I don't think I have a major problem, given we're stuck with software patents, with Google Corps patenting of their innovative tech. If Google start patenting stuff that's not theirs and/or is clearly not innovative then I'll definitely have a problem.
Google could "be nice" and not just "not evil" and release the tech via some open source projects. That'd be cool.
>>> "Such a muddle[d], confused, and illogical presentaion of science directly leads to such pseudoscience as intelligent design."
I think you've got your chain of causation confused. Evolutionary theory (at least amongst humans) is not recorded until long after notions of intelligent design. Perhaps you meant "directly leads << to the enforcement of peoples concepts of theories in the realm of >> pseudoscience [such] as intelligent design"?
Funnily enough much of modern day science has a causative link to widespread religious belief be it amongst Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist... in my opinion that's because many of those who seek the truth don't automatically dismiss non-scientific (by which I mean 'objectively empirical non-falsifiable theories') explanations.
On another note, I'm just pondering: if a time machine has ever been invented then will any theories that are currently non-scientific become scientific. For example, currently the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml) is non-falsifiable (but highly unlikely!)... however one could go back in time to the alleged incident and provide objective empirical evidence to show that the story is false. Similarly with other supposed historic events.
Yeah... I saw some of the footage of the "gorilla using a stick for depth measurement", it looked incredibly like "gorilla walking in water and happening to be holding a stick" to me. But I guess you have to be an expert...?
Submerge PC in large vat (well large enough for the PC, small vat for micro PC) of non-conductive liquid of choice. I'd choose something pH neutral and otherwise inert that is unlikey to ionise. Perhaps mineral oil.
Voila, no dust.
Oh and you can swith off your fans too, you might need a stiring mechanism though (quite low frequency should do).
Where is this "free market capitalism" of which you speak? It seems mega-corporations won't even set up factories in UK without substantial government funding; then they expect to be bailed out when they're failing, even though they continue to give money to the shareholders. So part of my tax $currencyUnit goes to make someone who is hugely rich a bit richer whilst I can't afford to eat anything but mince and pasta.
These businesses that pay out to shareholders when they can't afford to should go out of business but they get held up by government for fear of global labour markets.
Ultimately it seems all systems however good get brought down by greedy people. But then if you're an evolutionist that's what should happen - screw the weakling poor and prosper the strong rich.
"There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Che Guevara
In contrast capitalism is all about increased exploitation (ad absurdum). I think the reason capitalistic societies prosper fiscally is that everyone expects everyone else to be a lying scoundrel hell-bent on screwing them over - that way your guard is up. If everyone is expecting benevolence and human-kind-ness then it's easy for someone to sweep in and grab what they wish.
>>> "Corporations should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to give money or goods or favors to politicians"
You're right (I think, but perhaps I'll think some more about that one). However, such rules are unenforceable in practice. How do you determine the line between proper business and favours? Also it's not right that a company director can't favour a friend just because their friend is a politician. Or is it?!
They're groups of people. They get together and decide what to do. Usually the controlling body of shareholders says "do wtf you want as long as I make oodles of money".
People hide within the group and don't care if they have Nike shares and Nike abuses child labour (an example from the 90's). The people say "great, more money for me"; then when it becomes public they say "oh shame on Nike".
What is possibly worse is that we, as consumers, say "your doing great" by buying the mega-corps products. There are few markets where there isn't a _more_ ethical alternative.
If the corporations, the groups of people are soul-less... that's because the individuals don't bring their souls into their finances. Spending power can change the world. Look at the Fair Trade movement (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/)... heck don't just look, do something about it.
>>> "if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases"
I have to disagree. Whilst it's pure conjecture (what on/. isn't??) I think that the police could well respond to all reported homicides and still find time to do some of their other police work. My understanding of "went after" may be different to yours, but in the UK at least I think police investigate all reported criminal killings. I reckon it would be quite a story "bodies lying in street 2 weeks after report filed - police say: we'll get on it soon".
