What are the privacy implications if the study only uses anonymized location data, i.e. "in this field of 100m x 100m", there is a cell phone which now moves to this field etc.?
I think there are none. At least not any new ones than those implications by using cell phones at all. The data about who uses which cell when does exist already and it needs to exist, in the current state, at all times in the phone system (how would you route calls without this information?)
Privacy concerns can surely be raised about storing such tracking profiles attached to particular persons. But just anonymized usage patterns?
People view their computers as their do their cars - goods beyond their comprehension that they can USE.
You still need a driver's license for the car in most countries. You do not need how exactly the transmission works, but you do need to have shallow knowledge of how cars behave and work.
I do not propose a 'computer license', but given that computers are at least as complex as cars, there is some knowledge required for using them.
Additionally, it is actually way easier and cheaper to gain knowledge about computers: Learning-by-doing. This is not possible (without assitance) in the case of cars.
It is not "streaming audio". Streaming requires enormous bandwidth in order to play in real time.
Well, but the overall volume of data transferred is roughly the same. Most providers I know today bill in bits and not in bits per second.
A Podcast is downloaded and saved to the subscriber's disk for playback at a later time. It does not matter, therefore, if limited bandwidth means that a twenty minute episode will take fourty minutes to download
So, it is an advantage that you first have to download everything until you can play it?
No, podcasting is not the solution for poor man's radio. Properly supported and implemented multicasting would be the first thing to do on the lower level protocols to support more grass root 'broadcasting', but people are somehow unwilling/too stupid to realize this.
Instead, buzzword loaded 'technologies' like "podcast-torrents" are taken are seen as the holy grail.
The mind (by definition) cannot be explained by science
Very good point, but you'll soon see 100s of posts by/. people taking science as their religion:-)
And, no, I am not saying that one can't think/talk or reason about 'the mind'. It is just that one can only do it in the general context of philosophy where everything remains ambigous (because there are different premises you can choose from).
To add to something to the general debate, I once found this Einstein's conventions and interpretations were sometimes ambivalent and varied a little over the years; however an examination of his papers and books on relativity shows that he almost never used relativistic mass himself.
Well, some people here on slashdot hold the view that a "clean" genetic pool with a few people starving, dying of curable diseases etc. is somehow better than helping humans. Disgusting.
What if a human volunteered his inital cells to grow meat in a vat? No cruelty. You can't get more ethical than that, and you would still get to eat Matt. Where is the (-1, Icky) moderation when you need it??
If the earth and sun were actually the only two objects out there they would actually orbit each other in the way two stars can be seen to do; though the movement of the sun would be extremely extremely slight. Kepler's laws deal with one body and a static gravity well.
Well, there is the 'two' body problem of a spacecraft moving around a planet (very small mass vs. unbelievable big mass) that is, I think sometimes also called the one-body problem esp. in math contexts - your static gravity well.
The two body problem in the mathematical sense (two masses with arbitrary values orbiting each other) also gives kepler ellipses (in a frame of reference where the center of gravity rests!), 'reduced masses' are used. I.e. the two body problem can be reduced to the one body problem with the masses orbiting one virtual mass.
would think that if the probes were not capable of course correction that they would need to factor in relativity, specifically if they want to land within a certain area on Mars. I'm only speculating here, but I think you'd get more precise results (than using GR) if mars' atmosphere is modelled correctly and all the things which can affect its density (temperature etc.) get proper attention.
Anyway he told us that most of the mathematical calculations that the Space Flight Center here in Houston use are the "simple" Newtonian laws of motion. Sure. To use Einstein's general relativity would be overkill as the changes are too small.
But Newtons laws can get arbitrarily complex with the number of bodies that go into the equation.
One is newton's axiom. Two is still easy and taught in school. Kepler ellipses etc. Together with the rocket equation (also only newton), it gives everything needed to go to earth orbit.
But.. three is not analytically solvable. From there, numerics takes over and this is still a very active field of research, still far from perfect. But they're surely good enough:-)
Re:Kill profits by consuming resources
on
Spammers on the Run
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I think so, too. And, as far as I can see, the most important resource consumed is the spammer's time to sort the replies to his/her which MAY BE LEGITIMATE.
Doesn't sound that familiar?
Maybe spammers will use some modified version of spamassassin to filter for replies to their spam:-)
This all sounds very reasonable and careful. Why are the FSF people -esp. RMS- portrayed as being zealots here on/.? Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.
[Nice to see] that evolution continues, even in the bleeding heart charity world. Whereas before, organisms with genetic defects were simply unfit to survive, now they are denied employement. They should at least give you a darwin award before kicking you out of the gene pool.
