't, obviously. Publishing anonymously makes it easier for governments to simply SAY the published information is inaccurate. Having someone that's standing behind that statement makes it more difficult to play that game. People don't tend to trust anonymous sources. Look no further than slashdot for evidence of that (where anonymous is different from a pseudonym).
Sure. I guess when I say force, I don't mean one of the fundamental 4 known forces (strong, weak, electro-magnetic, gravity), I just mean an agent that can effect the universe. I say something we don't fully understand because presumably this is unexpected. So there must be something happening we don't understand, perhaps a complex interaction between different knowns.
can someone give me the 'play by play' brief on the significance of the orientation of the galaxies and why the chance is so slim that they align as they do?
I'm not a Cosmologist, but one would expect galaxy orientation to be pretty much random. As an example, think about if you threw a bunch of nails in the air. At any given time you'd expect the nails orientation to be pretty random (ignoring air effects, and any bias given by your throw). If they all aligned in a certain way though, you'd be surprised and start looking for a cause. (In this case say a strong magnetic field in the room).
If this is true, there must be something orienting the alignment of galaxies. That could be either some bias in the big-bang, some outside force we don't understand, or something else.
A virus could check for the existence of one of these rootkits
Why check, when you can copy the installed driver and do the same thing? If this is going to be considered "legitimate" software, it's an excellent way to hide from malware detectors. It's not like virus or worm writers are really concerned about breaking copyright laws.
This case obviously has no merit. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that libel in the United States is knowingly making incorrect factual statements. I.e. saying "John raped sue", when you know that not to be the case.
A value judgment like "this guy is a crackpot", or "the food at restaurant X is bad" is not libelous. Read the wikipedia article for a more in depth description.
Because no one has shown any ability to make any money doing it for games.
Uh huh. So because no one has done it yet, it's not possible to do it. You're not much for new advancements or developments are you?
That stuff wears out its welcome after a while, even if you agree with it.
This isn't a movie we're talking about here, it's a game. A games politics would be inherent in the game world, not a 10+ hour documentary.
Also, Moore makes his movies specifically with his audience in mind. His audience is a distinct subculture. He has a goal to appeal to them.
There are countless examples of other movies that have similar political or cultural motives but don't attempt to appeal to their audience.
So you're saying that successful entertainment needs to appeal to it's audience? I guess I don't understand how that means you can't do the same thing with a game.
To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else
Right. That's why Michael Moore is out of business and makes no money. Agree with him or not, you can't deny the fact his films are political, and quite popular (and make money).
The fact is that people are entertained by political, cultural, etc films. Why should games be any different? The problem is so far those political, cultural, etc games are just bad, racist, or both (super-columbine-massacre was bad, those nazi extermination camp games are racist (and likely very bad, I've never played them). In any media it's a lot harder to make politics or culture entertaining. Just because YOU don't want those games doesn't mean others don't.
I don't understand your comment at all. The motherboard in question is about 5 years old, with a newer graphics card and 2 gigs of memory. It's older than Ubuntu itself. Anyway, for me at least an OS is pretty ephemeral. I'll run it for a few years and switch to something else. The hardware tends to last a lot longer than the OS. Usually through a couple major revisions. My box before this went from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. That transition was a little better, but similar to the 2000/XP->Vista transition.
People would never think this way for any OS other than Linux. People don't buy random processors and hope it works on Windows
heh. That used to be a HELL of a lot more true than it is now (and in fact isn't even true now). I just bought a memory card reader and it worked just perfectly under Ubuntu, but didn't work worth a damn under Vista (and nope, no drivers available from the manufacturer, trendnet yet). Kind of a switcheroo that I find incredibly funny. Sleep mode isn't a hell of a lot better. It never actually worked properly under Windows 2000, and (as I mentioned) eventually works perfectly under Vista. So all-in-all, I'd say that Windows IS an OS where they buy "random" hardware and say "I hope it'll work under windows".
As far as "magically become supported since then", I would say yes. Hardware becomes supported all the time, and I've seen it happen time and time again (and no, this is NOT just a linux phenomenon). My mad-wifi wireless card "magically became supported" after people wrote a driver for it. That driver didn't exist when I bought the card a few years ago. So sleep mode under Ubuntu might just "magically work".
Sorry to say, but you strike me as someone who's just parroting something they read 5 years ago, and hasn't adapted with the times. Linux support is becoming quite standard these days. In many ways it's actually way better than Windows since there's no "download the drivers" crap to worry about. Just about everything on my Dell laptop worked under Ubuntu, and perhaps the next release of Ubuntu even the modem (which I don't really care about anyway) will work.