If they genuinely only went after the most serious crimes, after a number of years those crimes would become less prevalent (but probably not eliminated - unless we're talking about something petty) freeing manpower to work on other lesser crimes. But the public wouldn't stand for 8 years without investigation into non-violent robbery!?!
>>> "Don't open any suspicious attachments, especially from someone you don't know."
Office Worker 1: I wonder if this attachment is suspicious... no it's santa on a sleigh... Hey!? Where'd my windows go? Office Worker 2: Oh, don't worry I have the same email, I'll have a look at it for you... Hey!? Where'd my windows go? Office Worker 3: What happened? Office Worker 1: We got an email from George Bush, I think he "hacked" [waves fingers in the air] our computers.
>>> "A massive number of mail administrators don't know how to configure their mailservers thus allowing this to happen."
I don't know how to setup sendmail...! However, it's too late if the email has to be sent to the server before it's rejected. The email client should ask the server it's max attachment size and then warn users before the mail is sent. The email client should also be settable to warn idiots that it's going to take a dialup recipient (but say "ordinary user") 3 days to download the file they're trying to send them.
But if you skip a step and instead of working on A2 looking like A1, you have A2 looking like A then you've cracked it.
This guys patching garbage at the head of a file to create an A2 (= garbage.A) that looks like A and has the same md5 hash value. If he can but the garbage inside A or at the end, then he has an attack vector as far as I can see. You'd think A2 were A, execute it and maybe later find it wasn't.
As others have said, hashes (eg checksums) are numerical methods performed to produce a small number from a large one.
The hash is complex so that when you have the small number it's hard to work out the large one. But imagine my hash p(n) takes number n between 10000 and 20000 and returns a single digit. The number of collisions is huge. I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking an "n" that gets the same hash as your number, "m" say. What I can't do is workout your "m".
With passwords however. Most collissions aren't proper words. So a human can readily check which collision matches. Try a search for "jack the ripper".
But there are always going to be some false positives...
If she was behaving suspiciously in a tube station wearing a large coat, carrying a rucksack (or other large package), perhaps wearing a yashmak, and displaying - after continued observation - signs of potentially threatening behaviour. I'd hope a policeman might speak to her, perhaps look in her bag and pockets.
If then they found electronic devices and... suspicious materials. I'd want them to look into it a little. Perhaps call her workplace.
If her workplace then said she doesn't normally ride the tube, nor wear a yashmak and police HQ confirmed that members of her workplace had been spotted taking photos of tube stations and further that her workplace had been involved in firearms and bomb reports. I'd hope that they might consider further action.
If a judge then concurred that evidence from her laptop warranted a further check of her home then I'd hope that would be carried out. When they then found that she had a radio scanner (can be used to monitor police radio channels) and various unindentifiable electronic devices as well as a map of a large metropolitan airport at her flat. I'd hope that they ask questions.
It sucks to be falsely accused. Yes I've been detained by police (but not to this extent) and used to always get baggage searched at airports (I'm young and have a beard to match my rucksack!).
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
I don't doubt the "victim"'s report. I just feel his incredulous response is not warranted. But I expect I'd be pissed too.
So in summary: The guy was acting suspiciously (no eye contact, looking around, head down as he passed police). His workplace was associated with a potential firearms threat and with people taking photos of tube stations. He's wearing a heavy coat and rucksack. He appears to be hiding his appearance (confirmed later by contacting his work and asking for a description... he doesn't wear glasses, except today). He's carrying electronics including a small IC in his pocket (old staff pass), which could be a transceiver. In his flat he has myriad unidentifiable electronic devices... what they do recognise are a [police] scanner and maps of a major airport.
That's just so narrow minded. Who'd do that? You use the same profile. No-one's expecting the same again. All the narrowminded people are expecting a change of tack!
You can't tell.
Unless you're the next bomber. In which case I apologise, I was wrong, Allah hates your cold blooded murder and will condemn you to eternal separation from him.
>>> "However I think the rest of what happens is absurd."