Social behaviour evolved in animals for a reason. You obviously do not share this trait. Time will tell if you (and your descendants!) are 'fit' in the evolutionary sense:-)
I suspect that this will become one of the thornier issues facing future decision makers.
IMHO, this is spot on (and you deserve mod points for this), but I don't think that your post's title "morality vs. science: equality vs. inequality" is correct:
Science does not say anything about morality. Both are part of philosophy, but there are few intersecting areas.
It is not a 'vs'. 'Science arguments' are just improperly used on both sides.
For example, from science we learn (*) that we're descendants from apes. That there is no reason to exclude us from the group of animals.
Yet, there is no scientific argument for humans slaugthering and eating each other or for abandoning the idea of human rights.
Science produces facts, not premises on how we should behave or what to do. We may refer to such facts for policy-making, but there is a big indirection here...:)
I think (this is not the first time I post this idea) that a lot of these creationists are afraid of science for exactly this reason. Irrational, of course. But somewhat 'understandable'.
I don't see the difference in a perfect "RIA" and applications running on X, forwarded through an ssh tunnel. Or a nomachine NX (for the efficiency) server or whatever.
HTML/HTTP/the web was once just a platform for hypertext. Somehow, everything nowadays must go through HTTP in an XML format.
This is not meant as a flamebait, really. But it seems that there are a lot of parallels and unneccessary(?) reinventions.
People work in safer jobs now and are a lot less likely to get killed at work. Due to all of these things combined, it is now possible for someone who would have previously been a "Darwin award winner" to live a long life. Perhaps this explains why we seem to have more stupid people in society now, since there are fewer ways for them to accidentally kill themselves.
Well - this is, in other words, describing what I was trying to say: Do you think returning to such conditions would be a good thing?
I don't think that even stupid people deserve to 'accidentally kill themselves'.
...if humanity does not want to end in a very harsh social darwinistic society.
More and more it is accepted to let the individual suffer for 'the gene pool'. Alot of this can be attributed to the only crude methods which are available. Either reproduction is prevented (the lesser evil) or even individuals are exterminated (god beware -but the end of the slippery slope).
Although I don't think that a 'better' but more narrow gene pool is good at all, this seems to be what the population in the western world wants. Instead of cruelty, it would be better to have the methods available to save the individuals from harm.
After all, what is the point of inventing the perfect homo sapiens? Is it good to narrow the gene pool that much with this increased, additional pressure?
is a P2P layer on top of this complete with efficient, distributed and secure search. A good P2P search engine is still missing and (IMHO) one of the more important things needed, last but not least for political reasons (privacy, censorship etc.).
That would make it possible to give back control of every aspect of the 'web experience' to the user.
Ok, maybe you do not belong to this group (I don't know), but I'd like to know the opinion of those people who don't trust 'the government to do it right' yet still are pro death penalty. Without doubt, this is the most influence the government has on an individual's life.
Really, this simply does not fit into my mind. Anyone here to explain it for me?
Thank you! It seems that even on/., people are blindly led by such phrases as 'IWTBF'. It is somewhat sad, but at least the mods care about rationality today:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What are the privacy implications if the study only uses anonymized location data, i.e. "in this field of 100m x 100m", there is a cell phone which now moves to this field etc.?
I think there are none. At least not any new ones than those implications by using cell phones at all.
The data about who uses which cell when does exist already and it needs to exist, in the current state, at all times in the phone system (how would you route calls without this information?)
Privacy concerns can surely be raised about storing such tracking profiles attached to particular persons. But just anonymized usage patterns?
for just 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt
:-)
I hope they mean kilowatt-hour otherwise that is pretty damn expensive
Just pay your electricity in euro/dollar hours and you'll be fine
People view their computers as their do their cars - goods beyond their comprehension that they can USE.
You still need a driver's license for the car in most countries. You do not need how exactly the transmission works, but you do need to have shallow knowledge of how cars behave and work.
I do not propose a 'computer license', but given that computers are at least as complex as cars, there is some knowledge required for using them.
Additionally, it is actually way easier and cheaper to gain knowledge about computers: Learning-by-doing. This is not possible (without assitance) in the case of cars.
It is not "streaming audio". Streaming requires enormous bandwidth in order to play in real time.
Well, but the overall volume of data transferred is roughly the same. Most providers I know today bill in bits and not in bits per second.
A Podcast is downloaded and saved to the subscriber's disk for playback at a later time.
It does not matter, therefore, if limited bandwidth means that a twenty minute episode will take fourty minutes to download
So, it is an advantage that you first have to download everything until you can play it?
No, podcasting is not the solution for poor man's
radio. Properly supported and implemented multicasting would be the first thing to do on the lower level protocols to support more grass root 'broadcasting', but people are somehow unwilling/too stupid to realize this.
