Sorry to reply twice, I missed the "cross country" and "road racing" specification you mentioned. I agree with you, since most cross country races aren't of the same 200km length as road races like I mentioned in my previous post. My fault.
If you watched the Tour De France, they already use helicopters and video cameras to cover the race. Race observers know not to watch the road, but rather the skies, to anticipate the arrival of the pack. I'm not sure how many RC helicopters would have the 200km range necessary to film an entire stage like a full-size helicopter with a cameraman.
It is 11:20pm on a Friday. I am sitting in the cluster in question.
It feels like it will take me years to create and compile all of these modules. It started out as a class, but grew into a final project and I will keep coding until I reach critical sleep deprivation levels.
It has taken me well over 4 hours to get this far. The hardest part of doing it is resisting the party nearby.
Screw it. Beer time.
You make a good point. The hard question posed here is whether such vigilante actions are legal (or even obligatory).
I was simply replying to the comments of the first poster where he claimed that the owners of compromised computers should be held liable for the actions of the intruder. I disagree with that.
I have not yet put a lot of thought into the harder question, and thus I haven't even formed an opinion on it yet.
I think you make a very good point, but I don't believe it follows the right course. The best way to attack a problem is at its root. As much as we would all like to have 100% of online computers running completely securely, we cannot expect such a large user base to do this.
If your car is stolen because you left it unlocked in a parking lot and used in a hit-and-run accident, the car owner should not be held responsible. Yes, it is his fault that he didn't lock his car, but it shouldn't be illegal for him to leave his car unlocked. The crime committed here was by the thief.
Likewise, if your computer is used in a DDoS attack on a commercial website, you should not be held responsible unless you intentionally left it vulnerable specifically for use in an attack. The insecure computer has done nothing wrong, the blame is in the hands of the person who used the computer for a malicious attack.
Blaming the owner of the insecure computer is simply cutting one head off of a hydra.
If the RIAA can't find security consultants skilled enough to protect their own site, I'll never believe they found security consultants skilled enough to infect 95% of the computers they target.
Consumers should bear some responsibility for their actions rather than putting even more laws on the books. You shouldn't hire somebody who has no experience setting up certain type of system to build one for you. Period. Sometimes, the burden for getting something done should be placed on the person who needs it, not the government. If you need a computer system, research local consultants and ask for references. There's no reason why the government should have to spend time and money doing something you should be doing yourself.
You make a very good point. I suppose I should have clarified that I don't want popular opinion to only see OSS as what happens to software when companies die. I completely agree with your post, as you bring up an issue that I would truly like to see adopted.
Of course, we'll all take any announcement of the open-sourcing of useful software as good news. However, I hope a trend doesn't develop where OSS becomes known as "what happens to software when companies die." I'd rather see software open-sourced in a profitable way as opposed to the "we're pulling out of the market so why the hell not" way that is becoming more and more common.
I have a good deal of trouble trying to gain any useful knowledge from statistics about Ph.D. production. Does this show a more ambitious student body, a more academically-minded student body, or a student body unable to compete in the "real-world" and forced to remain in school?
As a student at MIT, I've watched countless friends consider returning for their Master's but end of leaving to take a high-paying job offer. Why should I go back to school for my masters if I'm looking to start at a great company making 120,000 within weeks of receiving my degree (just an example, I'm still a sophomore and dreaming)?
A close friend will be leaving this year to take 300,000 per year straight out of his undergrad education. He would have absolutely no problem staying to get his Ph.D., the guy is smart as hell. But why?
Maybe the best sign a college could ever have is a rate of 0% Ph.D. production.
First of all, I don't hate Bush. I voted for Bush. He's doing the best he can in a shitty situation. He hasn't had many choices. I brought him up because he's nearly impossible not to mention with the topic I was commenting about.
As for the approval rating, I was watching CNN yesterday where a few talkings heads were having a discussion about the fact that Bush's approval rating for December will be 49%. I'm not sure of the name of the show, but I wish I would have noticed it so I could mention it here.
It is most likely that I'm not the first person to draw this parallel, but I've noticed it more and more recently...
Microsoft and the US government are in very similar situations.
Here, we have two extremely powerful entities that are very prone to extend beyond their reasonable range of influence to make everything go exactly the way they want it to.
Both are facing enemies (the US against terrorists, and Microsoft against Linux) that have emerged as a decentralized and nearly attack-proof.
Both have earned a good deal of resentment from the communities which they supposedly serve (MS has people like us constantly bitching while President Bush's approval rating has dropped below 50% this December: and both rightfully so).
Both, despite the great amount of disapproval, appear to be doing nothing to change their situation (except for Bush's recent decision to back down on threats of attacking North Korea, though he intends to push for isolating them economically).
