But, does the postal service not also hand it off to other infrastructures and receive them in kind? When I get something mailed to me from across the pond, it's not the royal mail service dropping it off. It's the same overweight mail carrier who has been doing it for years. Yet that mail, regardless of who it came from, is still regarded with the same amount of protection.
Actually, I think both is needed. Privacy rights are just that, rights. Laws should protect rights. Encrypting it, while a great idea, isn't the solution alone.
To form yet another analogy in this analogy saturated forum... Encryption is to packets as locking your doors and closing your blinds is to your house. It's a great idea if you don't want to have somebody see in. But, unless you've got a law that says you can't go tinkering with the door knob or pushing back the shades, you don't truly have a right to privacy. You've just got a right to make it difficult for other people to violate it.
I've become more and more convinced that information sent over the internet should afford the same protections that federal mail does. Net neutrality is a step in that direction. But, it's just a step.
ISP's currently have no limits that keep them from violating the privacy of their subscribers. Well, nothing short of market forces. Which in this case is laughable. Since packets can travel through a number of networks before ending up at their destinations, there is no guarantee it won't travel through an ISP the consumer doesn't support financially.
The Dreamcast had a lot going for it. And it could have survived the market it was in if only it had been supported by it's company. I sort of felt like it was hyped, dropped off at stores and quickly disowned.
It had a number of cool innovations for it's time. The first console with a built in modem for one. And the the little VM memory cards in the controllers were really cool. Too bad they weren't used more. And to this day, I still haven't found a controller that was as comfortable to my hands as theirs was.
Yeah, really, smoke grenades/flares/etc. are so much cheaper and easier to smuggle across the country. And you don't have to clean them up before you fire them.
It will make aiming a bit difficult though. That's a critical part because insurgents aren't likely to have a boatload of mortar shells to fire.
Excellent advice. I think when corporations look at IT/CS Grads they don't see the same differences we do. Especially at the entry level. They tend to want to know if you have experience with $foo. Case in point, one of our IT guys here has a degree in Economics of all things.
Having that second degree or minor really helps to gives you a bigger varieties of $foo that can really make you invaluable. It keeps the employer from thinking your just one more computer monkey.
Become someone who can help management understand their problem area and relate it to a technology solution and you'll do very well.
This is why I took a psychology minor. Some of my classmates laughed at me when I took it. But, I've found it invaluable when dealing with anything from interfaces to project management to corporate politics.
The problem with this is that eventually it becomes cheaper to buy a politician and/or some lawyers to change the law for you than it does to pay the bill. Which is exactly our problem now. And there isn't even a bill to pay.
I was thinking the same thing as well. What would be the best way to get a user off of a Windows machine and on to a Mac (or Linux)? As an earlier post pointed out, just knowing that a user can switch back to windows if they needed to, gives the person the courage to make that leap. Now, imagine they don't even have to worry about that.
Sure, they'll be capable of using and probably still hooked on their favorite windows programs. But, if you're an OS vendor (or advocate) you just won more than half the battle. You've taken the home field away from MS. How long before you get them trying out the nifty apps native to the OS? Apps, I might add, that would run more efficiently because they're running natively as opposed to virtually. The end users wouldn't be able to tell you why that is the case either. They'd just know that MS apps are slower. So, they'd be excited by the new efficiency.
All you'd have to sell them on is your nifty interface. And OS X has that in spades.
Shortly after getting married, I was unable to find a job. While I never lost my home, I became a member of the working poor. I made several thousands less than the poverty line while I looked for a job. My wife held with me through it all.
When you go through having nothing, you know you can make it through nearly anything. You both have my respect.
You should invest a few bucks in a sarcasm detector. I know they're a bit of a luxury item, but with posts like the GP floating around slashdot, they might just prove useful.
The problem with private funding is that only marketable, short term tech would be funded. It'd be much like the drug companies these days. 10 different formulas for ED and very few new vaccines.
It doesn't work anymore. It's as much a peice of hardware as my paper weight. Now, I will grant you that it is a big, dangerous, fancy paper.. er.. forest.. er.. post nuclear catastrophy weight.