Of course we're left guessing what the police found on his laptop that suggested they should take him down the station! Given the paper trail that a police officer has to produce if he so much as speaks to someone, I'd have thought that he'd have some justification.
[Oh and this differs from instantaneous situations as the arresting officer has to book the guy in to the station and explain the reasons for suspicion and declare the charge being brought]
Perhaps his desktop wallpaper had a picture of Osama and files called "suicide - fasttrack to heaven.doc" on it - which in my opinion would warrant further investigation given the degree of suspicion raised from other observations.
We don't have enough facts here to judge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1181972 is a useful summary of how and when police can detain and search. He says that he was detained "for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance" - a judge must then have issued a warrant. What grounds of suspicion (given this is after the body search) did they have?
The reason another person carrying a bulky rucksack and wearing a large coat in late summer wouldn't be detained is going to be largely to do with body language I'd have thought. They observed the guy first. He himself admits he's going to look suspicious due to changed appearance (glasses he doesn't normally wear) and apparent attempt to conceal his identity - looking down (yes he's trying not to fall, but who'd know) wearing dark colours and a baseball cap.
Then we get to the stuff taken from his flat. He doesn't look too clean... a "radio scanner" (used to monitor police radio?!) "maps of prague and London Heathrow", small electronic items that a policeman wouldn't recognise as not malicious (eg remote detonation devices), hacking paraphenalia. His profile isn't going to look great based on this search. I'd want to look into that further...
Then he goes on "Isn't a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state?". Maybe. So what, what harm is it doing. If the police were to expunge the information kept about your arrest, what do they do when you then claim you were beaten up? And why do you need the CCTV footage (which they doubtless can't give you as they show other peoples activities too). He does have a right to know what info they retain. If it's factual, what's the problem.
So in summary: The guy was acting suspiciously (no eye contact, looking around, head down as he passed police). His workplace was associated with a potential firearms threat and with people taking photos of tube stations. He's wearing a heavy coat and rucksack. He appears to be hiding his appearance (confirmed later by contacting his work and asking for a description... he doesn't wear glasses, except today). He's carrying electronics including a small IC in his pocket (old staff pass), which could be a transceiver. In his flat he has myriad unidentifiable electronic devices... what they do recognise are a [police] scanner and maps of a major airport.
I think the police were right to check him out.
They appear to have been courteous and professional and even let him call his girlfriend.
Cars often have a graphical user interface (dashboard display) that indicates when a garage service is required. You don't need to know about oil changes you just take the car to the garage when the light comes on with the little man on it.
Computers should be set up more like this for non-geeks. Yes I know you can do more to make things easy for non-geeks (I want to say "idiots", but that's not quite fair, is it??) - for example, 3 icons on the Kicker, "internet", "email", "[open]office[.org]".
Your email app should have a (switch-offable, eg via an install option "I am not an idiot [o]") nag that says "this email will take an average user 3 years and 42 days to download, do you really want to send it?".
Re:Can't Colgate sue "someone" for using the AJAX
on
Better Web Apps With Ajax
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No.
You're thinking, no doubt (?), of trademark law. Trademarks are technology specific. So unless "someone" is creating a cleaning solution and "passing off" that product as Colgates (?) Ajax...
I'd have thought that Slashdot had great sway with advertisers. Perhaps if they put out a note to all advertisers saying "we won't carry any non standard compliant code from DDMMYYYY onwards".
But then that would require principles beyond the capitalist ethic of most corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
>>> It's obviously bad
I don't think I have a major problem, given we're stuck with software patents, with Google Corps patenting of their innovative tech. If Google start patenting stuff that's not theirs and/or is clearly not innovative then I'll definitely have a problem.
Google could "be nice" and not just "not evil" and release the tech via some open source projects. That'd be cool.
>>> "Such a muddle[d], confused, and illogical presentaion of science directly leads to such pseudoscience as intelligent design."
... in my opinion that's because many of those who seek the truth don't automatically dismiss non-scientific (by which I mean 'objectively empirical non-falsifiable theories') explanations.