Could a few good leaders in Washington clear this whole mess up? I think so. Now if only such people existed... -sigh-
1) It's not xenophobia. It's a joke. Your boredom stems from your overly-serious approach to internet posting. If I wasn't American, I'd rip on Americans all day. I'm not French, so I'll rip on the French as much as I please. I invite all French readers to reply with their worst, understanding that the interaction will all be in good fun.
2) My list isn't in chronological order. I apologize profusely and pledge to keep all further postings involving multiple events in a timeline format. This appears to be the only actual "correction" that you have made.
3) You said the same thing I did, but you used more details because you google searched for "Raelians" and reported what you found.
4) We all agree here.:-)
5) Anything that involves group sex is at least worth a look.
Maybe Rael hit the wall a few too many times during his racing career: This would explain his status as a "former" race-car driver and as a lunatic.
After previewing this message I decided it was too agressive. I assure you the only reason for this is that I'm bored at work and I'm searching for any source of entertainment I can find. As I've mentioned, internet posting can only be taken seriously to a point.
The Raelians, who claim 55,000 members worldwide, believe human life was created by DNA brought to earth by an alien race. Their founder and leader is Rael, a former French journalist known as Claude Vorilhon.
The group's headquarters, called UFO Land, are located in Valcourt, Que., about 200 km east of Montreal.
1) Their leader is French.
2) He calls himself "Rael," moved to Canada, and started a cult.
3) This cult believes that aliens created humans from DNA they brought to Earth.
4) The cult's headquarters is called "UFO Land."
5) They claim to have cloned a human.
Now, why the hell should I believe 5 if 1-4 serve to discredit any idea that intelligence and legitimacy may be present here?
Back to your egg-beater... the PTO wouldn't let you patent "a device to beat eggs" because of prior art.
What we are looking at here is a clear case of a company getting a patent for "a device to beat eggs" despite numerous, documented instances of prior art. My analogy works perfectly well.
To my knowledge, traditional patents are held for the specific invention they detail. However, different implementations of the same invention and improvements on an existing invention are individually patentable and legal. For example, there are multiple types of patented egg beaters (electric with a handle, electric upright, hand-cranked, etc.) Though they all achieve the same end goal, beating an egg, the different implementations are considered different inventions.
A wider example might be flying machines. There are thousands of different types of planes, baloons, helicopters, hangliders, and ultralights but each achieve the same goal by different means. Each has their own style, benefits, drawbacks, and potential uses.
I see the general patenting of auto-IM responders as being similar to patenting the idea of human flight. Though every auto-IM responder may have completely different code, handle events in different ways, and interact with different systems, ActiveBuddy owns the idea. That is bullshit.
I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
Thanks for the replies. I had no problem finding pictures on my own, however. My point was that a basic part of a product review, and especially a cool-new-gadget review, should be a clear picture of the iteam.
Basically, what I got out of this article was that John Carmack is almost single-handedly responsible for all of my non-productive time over the past 10 years. Thanks John!
Slashdot Mirror
Then why is Ohio State's football graduation rate still around 30%?
Sorry to reply twice, I missed the "cross country" and "road racing" specification you mentioned. I agree with you, since most cross country races aren't of the same 200km length as road races like I mentioned in my previous post. My fault.
If you watched the Tour De France, they already use helicopters and video cameras to cover the race. Race observers know not to watch the road, but rather the skies, to anticipate the arrival of the pack. I'm not sure how many RC helicopters would have the 200km range necessary to film an entire stage like a full-size helicopter with a cameraman.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
It is 11:20pm on a Friday. I am sitting in the cluster in question. It feels like it will take me years to create and compile all of these modules. It started out as a class, but grew into a final project and I will keep coding until I reach critical sleep deprivation levels. It has taken me well over 4 hours to get this far. The hardest part of doing it is resisting the party nearby. Screw it. Beer time.
I was simply replying to the comments of the first poster where he claimed that the owners of compromised computers should be held liable for the actions of the intruder. I disagree with that.
I have not yet put a lot of thought into the harder question, and thus I haven't even formed an opinion on it yet.
If your car is stolen because you left it unlocked in a parking lot and used in a hit-and-run accident, the car owner should not be held responsible. Yes, it is his fault that he didn't lock his car, but it shouldn't be illegal for him to leave his car unlocked. The crime committed here was by the thief.
Likewise, if your computer is used in a DDoS attack on a commercial website, you should not be held responsible unless you intentionally left it vulnerable specifically for use in an attack. The insecure computer has done nothing wrong, the blame is in the hands of the person who used the computer for a malicious attack.
Blaming the owner of the insecure computer is simply cutting one head off of a hydra.
If the RIAA can't find security consultants skilled enough to protect their own site, I'll never believe they found security consultants skilled enough to infect 95% of the computers they target.
Consumers should bear some responsibility for their actions rather than putting even more laws on the books. You shouldn't hire somebody who has no experience setting up certain type of system to build one for you. Period. Sometimes, the burden for getting something done should be placed on the person who needs it, not the government. If you need a computer system, research local consultants and ask for references. There's no reason why the government should have to spend time and money doing something you should be doing yourself.