The fascinating thing about technologically advanced regions is that the reproductive rates are much lower than low tech areas. This is because in technologically advanced cultures children have a higher cost/benefit ratio than in lower techs. Lower techs need the children to tend the field, watch the sheep, etc. etc. Where as higher techs need to spend money to educate and groom their children into productive roles.
I find this particularly neat in that the easiest deterent of overpopulation is perhaps technological proliferation.
I don't think Microsoft will ever effectively leverage their windows monopoly into the game console world. I don't ever see them getting a chance to monopolize the console reason. For a number or reasons.
The first being that whatever integrations they did with X-Box and Windows could be done with third party apps by Nintendo and Sony. They just wouldn't get to use the super-secret backdoor windows code to do it.
Second off what seems to drive the game console world is not integration but innovation. NES had it's new 8 bit graphics and games with actual stories. PS1 ruled because it recognized that not all video games need to be kids games. And the Wii is knocking the snot out of the PS3 and X-Box 360 with their innovative controller despite having graphics hardware well behind it's competition. And if there is one thing Microsoft is bad at, it's innovative technology.
Third consoles are rooted more in hardware than software. So, when the hardware gets replaced with the next generation of consoles their development tools will need to be re-evaluated. It'll be one more thing to slow the next console out the door.
No, the console market is open season. Probably always will be.
I'm not sure 150% is even a reasonable amount. There are plenty of cases where it benefits the company to have their software pirated.
Photoshop and other high end editors are a good examples. Unless you're pretty well off, you're not going to drop the chunk of change just to tinker with it. (Even the student editions are fairly expensive for a trial run.) Photoshop and many other expensive editing programs benefit from piracy because it allows new users to test the tools and learn them. So, when they start looking for that next job, they'll have that skill set. Which in turn will encourage their employer, who can more readily afford it, to buy it and all the upgrades.
The same goes with Windows. What would Microsoft rather have, X% of Windows being pirated installs or that same X% booting up linux or OS X instead? Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop is their most valuable asset. Whether that's pirated or not. Sure, they'd much rather they were all legit, but that isn't ever going to happen.
I'm not saying that pirating should be legal. I'm just saying that there are some serious plus sides to it for certain people as long as it's not out of control.
You obviously didn't see that number bust a cap in the two 7-11 clerks and then drive off with the slurpee machine. It plowed through two grandmas and a whole squad of boy scouts on the way out of town.
I mean really.... Numbers don't kill people. Numbers with a pension for slurpees do.
There are problems with the grandparent post's logic and you seem to address them here.
Sex is certainly a part of a normal human's health issues. And I'm glad both you and the GP addressed that. But, the root of the problem is that we as human beings tie so many emotions into our sexual activities without meaning to. Those emotions tend to be extreme and illogical on the surface. How do you deal with that in such a small group of people without massive conflicts?
Someone else posted earlier that it would be irresponsible of us to even consider the idea that sex should be forbidden on long term space missions. I would agree with that. But, what's the alternative? I like your idea of embracing the sexual nature of their human astronauts on a solitary basis, but how do you keep the fine emotions of jealousy, envy, dejection etc. that arise out of sexual tension and contact between individuals? Even if it's voluntary, it's not always a good idea. How many of us have Psycho Ex's? How many would want to be cooped up with them in a spacecraft for 4+ months?
Even in the best, committed, functioning relationships on Earth, too many nights of "I have a headache" cause feelings of rejection. Amplify that by confining yourself to a small group and a potentially stressful environment and you're looking at some serious issues.
The only feasable options I see are drugs that supresses libido or long-term committed couples.
Unless there is some sort of long term training that could be evolved to deal with this issue. Military personal are often taught to rely on their fellow combatants regardess of personal opinions through exposure to repeated stressful situations. Could/should there be a like-minded program for Astronauts to control their emotions about sex? Should they, in addition to PhD's and fighter pilot training also under go sex surrogate training?
Slashdot Mirror
But, does the postal service not also hand it off to other infrastructures and receive them in kind? When I get something mailed to me from across the pond, it's not the royal mail service dropping it off. It's the same overweight mail carrier who has been doing it for years. Yet that mail, regardless of who it came from, is still regarded with the same amount of protection.
