Porn. People do pay much higher sums for rather obscure or taboo things.
Are we talking porn, or prostitutes? I just can't see paying much, let alone much more for porn. It is mostly not to my tastes, but usually "good enough" to get the job done. Kinda like politicians, except the porn actually helps to get the job done, unlike politicians.
No No, it's tinfoil all right. It says so on the label...wait a minute, how do I know if Fisher Scientific isn't in on it as well...Everyone is conspiring against me...
Pop your undies in the microwave for ten seconds and they won't be reporting back to the mothership, don't worry.
But it is what's in my undies that concerns me...
on another tangent...
But how do I know that my microwave doesn't have an RFID reader that enables it to know that there is an RFID tag inside and it only goes through the motions of microwaving my undies, thereby rendering any RFID chip(s) in my undies untouched and fully functional? Far fetched? Future microwave dinners and popcorn might have RFID tags embedded which tell various microwave oven how long to cook the product. Can I get thicker tinfoil for my hat?
fail? Sure, the Soviet Union failed. Communism can't succeed or fail, it is an ideology. How it is implemented can fail (or succeed). Communism fails to scale up in non homogeneous societies. The typical family unit often employs communism. Resources are shared. Your statement is almost like pointing to Iraq and saying that democracy failed (naysayers would say "but they just need more time!!!").
I singled out Israel because they are believed to have a nuclear force of ~100 to ~200 devices and are also believed to have not conducted any nuclear tests. I would assume they started with viable designs acquired from other countries.
Also, persons working in the US have been known to have spied for Israel, just as there have been those who have spied for the Soviets and every other nuclear nation.
I don't believe that much of this was deliberate on the part of the US (or other) government(s), just that information such as this leaks out. The motives for it leaking out can be varied. Philosophical, political, religious, etc., on down the line to simple greed. These weapons are conceived by groups of people. While information is compartmentalized, pieces here and there leak out. Some hold all the keys and see the entire detailed documentation on a weapon. Others are intimate with the design due to there proximity to the project. Sometimes people are sloppy.
I feel that some people confuse nuclear technology with weapon design. They are related, but weapon design is very different than nuclear fuel production. As for the modern electronics, I presume that those could be updated and tested without involving nuclear detonation. I see two major items to a nuclear weapon: the mechanical and the control (electronics). I would think that the mechanical aspects of a physics package are at least as important as the control. You have to compress two sub-critical masses together. For a compact weapon, this I would think becomes critical. For the first members of the nuclear club, you start with proof of concept designs, then progress to miniaturization, efficiency, boosting, etc. This requires testing. The US and USSR did lots of testing. UK and France have done many tests. Pakistan, what, a handful of critical tests? I would think that the control (electronics) part of a weapon could be updated and modernized, not to mention tested much more easily than the mechanical portion. For one, in wouldn't require nuclear detonations. The Pakistanis could have done a lot of theoretical work and may have tested a few different designs, but I can't imagine that they haven't had viable designs passed to them, deliberately or otherwise.
But the latest design found on Khan network computers in Switzerland, Bangkok and several other cities around the world is half the size and twice the power of the Chinese weapon, with far more modern electronics, the investigators say. The design is in electronic form, they said, making it easy to copy -- and they have no idea how many copies of it are now in circulation.
Investigators said the evidence that the Khan network was trafficking in a tested, compact and efficient bomb design was particularly alarming, because if a country or group obtained the bomb design, the technological information would significantly shorten the time needed to build a weapon. Among the missiles that could carry the smaller weapon, according to some weapons experts, is the Iranian Shahab III, which is based on a North Korean design.
I disagree with your first sentence. The article[the NY Times article excerpted above], according to my reading comprehension, does not clearly state that the design "belongs to Pakistan" in the sense that the design is of Pakistani origin. The Khan network was trafficking bomb designs. It specifically mentions the other design of being Chinese in origin.
I would guess that a compact design would have to be tested in order for it to be trusted.
My guess is that US and Soviet designs are on the black market. Once there, they found themselves on the Khan network. How many persons have this knowledge, or have access to this information? Extrapolate from there.
At least the mapping is consistent and simple enough. Leopard (10.5) > Tiger (10.4) > Panther (10.3) > Jaguar (10.2) > Puma (10.1) > Cheetah (10.0).
What? How is it consistent? That they are all big cats? This is one of my pet peeves as well. I have no idea what version it is when someone refers to tiger or panther (or the others). I have to lookup the version from the codename. Someone else said that Ubuntu uses code names that progress alphabetically. If so, I wouldn't foresee that bothering me like an arbitrary (at least to me, I'm no cat expert) sort order like Apple seems to use. If there is reason behind the sort order, please clue me in.