You make a very good point. I suppose I should have clarified that I don't want popular opinion to only see OSS as what happens to software when companies die. I completely agree with your post, as you bring up an issue that I would truly like to see adopted.
Of course, we'll all take any announcement of the open-sourcing of useful software as good news. However, I hope a trend doesn't develop where OSS becomes known as "what happens to software when companies die." I'd rather see software open-sourced in a profitable way as opposed to the "we're pulling out of the market so why the hell not" way that is becoming more and more common.
US Dollars. He's at a trading desk at a hedge fund. Believe it or not, some people get rich by their own merit.
As a student at MIT, I've watched countless friends consider returning for their Master's but end of leaving to take a high-paying job offer. Why should I go back to school for my masters if I'm looking to start at a great company making 120,000 within weeks of receiving my degree (just an example, I'm still a sophomore and dreaming)?
A close friend will be leaving this year to take 300,000 per year straight out of his undergrad education. He would have absolutely no problem staying to get his Ph.D., the guy is smart as hell. But why?
Maybe the best sign a college could ever have is a rate of 0% Ph.D. production.
As for the approval rating, I was watching CNN yesterday where a few talkings heads were having a discussion about the fact that Bush's approval rating for December will be 49%. I'm not sure of the name of the show, but I wish I would have noticed it so I could mention it here.
Microsoft and the US government are in very similar situations.
Here, we have two extremely powerful entities that are very prone to extend beyond their reasonable range of influence to make everything go exactly the way they want it to.
Both are facing enemies (the US against terrorists, and Microsoft against Linux) that have emerged as a decentralized and nearly attack-proof.
Both have earned a good deal of resentment from the communities which they supposedly serve (MS has people like us constantly bitching while President Bush's approval rating has dropped below 50% this December: and both rightfully so).
Both, despite the great amount of disapproval, appear to be doing nothing to change their situation (except for Bush's recent decision to back down on threats of attacking North Korea, though he intends to push for isolating them economically).
Could a few good leaders in Washington clear this whole mess up? I think so. Now if only such people existed... -sigh-
1) It's not xenophobia. It's a joke. Your boredom stems from your overly-serious approach to internet posting. If I wasn't American, I'd rip on Americans all day. I'm not French, so I'll rip on the French as much as I please. I invite all French readers to reply with their worst, understanding that the interaction will all be in good fun. :-)
2) My list isn't in chronological order. I apologize profusely and pledge to keep all further postings involving multiple events in a timeline format. This appears to be the only actual "correction" that you have made.
3) You said the same thing I did, but you used more details because you google searched for "Raelians" and reported what you found.
4) We all agree here.
5) Anything that involves group sex is at least worth a look.
Maybe Rael hit the wall a few too many times during his racing career: This would explain his status as a "former" race-car driver and as a lunatic.
After previewing this message I decided it was too agressive. I assure you the only reason for this is that I'm bored at work and I'm searching for any source of entertainment I can find. As I've mentioned, internet posting can only be taken seriously to a point.
1) Their leader is French.
2) He calls himself "Rael," moved to Canada, and started a cult.
3) This cult believes that aliens created humans from DNA they brought to Earth.
4) The cult's headquarters is called "UFO Land."
5) They claim to have cloned a human.
Now, why the hell should I believe 5 if 1-4 serve to discredit any idea that intelligence and legitimacy may be present here?
I misread. After I posted I reread your post and re-interpreted it. I now understand what your point was. Thanks.
Problem is, my computer holds information far more important than my TiVo. They can have my TiVo space, but I'll be damned if they touch my computer.
What we are looking at here is a clear case of a company getting a patent for "a device to beat eggs" despite numerous, documented instances of prior art. My analogy works perfectly well.
A wider example might be flying machines. There are thousands of different types of planes, baloons, helicopters, hangliders, and ultralights but each achieve the same goal by different means. Each has their own style, benefits, drawbacks, and potential uses.
I see the general patenting of auto-IM responders as being similar to patenting the idea of human flight. Though every auto-IM responder may have completely different code, handle events in different ways, and interact with different systems, ActiveBuddy owns the idea. That is bullshit.
I can buy 1000 differnt models of cars, why can't I buy 1000 different models of IM responder if each has its own advantages and disadvantages, efficiency, interface, and style.
Thanks for the replies. I had no problem finding pictures on my own, however. My point was that a basic part of a product review, and especially a cool-new-gadget review, should be a clear picture of the iteam.
Would it kill them to put a larger-than-thumbnail picture of the thing up with the review?
Basically, what I got out of this article was that John Carmack is almost single-handedly responsible for all of my non-productive time over the past 10 years. Thanks John!
I read about the situation in Kashmir and I think "man, they really need to get their shit together."
A week later I read that they're planning a moon shot and I think "well, they seem to be on a modern track."
Hopefully, with time and peace I'll be reading more of the latter than of the former.