Avoiding single points of failure for the entire human race (e.g., giant asteroid nails Earth);
Unless you develop the ability to move millions and millions of people off the planet onto another habitable one, don't use my tax money for it. I don't care about the difference between 99.9999% or 100% of humans dying, because I'm certain to be left behind anyway.
Profiting off the immense riches to be had in space
That doesn't imply manned missions at all. Do you think a "space miner" would really be better at the job, operating in weightlessness, than a machine designed for it?
The same reason people climb K2
Yes, the "ideology of adventure", just like the article summary mentioned.
Not even your idyllic hunter-gatherer is stupid, though. They quickly learned to domesticate other animals, and use dogs to help them hunt. If dogs got killed in the hunt, well, it wasn't as big a loss to them. They didn't insist on doing every last thing by themselves.
I think Slashdot can comprehend better if the proposition is put another way. We probably all have had managers who insist on travelling great distances to meet a client "face to face" to take care of something a phone call could have. Sending a human to do what a robot can is a similar waste of resources.
I don't think humans should stop going to space entirely. However, I don't think we should risk human lives pointlessly either. Let's exhaust what the robots can do for us before we put ourselves in danger.
JPEG works on 16x16 pixel blocks at a time. This means that you generate 16x16 tiles and see if they can compress to the same portion of the JPEG image in question. In other words, for every 16x16 block you have to generate 16*16*(2^24) distinct images and compress them. That's about 4 billion (2^32) distinct images, which should be roughly equivalent to compressing 1.4 million 1024x768 JPEG images (3072 blocks per image). With 30 fps real time MJPEG compressors, that should take about 13 hours to compress.
To prove that the evidence was not doctored, a full 1024x768 image would take about 1,664 days (about 4.7 years) to complete at 30 fps. The good news is that the task is entirely parallelizable, so fifty such encoders would find the complete set of originals in just over a month.
you'd have perhaps hundreds of dollars of songs on your iPod that you couldn't get to for an indefinite period of time; and Apple would just shrug their shoulders when you complain.
What would you complain about? That Apple didn't sell you a feature that they didn't say they'll sell you?
Even a disposable film camera is superior for the purposes of producing photographic evidence
...unless there was somehow an algorithm that can conclusively (as conclusively as DNA evidence, for example) prove that an image has or has not been doctored. Even if it ultimately cannot be used in court, it can provide investigators with confidence that they are believing in the right evidence.
Somebody might want to defame somebody they don't like (like the faked picture of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally) or manipulate the public into supporting some cause that they otherwise wouldn't accept.
In such cases, the damage is almost always done at the point of initial publication, and no amount of proof matters. A significant percentage of US citizens still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and that didn't even involve a sensational doctored photograph. All the technology available is not likely to help this sort of thing, unfortunately.
It's as simple as that is it? Have you worked on an IT support team? I thank God I'm not doing that thankless job anymore for users who see only their needs and no one elses.
What I meant by "simple" was that it's simple to see what must be accomplished under a centralized IT policy: the organization must provide prompt service to the folks who no longer have the power to fix anything themselves. "It's as simple as that," meaning you cannot take my root password away and not answer my calls.
I did not mean to suggest the job itself was simple. That would be insulting and unfair.
Exactly. You can view the JPEG compression process as mapping a large potential set of originals to one single JPEG image. However, if you can prove that you can generate the exhaustive set of originals (no other original can result in the JPEG in question), and that none of the originals pass the authenticity test, then you've proven that the JPEG could not have been genuine.
There are entirely valid reasons to use multiple compression engines. For instance you might do your editing in one program, and then optimize the image in another.
Sure. Proving that multiple encoders went through the image doesn't prove that you doctored the image. The problem is that it's generally your responsibility to prove that you didn't doctor it. If a trusted algorithm cannot certify your final image as genuine (whether due to "valid reasons" or malice), then the image may not be admissible in court at all.
I think everybody understands the rationale why IT - who is responsible for the upkeep of the machines - need the exclusive power to administer them. The problem is that you need to resolve their problems promptly if you choose to centralize the power. It's as simple as that.
Compress your JPEG with three different encoders at subsequently lower quality settings until you reach the quality setting (and file size) you're looking for, and the artifacting will be effectively untracable.
In a modern court, the defense doesn't have to prove that you've doctored the picture. If they can prove that you've run the image through three different encoders (rather than coming straight from the digital camera), they will likely establish reasonable doubt that the image is genuine.
how can you tell what is a result of manipulation versus what is an artifact of compression and or digitization?