I agree, but it seems that the machines are used to speed up a tedious (and boring) process. Granted, speed isn't all that important, but you don't want ballot counting to last too long, because the greater the time lag, the greater the possibility of someone tampering with ballots.
It would seem to me that the solution would be manifold. Human legible ballots which are marked. They get scanned by machine and secured (in a ballot box if you will). Machines are chosen at random, and ballots hand counted to verify the result. Exit polls are also taken as another check on accuracy. Common sense provisions are enacted to help prevent ordinary (read, traditional) voter fraud, like enacting methods to prevent dead people from voting. Even then, you cannot prevent voter fraud, only reduce it, and then hopefully reduce it to the point that it would be a statistically irrelevant.
I'm all for old fashioned hand counting of ballots, but is it feasible to count all ballots by hand? Will there be secure methods to ensure that the hand counting isn't tampered with? Just because I can't trust a machine, doesn't mean that I can trust humans in the process. A machine, properly made and audited, Should be unbiased and can do simple things like count votes. There should always be redundant mechanisms to verify the votes. I have problems with any system that uses a method to record votes that requires a machine to read the record.
I'm trying to understand what is so good about an electronic voting machine? Here in my state, we do use an "electronic" voting machine of sorts. It is an optical scan machine. The voter marks a paper ballot with supplied pen, and then the ballot is inserted into the machine for counting. One could verify the count by hand counting the original paper ballots. If the machine is purely electronic with no physical ballot, tampering could occur without detection.
Aside from the astronauts, the closest personnel to a shuttle launch are 1650 meters away. The forward fireman team are in an armored personnel carrier and dressed in reflective fire suits.
"The concept here is making the peer-to-peer networks work for us," says Jay-Z's attorney, Michael Guido. "While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience," and "this technology allows us to market back to them."
So MediaDefender, how does one use P2P to "market" back to users when you go around shutting down P2P servers via DOS attacks?
Yes, and the more I look into it, the whole concept of IP gets weirder and weirder. Look up the history of copyright. Due to technology, things are even murkier today. It is starting to make my head spin.
I also have problems with "inventions" and inventors. If Alexander Bell got hit by a carriage, would the telephone still have come about? Ok, bad example. If Marconi had died of a heart attack, would radio have come about? Ok, another bad example. If Edison had been aborted as a fetus, would the light bulb have come about?
What is the intent of copyright and IP in modern society. Let's throw patents into the debate as well. Do these things still need to exist? Are they useful? Are they productive?
I'm going to latch on to the parent to push forward a few other points:
1: I'm having trouble with the term Anarcho-Capitalism. Looking it up, it seems that the common definition (short version) is anarchists with property The problem is, there are many schools of thought on what anarchism is. Since most people consider "property" to be tangible objects and things like real estate, I would think that in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, there are no IP laws. If you like someones ideas, and feel obligated to somehow compensate them for such ideas, one is always free to do so. Being anarchists, one could also say "fuck you, I'm taking your idea and calling it my own, sucker!" and that would also be acceptable. Depending on one's school of thought of anarchism, the response could range from a simple shrugging of the shoulders to a "oh yeah, how about I come beat your ass" type of response.
2: In what form does the legal system take in an Anarcho-Capitalist society? Is there case-law? Lawyers? Judges? Police? Haven't all modern societies sprung from ultimately an anarchistic (one could argue anarcho-capitalist) roots? Tribes, confederations, democracies, kingdoms, etc. Society is an evolving organism. But I'm drifting off topic.
Fuck it, I'm going to cut this post short. The solution to Intellectual property? Kill all the lawyers, judges, and police. Next question?
But it seems that your are saying that for "national security" all government crackers (those employed by the government to crack targeted networks) should be kept on a tight leash, even post employment, because they have knowledge and skills which cannot be obtained in the private sector.
Slashdot Mirror
Porn. People do pay much higher sums for rather obscure or taboo things.
Are we talking porn, or prostitutes? I just can't see paying much, let alone much more for porn. It is mostly not to my tastes, but usually "good enough" to get the job done. Kinda like politicians, except the porn actually helps to get the job done, unlike politicians.
I can bend spoons with my mind. Mere ads don't stand a chance.
See here:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0132593.html
And so the cat and mouse game begins...
No No, it's tinfoil all right. It says so on the label...wait a minute, how do I know if Fisher Scientific isn't in on it as well... Everyone is conspiring against me...