Actually, I think both is needed. Privacy rights are just that, rights. Laws should protect rights. Encrypting it, while a great idea, isn't the solution alone.
To form yet another analogy in this analogy saturated forum... Encryption is to packets as locking your doors and closing your blinds is to your house. It's a great idea if you don't want to have somebody see in. But, unless you've got a law that says you can't go tinkering with the door knob or pushing back the shades, you don't truly have a right to privacy. You've just got a right to make it difficult for other people to violate it.
I've become more and more convinced that information sent over the internet should afford the same protections that federal mail does. Net neutrality is a step in that direction. But, it's just a step.
ISP's currently have no limits that keep them from violating the privacy of their subscribers. Well, nothing short of market forces. Which in this case is laughable. Since packets can travel through a number of networks before ending up at their destinations, there is no guarantee it won't travel through an ISP the consumer doesn't support financially.
The Dreamcast had a lot going for it. And it could have survived the market it was in if only it had been supported by it's company. I sort of felt like it was hyped, dropped off at stores and quickly disowned.
It had a number of cool innovations for it's time. The first console with a built in modem for one. And the the little VM memory cards in the controllers were really cool. Too bad they weren't used more. And to this day, I still haven't found a controller that was as comfortable to my hands as theirs was.
And people wonder why the evil monsters are so angry all the time...
Yeah, really, smoke grenades/flares/etc. are so much cheaper and easier to smuggle across the country. And you don't have to clean them up before you fire them.
It will make aiming a bit difficult though. That's a critical part because insurgents aren't likely to have a boatload of mortar shells to fire.
Having that second degree or minor really helps to gives you a bigger varieties of $foo that can really make you invaluable. It keeps the employer from thinking your just one more computer monkey.
This is why I took a psychology minor. Some of my classmates laughed at me when I took it. But, I've found it invaluable when dealing with anything from interfaces to project management to corporate politics.
The problem with this is that eventually it becomes cheaper to buy a politician and/or some lawyers to change the law for you than it does to pay the bill. Which is exactly our problem now. And there isn't even a bill to pay.
That's a volatile supposition.
That was months ago. Looks like our chances of applying have gone up in smoke.
I was thinking the same thing as well. What would be the best way to get a user off of a Windows machine and on to a Mac (or Linux)? As an earlier post pointed out, just knowing that a user can switch back to windows if they needed to, gives the person the courage to make that leap. Now, imagine they don't even have to worry about that.
Sure, they'll be capable of using and probably still hooked on their favorite windows programs. But, if you're an OS vendor (or advocate) you just won more than half the battle. You've taken the home field away from MS. How long before you get them trying out the nifty apps native to the OS? Apps, I might add, that would run more efficiently because they're running natively as opposed to virtually. The end users wouldn't be able to tell you why that is the case either. They'd just know that MS apps are slower. So, they'd be excited by the new efficiency.
All you'd have to sell them on is your nifty interface. And OS X has that in spades.
On the bright side, the relatives you find at ancestry are probably dead.
If it helps to know. Neither of you are alone.
Shortly after getting married, I was unable to find a job. While I never lost my home, I became a member of the working poor. I made several thousands less than the poverty line while I looked for a job. My wife held with me through it all.
When you go through having nothing, you know you can make it through nearly anything. You both have my respect.
You should invest a few bucks in a sarcasm detector. I know they're a bit of a luxury item, but with posts like the GP floating around slashdot, they might just prove useful.
The problem with private funding is that only marketable, short term tech would be funded. It'd be much like the drug companies these days. 10 different formulas for ED and very few new vaccines.
It doesn't work anymore. It's as much a peice of hardware as my paper weight. Now, I will grant you that it is a big, dangerous, fancy paper.. er.. forest.. er.. post nuclear catastrophy weight.
The fascinating thing about technologically advanced regions is that the reproductive rates are much lower than low tech areas. This is because in technologically advanced cultures children have a higher cost/benefit ratio than in lower techs. Lower techs need the children to tend the field, watch the sheep, etc. etc. Where as higher techs need to spend money to educate and groom their children into productive roles.