... however one could go back in time to the alleged incident and provide objective empirical evidence to show that the story is false. Similarly with other supposed historic events.
... there I go again ...
I think you've got your chain of causation confused. Evolutionary theory (at least amongst humans) is not recorded until long after notions of intelligent design. Perhaps you meant "directly leads << to the enforcement of peoples concepts of theories in the realm of >> pseudoscience [such] as intelligent design"?
Funnily enough much of modern day science has a causative link to widespread religious belief be it amongst Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist
On another note, I'm just pondering: if a time machine has ever been invented then will any theories that are currently non-scientific become scientific. For example, currently the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml) is non-falsifiable (but highly unlikely!)
Oh damn
This is the capitalist way after all.
This might be the first time I can genuinely say "LOL".
Yeah ... I saw some of the footage of the "gorilla using a stick for depth measurement", it looked incredibly like "gorilla walking in water and happening to be holding a stick" to me. But I guess you have to be an expert ...?
As would connecting your USB devices ... or you could just have an external hub. ;0)>
Submerge PC in large vat (well large enough for the PC, small vat for micro PC) of non-conductive liquid of choice. I'd choose something pH neutral and otherwise inert that is unlikey to ionise. Perhaps mineral oil.
...
Voila, no dust.
Oh and you can swith off your fans too, you might need a stiring mechanism though (quite low frequency should do).
Google it, it's out there
Where is this "free market capitalism" of which you speak? It seems mega-corporations won't even set up factories in UK without substantial government funding; then they expect to be bailed out when they're failing, even though they continue to give money to the shareholders. So part of my tax $currencyUnit goes to make someone who is hugely rich a bit richer whilst I can't afford to eat anything but mince and pasta.
These businesses that pay out to shareholders when they can't afford to should go out of business but they get held up by government for fear of global labour markets.
Ultimately it seems all systems however good get brought down by greedy people. But then if you're an evolutionist that's what should happen - screw the weakling poor and prosper the strong rich.
"There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Che Guevara
In contrast capitalism is all about increased exploitation (ad absurdum). I think the reason capitalistic societies prosper fiscally is that everyone expects everyone else to be a lying scoundrel hell-bent on screwing them over - that way your guard is up. If everyone is expecting benevolence and human-kind-ness then it's easy for someone to sweep in and grab what they wish.
>>> "Corporations should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to give money or goods or favors to politicians"
You're right (I think, but perhaps I'll think some more about that one). However, such rules are unenforceable in practice. How do you determine the line between proper business and favours? Also it's not right that a company director can't favour a friend just because their friend is a politician. Or is it?!
They're groups of people. They get together and decide what to do. Usually the controlling body of shareholders says "do wtf you want as long as I make oodles of money".
... that's because the individuals don't bring their souls into their finances. Spending power can change the world. Look at the Fair Trade movement (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/) ... heck don't just look, do something about it.
People hide within the group and don't care if they have Nike shares and Nike abuses child labour (an example from the 90's). The people say "great, more money for me"; then when it becomes public they say "oh shame on Nike".
What is possibly worse is that we, as consumers, say "your doing great" by buying the mega-corps products. There are few markets where there isn't a _more_ ethical alternative.
If the corporations, the groups of people are soul-less
>>> "if they only went after the most serious crimes, burglary, arson, and assault would never be investigated because there will always be homicide cases"
/. isn't??) I think that the police could well respond to all reported homicides and still find time to do some of their other police work. My understanding of "went after" may be different to yours, but in the UK at least I think police investigate all reported criminal killings. I reckon it would be quite a story "bodies lying in street 2 weeks after report filed - police say: we'll get on it soon".
I have to disagree. Whilst it's pure conjecture (what on
If they genuinely only went after the most serious crimes, after a number of years those crimes would become less prevalent (but probably not eliminated - unless we're talking about something petty) freeing manpower to work on other lesser crimes. But the public wouldn't stand for 8 years without investigation into non-violent robbery!?!