Pop your undies in the microwave for ten seconds and they won't be reporting back to the mothership, don't worry.
But it is what's in my undies that concerns me...
on another tangent...
But how do I know that my microwave doesn't have an RFID reader that enables it to know that there is an RFID tag inside and it only goes through the motions of microwaving my undies, thereby rendering any RFID chip(s) in my undies untouched and fully functional? Far fetched? Future microwave dinners and popcorn might have RFID tags embedded which tell various microwave oven how long to cook the product. Can I get thicker tinfoil for my hat?
I thought this was news for nerds
That's a 928 Galaxy Space Explorer, too bad it isn't in the original shrink wrap....
fail? Sure, the Soviet Union failed. Communism can't succeed or fail, it is an ideology. How it is implemented can fail (or succeed). Communism fails to scale up in non homogeneous societies. The typical family unit often employs communism. Resources are shared. Your statement is almost like pointing to Iraq and saying that democracy failed (naysayers would say "but they just need more time!!!").
You heard it here, from "Mr. Slippery".
I singled out Israel because they are believed to have a nuclear force of ~100 to ~200 devices and are also believed to have not conducted any nuclear tests. I would assume they started with viable designs acquired from other countries.
Also, persons working in the US have been known to have spied for Israel, just as there have been those who have spied for the Soviets and every other nuclear nation.
I don't believe that much of this was deliberate on the part of the US (or other) government(s), just that information such as this leaks out. The motives for it leaking out can be varied. Philosophical, political, religious, etc., on down the line to simple greed. These weapons are conceived by groups of people. While information is compartmentalized, pieces here and there leak out. Some hold all the keys and see the entire detailed documentation on a weapon. Others are intimate with the design due to there proximity to the project. Sometimes people are sloppy.
I feel that some people confuse nuclear technology with weapon design. They are related, but weapon design is very different than nuclear fuel production. As for the modern electronics, I presume that those could be updated and tested without involving nuclear detonation. I see two major items to a nuclear weapon: the mechanical and the control (electronics). I would think that the mechanical aspects of a physics package are at least as important as the control. You have to compress two sub-critical masses together. For a compact weapon, this I would think becomes critical. For the first members of the nuclear club, you start with proof of concept designs, then progress to miniaturization, efficiency, boosting, etc. This requires testing. The US and USSR did lots of testing. UK and France have done many tests. Pakistan, what, a handful of critical tests? I would think that the control (electronics) part of a weapon could be updated and modernized, not to mention tested much more easily than the mechanical portion. For one, in wouldn't require nuclear detonations. The Pakistanis could have done a lot of theoretical work and may have tested a few different designs, but I can't imagine that they haven't had viable designs passed to them, deliberately or otherwise.
But the latest design found on Khan network computers in Switzerland, Bangkok and several other cities around the world is half the size and twice the power of the Chinese weapon, with far more modern electronics, the investigators say. The design is in electronic form, they said, making it easy to copy -- and they have no idea how many copies of it are now in circulation.
Investigators said the evidence that the Khan network was trafficking in a tested, compact and efficient bomb design was particularly alarming, because if a country or group obtained the bomb design, the technological information would significantly shorten the time needed to build a weapon. Among the missiles that could carry the smaller weapon, according to some weapons experts, is the Iranian Shahab III, which is based on a North Korean design.
I disagree with your first sentence. The article[the NY Times article excerpted above], according to my reading comprehension, does not clearly state that the design "belongs to Pakistan" in the sense that the design is of Pakistani origin. The Khan network was trafficking bomb designs. It specifically mentions the other design of being Chinese in origin.
I would guess that a compact design would have to be tested in order for it to be trusted.
My guess is that US and Soviet designs are on the black market. Once there, they found themselves on the Khan network. How many persons have this knowledge, or have access to this information? Extrapolate from there.
1: US -> Soviet
2: Soviet -> ???
3: ??? -> Khan network
Or:
1: US -> Israel
2: Israel -> ???
3: ??? -> Khan network
Wait, I left out Profit!
Ha ha!
At least the mapping is consistent and simple enough. Leopard (10.5) > Tiger (10.4) > Panther (10.3) > Jaguar (10.2) > Puma (10.1) > Cheetah (10.0).
What? How is it consistent? That they are all big cats? This is one of my pet peeves as well. I have no idea what version it is when someone refers to tiger or panther (or the others). I have to lookup the version from the codename. Someone else said that Ubuntu uses code names that progress alphabetically. If so, I wouldn't foresee that bothering me like an arbitrary (at least to me, I'm no cat expert) sort order like Apple seems to use. If there is reason behind the sort order, please clue me in.