Just a wild idea off the top of my head... while JPEG image compression is a lossy process, it's still a mathematically reproducible process. It might therefore be possible to exhaustively generate the set of originals that could be compressed to the image in question*. If you then apply the detection algorithm to the originals, none of them may pass and you'll still have a valid conclusion.
* Made easier if you know the precise implementation (i.e., which digital camera, which version of Photoshop, etc.) that created the JPEG.
the research that I read made it seems as if we are unique to the point where having billions of galaxys would make little differnce.
No, what we lack is precise knowledge that the earth is special. That is, we don't know the probability by which a planet has a big moon, or that it is near enough a star to sustain life. We don't know the very parameters of life, except that it exists on earth in great varieties.
Absent this knowledge, it is incorrect to assume that the earth is special, any more than a lottery winner should see herself as (too) special. If you only know of one lottery winner, then you'll be misled as to how often somebody wins the lottery if you try to extrapolate based on that ignorance.
The correct approach is to assume that we are one instance of random behavior, that the earth just happened to be so far from the sun, that we just happened to have a big moon, that we just happened to not have collided (yet) with another big object. We are likely a very special planet, but we really have very little clue whether we are special enough to claim exclusivity.
Once you accept this randomness assumption, then the probability of life (and therefore intelligent life) on another planet is entirely a matter of how many planets there are out there. The more, the likelier.
Remember that if you're a one-in-a-million kind of guy, there are more than 1,000 people in China alone just like you.
You're missing the point. The comparison is between "available legally and illegally" and "available illegaly right now, legally in four months". The question is which alternative is likely to earn more money for U2.
In both cases, the illegal copies will serve the advertising effect that some advocates like to point to, so that factor should be discarded.
Yes. If you followed the thread a little bit further, you'll see where I clarified that I missed out a few words. What I had meant to write was "a fan who wants to hear the album right now has no choice but to break the law."
I am aware that you can just wait for the album, and that would be the laudable thing to do. I'm pointing out that many people would not do the laudable thing.
No, the lesson here is that people suck, and U2 has to cater to people. A quick Google says their last album sold over 10 million copies. Do you expect even a big percentage of them to have the nobility of spirit to wait for the legal release, or the fanaticism to pay for something they already downloaded?
And as a solitary representative of their fans, i at least did not feel less inclined to go out and buy the album.
Good for you, and I mean it. Now how many people do you know would do the same, compared to how many who would not?
[...] no choice but to break the law? Rethink that and call me in the morning.
Learn to separate a realistic expectation of human nature from condoning such. People break laws all the time, and you've probably broken speed limits several times. If you did, then you probably did it because you wanted to get somewhere more quickly, there was no legal way to do so, and the chances of getting caught and punished are slim.
I was trying to explain why U2 thought this was a sensible thing to do, because somebody asked. I was trying to predict what would happen, not trying to justify what hasn't even happened. Do you actually disagree that their album sales are likely to be hurt otherwise?
Uh, how about the choice to wait until the album comes out finished and legally? The idea that there's no choice in this is absurd.
Sorry, I missed a word in the sentence. What I had intended to write was: "if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album right now has no choice but to break the law."
Yes, you can choose to wait, and that would be a laudable choice. However, I'm pointing out that U2 probably don't feel that they can count on everybody being noble.
If it's available both legally and illegally, fans will be faced with the same old choice. History tells us that a good number still choose to buy.
However, if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album has no choice but to break the law. Having acquired the music, the fan will be less likely to pay for it when it is released legally.
Once you understand that this is not meant for the people who never would've paid for it, the logic becomes quite simple.
[They] will still be shackled by MS's contracts -- contracts with a company that has a track record of violating patents!
True, but if Longhorn contains any patent violations left over from XP, it'll be fair game. It's not the best outcome, but Microsoft should be concerned.
If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?
When you rent a car at the airport, you sign some papers, and they tell you where the car is. The key is usually in the car. Without that agreement on paper, you'd be stealing their car. Presumably, for a suitable sum of money, you can persuade the agent to let you use a car whenever you like.
The difference in this case is that one of the parties cannot plausibly refuse to make a deal. For example, if you put a gun to the rental agent's head, then he'd sign any paper you want. Similarly, not shipping Windows is simply not an option for these Japanese companies, who are being bullied into signing away their intellectual properties. It's not a legal contract not because of the "car", but because of the uneven negotiating positions.
Besides, what could terrorists do with the knowledge that cell overage was out?
Even if there was something they could do, what if we simply delay the publication of such outage data by three months? That way, the public still get the accountability, and the terrorists don't get "useful" data.