I find this particularly neat in that the easiest deterent of overpopulation is perhaps technological proliferation.
I don't think Microsoft will ever effectively leverage their windows monopoly into the game console world. I don't ever see them getting a chance to monopolize the console reason. For a number or reasons.
The first being that whatever integrations they did with X-Box and Windows could be done with third party apps by Nintendo and Sony. They just wouldn't get to use the super-secret backdoor windows code to do it.
Second off what seems to drive the game console world is not integration but innovation. NES had it's new 8 bit graphics and games with actual stories. PS1 ruled because it recognized that not all video games need to be kids games. And the Wii is knocking the snot out of the PS3 and X-Box 360 with their innovative controller despite having graphics hardware well behind it's competition. And if there is one thing Microsoft is bad at, it's innovative technology.
Third consoles are rooted more in hardware than software. So, when the hardware gets replaced with the next generation of consoles their development tools will need to be re-evaluated. It'll be one more thing to slow the next console out the door.
No, the console market is open season. Probably always will be.
You're lucky. Given the DJ's or the commercials, I'd take the commercials.
I'm not sure 150% is even a reasonable amount. There are plenty of cases where it benefits the company to have their software pirated.
Photoshop and other high end editors are a good examples. Unless you're pretty well off, you're not going to drop the chunk of change just to tinker with it. (Even the student editions are fairly expensive for a trial run.) Photoshop and many other expensive editing programs benefit from piracy because it allows new users to test the tools and learn them. So, when they start looking for that next job, they'll have that skill set. Which in turn will encourage their employer, who can more readily afford it, to buy it and all the upgrades.
The same goes with Windows. What would Microsoft rather have, X% of Windows being pirated installs or that same X% booting up linux or OS X instead? Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop is their most valuable asset. Whether that's pirated or not. Sure, they'd much rather they were all legit, but that isn't ever going to happen.
I'm not saying that pirating should be legal. I'm just saying that there are some serious plus sides to it for certain people as long as it's not out of control.
You can probably place the blame on the inaction due to the Bystander Effect.
The question is, when everybody else around you is hiding, running, ducking and covering, how difficult would it be for you not to do the same?
But, I agree with you that a little back bone and some forewarning could have easily reversed the hunter/prey situation in the Virginia Tech shooting.
Ok... um there's this car that is um... being harrassed... for about an hour...
Damn... I can't do it.
In this case the car runs fine. It's just the asshole tailgating you all the way home.
You obviously didn't see that number bust a cap in the two 7-11 clerks and then drive off with the slurpee machine. It plowed through two grandmas and a whole squad of boy scouts on the way out of town.
I mean really.... Numbers don't kill people. Numbers with a pension for slurpees do.
There are problems with the grandparent post's logic and you seem to address them here.
Sex is certainly a part of a normal human's health issues. And I'm glad both you and the GP addressed that. But, the root of the problem is that we as human beings tie so many emotions into our sexual activities without meaning to. Those emotions tend to be extreme and illogical on the surface. How do you deal with that in such a small group of people without massive conflicts?
Someone else posted earlier that it would be irresponsible of us to even consider the idea that sex should be forbidden on long term space missions. I would agree with that. But, what's the alternative? I like your idea of embracing the sexual nature of their human astronauts on a solitary basis, but how do you keep the fine emotions of jealousy, envy, dejection etc. that arise out of sexual tension and contact between individuals? Even if it's voluntary, it's not always a good idea. How many of us have Psycho Ex's? How many would want to be cooped up with them in a spacecraft for 4+ months?
Even in the best, committed, functioning relationships on Earth, too many nights of "I have a headache" cause feelings of rejection. Amplify that by confining yourself to a small group and a potentially stressful environment and you're looking at some serious issues.
The only feasable options I see are drugs that supresses libido or long-term committed couples.
Unless there is some sort of long term training that could be evolved to deal with this issue. Military personal are often taught to rely on their fellow combatants regardess of personal opinions through exposure to repeated stressful situations. Could/should there be a like-minded program for Astronauts to control their emotions about sex? Should they, in addition to PhD's and fighter pilot training also under go sex surrogate training?