I agree, but it seems that the machines are used to speed up a tedious (and boring) process. Granted, speed isn't all that important, but you don't want ballot counting to last too long, because the greater the time lag, the greater the possibility of someone tampering with ballots.
It would seem to me that the solution would be manifold. Human legible ballots which are marked. They get scanned by machine and secured (in a ballot box if you will). Machines are chosen at random, and ballots hand counted to verify the result. Exit polls are also taken as another check on accuracy. Common sense provisions are enacted to help prevent ordinary (read, traditional) voter fraud, like enacting methods to prevent dead people from voting. Even then, you cannot prevent voter fraud, only reduce it, and then hopefully reduce it to the point that it would be a statistically irrelevant.
I'm all for old fashioned hand counting of ballots, but is it feasible to count all ballots by hand? Will there be secure methods to ensure that the hand counting isn't tampered with? Just because I can't trust a machine, doesn't mean that I can trust humans in the process. A machine, properly made and audited, Should be unbiased and can do simple things like count votes. There should always be redundant mechanisms to verify the votes. I have problems with any system that uses a method to record votes that requires a machine to read the record.
I'm trying to understand what is so good about an electronic voting machine? Here in my state, we do use an "electronic" voting machine of sorts. It is an optical scan machine. The voter marks a paper ballot with supplied pen, and then the ballot is inserted into the machine for counting. One could verify the count by hand counting the original paper ballots. If the machine is purely electronic with no physical ballot, tampering could occur without detection.
whoops, I meant difficult or impossible to spot tampering. Not that tampering is difficult or impossible with an electronic voting machine.
Is that tampering is difficult or impossible on a black box electronic voting machine. Does it spit out a paper trail?
Really. They left one out. I just hope the next president will be able to retail email records and not bypass WH email systems via party email.
...we couldn't put up something more than a fat old white guy again.
You're right. They need to put up a cold New York bitch white women candidate. Oh, wait...
Aside from the astronauts, the closest personnel to a shuttle launch are 1650 meters away. The forward fireman team are in an armored personnel carrier and dressed in reflective fire suits.
The MediaDefender_one-sheet.pdf is interesting.
The money quote is at the end:
"The concept here is making the peer-to-peer networks work for us," says Jay-Z's attorney, Michael Guido. "While peer-to-peer users are stealing the intellectual property, they are also the active music audience," and "this technology allows us to market back to them."
So MediaDefender, how does one use P2P to "market" back to users when you go around shutting down P2P servers via DOS attacks?
Best advice? Don't use your own computer to do the hacking from.
But they won't let me take a bong into the library.
Yes, and the more I look into it, the whole concept of IP gets weirder and weirder. Look up the history of copyright. Due to technology, things are even murkier today. It is starting to make my head spin.
I also have problems with "inventions" and inventors. If Alexander Bell got hit by a carriage, would the telephone still have come about? Ok, bad example. If Marconi had died of a heart attack, would radio have come about? Ok, another bad example. If Edison had been aborted as a fetus, would the light bulb have come about?
What is the intent of copyright and IP in modern society. Let's throw patents into the debate as well. Do these things still need to exist? Are they useful? Are they productive?
Agreed.
I'm going to latch on to the parent to push forward a few other points:
1: I'm having trouble with the term Anarcho-Capitalism. Looking it up, it seems that the common definition (short version) is anarchists with property The problem is, there are many schools of thought on what anarchism is. Since most people consider "property" to be tangible objects and things like real estate, I would think that in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, there are no IP laws. If you like someones ideas, and feel obligated to somehow compensate them for such ideas, one is always free to do so. Being anarchists, one could also say "fuck you, I'm taking your idea and calling it my own, sucker!" and that would also be acceptable. Depending on one's school of thought of anarchism, the response could range from a simple shrugging of the shoulders to a "oh yeah, how about I come beat your ass" type of response.
2: In what form does the legal system take in an Anarcho-Capitalist society? Is there case-law? Lawyers? Judges? Police? Haven't all modern societies sprung from ultimately an anarchistic (one could argue anarcho-capitalist) roots? Tribes, confederations, democracies, kingdoms, etc. Society is an evolving organism. But I'm drifting off topic.
Fuck it, I'm going to cut this post short. The solution to Intellectual property? Kill all the lawyers, judges, and police. Next question?
But it seems that your are saying that for "national security" all government crackers (those employed by the government to crack targeted networks) should be kept on a tight leash, even post employment, because they have knowledge and skills which cannot be obtained in the private sector.
Is that what you are saying?