>>> "Don't open any suspicious attachments, especially from someone you don't know."
... no it's santa on a sleigh ... Hey!? Where'd my windows go? ... Hey!? Where'd my windows go?
Office Worker 1: I wonder if this attachment is suspicious
Office Worker 2: Oh, don't worry I have the same email, I'll have a look at it for you
Office Worker 3: What happened?
Office Worker 1: We got an email from George Bush, I think he "hacked" [waves fingers in the air] our computers.
???
>>> "A massive number of mail administrators don't know how to configure their mailservers thus allowing this to happen."
...! However, it's too late if the email has to be sent to the server before it's rejected. The email client should ask the server it's max attachment size and then warn users before the mail is sent. The email client should also be settable to warn idiots that it's going to take a dialup recipient (but say "ordinary user") 3 days to download the file they're trying to send them.
I don't know how to setup sendmail
Do any clients do that yet?
But if you skip a step and instead of working on A2 looking like A1, you have A2 looking like A then you've cracked it.
This guys patching garbage at the head of a file to create an A2 (= garbage.A) that looks like A and has the same md5 hash value. If he can but the garbage inside A or at the end, then he has an attack vector as far as I can see. You'd think A2 were A, execute it and maybe later find it wasn't.
Perhaps I shoudl RTFA now??
But he, Sir, is not!
As others have said, hashes (eg checksums) are numerical methods performed to produce a small number from a large one.
The hash is complex so that when you have the small number it's hard to work out the large one. But imagine my hash p(n) takes number n between 10000 and 20000 and returns a single digit. The number of collisions is huge. I have a 1 in 10 chance of picking an "n" that gets the same hash as your number, "m" say. What I can't do is workout your "m".
With passwords however. Most collissions aren't proper words. So a human can readily check which collision matches. Try a search for "jack the ripper".
>>> Does that mean she's a terrorist ?
...
... suspicious materials. I'd want them to look into it a little. Perhaps call her workplace.
No.
But there are always going to be some false positives
If she was behaving suspiciously in a tube station wearing a large coat, carrying a rucksack (or other large package), perhaps wearing a yashmak, and displaying - after continued observation - signs of potentially threatening behaviour. I'd hope a policeman might speak to her, perhaps look in her bag and pockets.
If then they found electronic devices and
If her workplace then said she doesn't normally ride the tube, nor wear a yashmak and police HQ confirmed that members of her workplace had been spotted taking photos of tube stations and further that her workplace had been involved in firearms and bomb reports. I'd hope that they might consider further action.
If a judge then concurred that evidence from her laptop warranted a further check of her home then I'd hope that would be carried out. When they then found that she had a radio scanner (can be used to monitor police radio channels) and various unindentifiable electronic devices as well as a map of a large metropolitan airport at her flat. I'd hope that they ask questions.
It sucks to be falsely accused. Yes I've been detained by police (but not to this extent) and used to always get baggage searched at airports (I'm young and have a beard to match my rucksack!).
The police don't want to do this. But they'd rather do this than stand by as people get blown up. There were a lot of "indicators" here.
I don't doubt the "victim"'s report. I just feel his incredulous response is not warranted. But I expect I'd be pissed too.
Good job you posted AC, else they'd of stuck you good.
!
Unless you can get that small Wisconsin roof to undergo spontaneous nuclear fusion ... then I think you'd get a bit more out of it!!!
Just harnessing the damn power is the clincher.
>>> guys dressed in suits and carrying briefcases
I thought it was going to be 80 year old grannies with knitting bags.
>>> "slightly suspicious"
... he doesn't wear glasses, except today). He's carrying electronics including a small IC in his pocket (old staff pass), which could be a transceiver. In his flat he has myriad unidentifiable electronic devices ... what they do recognise are a [police] scanner and maps of a major airport.