One, in theory, brushed metal is supposed to be reserved for applications that mimic real world objects. For example, iTunes mimics a stereo, so it has a brushed metal face. Both Apple and third parties have violated this guideline.
Two, usability is not a static thing. We have a computer userbase that is significantly savvier than the guy who walked into a computer store demanding a "VisiCalc" not knowing he needed a computer for it. This means they recognize common widgets like scrollbars, drop-down menus, buttons, checkboxes, and others, no matter what shape they're in. With the popularity of $200 game consoles, a lot of people have prior experience dealing with customized (that is, "weird") computer UI.
Three, there's another aspect of usability that isn't static. Users learn. While you can compare the efficiency of first-time computer users introduced to a Mac or to Windows or to KDE, that's a pretty pointless benchmark. Experienced users in each platform probably perform just as well as each other. The most significant difference among them is probably the amount of time spent in maintenance.
That's because you were a windows user before.
Now imagine someone who has never had a computer.
It's not that easy to escape Windows. If you go to a bookstore, most of the books on the shelf will probably be about the Windows OS and its applications. For every book on GIMP there are probably ten or twenty on Photoshop. Even books that are not specifically about Windows can have subtle Windows dependencies, like instructions on installing the accompanying CD-ROM, etc.
To make matters worse, many key open source software products evolve so quickly that many books are quickly rendered obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you develop the ability to move millions and millions of people off the planet onto another habitable one, don't use my tax money for it. I don't care about the difference between 99.9999% or 100% of humans dying, because I'm certain to be left behind anyway.
Profiting off the immense riches to be had in space
That doesn't imply manned missions at all. Do you think a "space miner" would really be better at the job, operating in weightlessness, than a machine designed for it?
The same reason people climb K2
Yes, the "ideology of adventure", just like the article summary mentioned.
I think Slashdot can comprehend better if the proposition is put another way. We probably all have had managers who insist on travelling great distances to meet a client "face to face" to take care of something a phone call could have. Sending a human to do what a robot can is a similar waste of resources.
I don't think humans should stop going to space entirely. However, I don't think we should risk human lives pointlessly either. Let's exhaust what the robots can do for us before we put ourselves in danger.
To prove that the evidence was not doctored, a full 1024x768 image would take about 1,664 days (about 4.7 years) to complete at 30 fps. The good news is that the task is entirely parallelizable, so fifty such encoders would find the complete set of originals in just over a month.
So no, nothing astronomical as far as I can see.
What would you complain about? That Apple didn't sell you a feature that they didn't say they'll sell you?
In such cases, the damage is almost always done at the point of initial publication, and no amount of proof matters. A significant percentage of US citizens still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and that didn't even involve a sensational doctored photograph. All the technology available is not likely to help this sort of thing, unfortunately.
What I meant by "simple" was that it's simple to see what must be accomplished under a centralized IT policy: the organization must provide prompt service to the folks who no longer have the power to fix anything themselves. "It's as simple as that," meaning you cannot take my root password away and not answer my calls.
I did not mean to suggest the job itself was simple. That would be insulting and unfair.
Exactly. You can view the JPEG compression process as mapping a large potential set of originals to one single JPEG image. However, if you can prove that you can generate the exhaustive set of originals (no other original can result in the JPEG in question), and that none of the originals pass the authenticity test, then you've proven that the JPEG could not have been genuine.
Sure. Proving that multiple encoders went through the image doesn't prove that you doctored the image. The problem is that it's generally your responsibility to prove that you didn't doctor it. If a trusted algorithm cannot certify your final image as genuine (whether due to "valid reasons" or malice), then the image may not be admissible in court at all.
I think everybody understands the rationale why IT - who is responsible for the upkeep of the machines - need the exclusive power to administer them. The problem is that you need to resolve their problems promptly if you choose to centralize the power. It's as simple as that.
In a modern court, the defense doesn't have to prove that you've doctored the picture. If they can prove that you've run the image through three different encoders (rather than coming straight from the digital camera), they will likely establish reasonable doubt that the image is genuine.
Just a wild idea off the top of my head... while JPEG image compression is a lossy process, it's still a mathematically reproducible process. It might therefore be possible to exhaustively generate the set of originals that could be compressed to the image in question*. If you then apply the detection algorithm to the originals, none of them may pass and you'll still have a valid conclusion.
* Made easier if you know the precise implementation (i.e., which digital camera, which version of Photoshop, etc.) that created the JPEG.
No, what we lack is precise knowledge that the earth is special. That is, we don't know the probability by which a planet has a big moon, or that it is near enough a star to sustain life. We don't know the very parameters of life, except that it exists on earth in great varieties.
Absent this knowledge, it is incorrect to assume that the earth is special, any more than a lottery winner should see herself as (too) special. If you only know of one lottery winner, then you'll be misled as to how often somebody wins the lottery if you try to extrapolate based on that ignorance.
The correct approach is to assume that we are one instance of random behavior, that the earth just happened to be so far from the sun, that we just happened to have a big moon, that we just happened to not have collided (yet) with another big object. We are likely a very special planet, but we really have very little clue whether we are special enough to claim exclusivity.
Once you accept this randomness assumption, then the probability of life (and therefore intelligent life) on another planet is entirely a matter of how many planets there are out there. The more, the likelier.
Remember that if you're a one-in-a-million kind of guy, there are more than 1,000 people in China alone just like you.
In both cases, the illegal copies will serve the advertising effect that some advocates like to point to, so that factor should be discarded.
I am aware that you can just wait for the album, and that would be the laudable thing to do. I'm pointing out that many people would not do the laudable thing.
No, the lesson here is that people suck, and U2 has to cater to people. A quick Google says their last album sold over 10 million copies. Do you expect even a big percentage of them to have the nobility of spirit to wait for the legal release, or the fanaticism to pay for something they already downloaded?
And as a solitary representative of their fans, i at least did not feel less inclined to go out and buy the album.
Good for you, and I mean it. Now how many people do you know would do the same, compared to how many who would not?
Learn to separate a realistic expectation of human nature from condoning such. People break laws all the time, and you've probably broken speed limits several times. If you did, then you probably did it because you wanted to get somewhere more quickly, there was no legal way to do so, and the chances of getting caught and punished are slim.
I was trying to explain why U2 thought this was a sensible thing to do, because somebody asked. I was trying to predict what would happen, not trying to justify what hasn't even happened. Do you actually disagree that their album sales are likely to be hurt otherwise?
Sorry, I missed a word in the sentence. What I had intended to write was: "if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album right now has no choice but to break the law."
Yes, you can choose to wait, and that would be a laudable choice. However, I'm pointing out that U2 probably don't feel that they can count on everybody being noble.
However, if it's available only illegally, then a fan who wants to hear the album has no choice but to break the law. Having acquired the music, the fan will be less likely to pay for it when it is released legally.
Once you understand that this is not meant for the people who never would've paid for it, the logic becomes quite simple.
With current divorce rates (assuming you're in the US), I think the odds are about fifty-fifty there'll be another such moment.
Just kidding. :)
True, but if Longhorn contains any patent violations left over from XP, it'll be fair game. It's not the best outcome, but Microsoft should be concerned.
When you rent a car at the airport, you sign some papers, and they tell you where the car is. The key is usually in the car. Without that agreement on paper, you'd be stealing their car. Presumably, for a suitable sum of money, you can persuade the agent to let you use a car whenever you like.
The difference in this case is that one of the parties cannot plausibly refuse to make a deal. For example, if you put a gun to the rental agent's head, then he'd sign any paper you want. Similarly, not shipping Windows is simply not an option for these Japanese companies, who are being bullied into signing away their intellectual properties. It's not a legal contract not because of the "car", but because of the uneven negotiating positions.
Even if there was something they could do, what if we simply delay the publication of such outage data by three months? That way, the public still get the accountability, and the terrorists don't get "useful" data.
Two, usability is not a static thing. We have a computer userbase that is significantly savvier than the guy who walked into a computer store demanding a "VisiCalc" not knowing he needed a computer for it. This means they recognize common widgets like scrollbars, drop-down menus, buttons, checkboxes, and others, no matter what shape they're in. With the popularity of $200 game consoles, a lot of people have prior experience dealing with customized (that is, "weird") computer UI.
Three, there's another aspect of usability that isn't static. Users learn. While you can compare the efficiency of first-time computer users introduced to a Mac or to Windows or to KDE, that's a pretty pointless benchmark. Experienced users in each platform probably perform just as well as each other. The most significant difference among them is probably the amount of time spent in maintenance.
It's not that easy to escape Windows. If you go to a bookstore, most of the books on the shelf will probably be about the Windows OS and its applications. For every book on GIMP there are probably ten or twenty on Photoshop. Even books that are not specifically about Windows can have subtle Windows dependencies, like instructions on installing the accompanying CD-ROM, etc.
To make matters worse, many key open source software products evolve so quickly that many books are quickly rendered obsolete.