So in summary: The guy was acting suspiciously (no eye contact, looking around, head down as he passed police). His workplace was associated with a potential firearms threat and with people taking photos of tube stations. He's wearing a heavy coat and rucksack. He appears to be hiding his appearance (confirmed later by contacting his work and asking for a description
I think the police were right to check him out.
That's just so narrow minded. Who'd do that? You use the same profile. No-one's expecting the same again. All the narrowminded people are expecting a change of tack!
You can't tell.
Unless you're the next bomber. In which case I apologise, I was wrong, Allah hates your cold blooded murder and will condemn you to eternal separation from him.
>>> "However I think the rest of what happens is absurd."
... a "radio scanner" (used to monitor police radio?!) "maps of prague and London Heathrow", small electronic items that a policeman wouldn't recognise as not malicious (eg remote detonation devices), hacking paraphenalia. His profile isn't going to look great based on this search. I'd want to look into that further ...
... he doesn't wear glasses, except today). He's carrying electronics including a small IC in his pocket (old staff pass), which could be a transceiver. In his flat he has myriad unidentifiable electronic devices ... what they do recognise are a [police] scanner and maps of a major airport.
Of course we're left guessing what the police found on his laptop that suggested they should take him down the station! Given the paper trail that a police officer has to produce if he so much as speaks to someone, I'd have thought that he'd have some justification.
[Oh and this differs from instantaneous situations as the arresting officer has to book the guy in to the station and explain the reasons for suspicion and declare the charge being brought]
Perhaps his desktop wallpaper had a picture of Osama and files called "suicide - fasttrack to heaven.doc" on it - which in my opinion would warrant further investigation given the degree of suspicion raised from other observations.
We don't have enough facts here to judge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1181972 is a useful summary of how and when police can detain and search. He says that he was detained "for suspicious behaviour and public nuisance" - a judge must then have issued a warrant. What grounds of suspicion (given this is after the body search) did they have?
The reason another person carrying a bulky rucksack and wearing a large coat in late summer wouldn't be detained is going to be largely to do with body language I'd have thought. They observed the guy first. He himself admits he's going to look suspicious due to changed appearance (glasses he doesn't normally wear) and apparent attempt to conceal his identity - looking down (yes he's trying not to fall, but who'd know) wearing dark colours and a baseball cap.
Then we get to the stuff taken from his flat. He doesn't look too clean
Then he goes on "Isn't a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state?". Maybe. So what, what harm is it doing. If the police were to expunge the information kept about your arrest, what do they do when you then claim you were beaten up? And why do you need the CCTV footage (which they doubtless can't give you as they show other peoples activities too). He does have a right to know what info they retain. If it's factual, what's the problem.
So in summary: The guy was acting suspiciously (no eye contact, looking around, head down as he passed police). His workplace was associated with a potential firearms threat and with people taking photos of tube stations. He's wearing a heavy coat and rucksack. He appears to be hiding his appearance (confirmed later by contacting his work and asking for a description
I think the police were right to check him out.
They appear to have been courteous and professional and even let him call his girlfriend.
Cars often have a graphical user interface (dashboard display) that indicates when a garage service is required. You don't need to know about oil changes you just take the car to the garage when the light comes on with the little man on it.
Computers should be set up more like this for non-geeks. Yes I know you can do more to make things easy for non-geeks (I want to say "idiots", but that's not quite fair, is it??) - for example, 3 icons on the Kicker, "internet", "email", "[open]office[.org]".
Your email app should have a (switch-offable, eg via an install option "I am not an idiot [o]") nag that says "this email will take an average user 3 years and 42 days to download, do you really want to send it?".
No.
...
You're thinking, no doubt (?), of trademark law. Trademarks are technology specific. So unless "someone" is creating a cleaning solution and "passing off" that product as Colgates (?) Ajax
Colgate could still sue. But they shouldn't win!
I'd have thought that Slashdot had great sway with advertisers. Perhaps if they put out a note to all advertisers saying "we won't carry any non standard compliant code from DDMMYYYY onwards".
But then that would require principles beyond the capitalist ethic of most corporations.