Instead, buzzword loaded 'technologies' like "podcast-torrents" are taken are seen as the holy grail.
The mind (by definition) cannot be explained by science
/. people taking science as their religion :-)
Very good point, but you'll soon see 100s of posts by
And, no, I am not saying that one can't think/talk or reason about 'the mind'. It is just that one can only do it in the general context of philosophy where everything remains ambigous (because there are different premises you can choose from).
Maybe a '(Score: +5, Insightful)' of this story tells something about the average /. reader?
Sigh. PLEASE THINK BEFORE MODDING!!!
Mod parent up, this one is right. GP is WRONG!
To add to something to the general debate, I once found this
Einstein's conventions and interpretations were sometimes ambivalent and varied a little over the years; however an examination of his papers and books on relativity shows that he almost never used relativistic mass himself.
from this source.
It makes perfect sense.
:-)
All these worms are written by spammers who want to turn the machines into zombied SMTP servers. They want to disable other exploitive processes.
Maybe this view is outdated, but I still see my PC as a tool and not a virtual biotope where every kind of artificial live grows
Well, some people here on slashdot hold the view that a "clean" genetic pool with a few people starving, dying of curable diseases etc. is somehow better than helping humans. Disgusting.
What if a human volunteered his inital cells to grow meat in a vat? No cruelty. You can't get more ethical than that, and you would still get to eat Matt.
Where is the (-1, Icky) moderation when you need it??
If the earth and sun were actually the only two objects out there they would actually orbit each other in the way two stars can be seen to do; though the movement of the sun would be extremely extremely slight. Kepler's laws deal with one body and a static gravity well.
Well, there is the 'two' body problem of a spacecraft moving around a planet (very small mass vs. unbelievable big mass) that is, I think sometimes also called the one-body problem esp. in math contexts - your static gravity well.
The two body problem in the mathematical sense (two masses with arbitrary values orbiting each other) also gives kepler ellipses (in a frame of reference where the center of gravity rests!), 'reduced masses' are used. I.e. the two body problem can be reduced to the one body problem with the masses orbiting one virtual mass.
would think that if the probes were not capable of course correction that they would need to factor in relativity, specifically if they want to land within a certain area on Mars.
I'm only speculating here, but I think you'd get more precise results (than using GR) if mars' atmosphere is modelled correctly and all the things which can affect its density (temperature etc.) get proper attention.
Anyway he told us that most of the mathematical calculations that the Space Flight Center here in Houston use are the "simple" Newtonian laws of motion.
:-)
Sure. To use Einstein's general relativity would be overkill as the changes are too small.
But Newtons laws can get arbitrarily complex with the number of bodies that go into the equation.
One is newton's axiom.
Two is still easy and taught in school. Kepler ellipses etc. Together with the rocket equation (also only newton), it gives everything needed to go to earth orbit.
But.. three is not analytically solvable. From there, numerics takes over and this is still a very active field of research, still far from perfect. But they're surely good enough
I think so, too.
:-)
And, as far as I can see, the most important resource consumed is the spammer's time to sort the replies to his/her which MAY BE LEGITIMATE.
Doesn't sound that familiar?
Maybe spammers will use some modified version of spamassassin to filter for replies to their spam
A well written post, thank you, another link for my bookmark collection :-)
This all sounds very reasonable and careful. Why are the FSF people -esp. RMS- portrayed as being zealots here on /.?
Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.
[Nice to see] that evolution continues, even in the bleeding heart charity world. Whereas before, organisms with genetic defects were simply unfit to survive, now they are denied employement. They should at least give you a darwin award before kicking you out of the gene pool.
:-)
Social behaviour evolved in animals for a reason. You obviously do not share this trait. Time will tell if you (and your descendants!) are 'fit' in the evolutionary sense
I suspect that this will become one of the thornier issues facing future decision makers.
:)
IMHO, this is spot on (and you deserve mod points for this), but I don't think that your post's title "morality vs. science: equality vs. inequality" is correct:
Science does not say anything about morality. Both are part of philosophy, but there are few intersecting areas.
It is not a 'vs'. 'Science arguments' are just improperly used on both sides.
For example, from science we learn (*) that we're descendants from apes. That there is no reason to exclude us from the group of animals.
Yet, there is no scientific argument for humans slaugthering and eating each other or for abandoning the idea of human rights.
Science produces facts, not premises on how we should behave or what to do. We may refer to such facts for policy-making, but there is a big indirection here...
I think (this is not the first time I post this idea) that a lot of these creationists are afraid of science for exactly this reason. Irrational, of course. But somewhat 'understandable'.
I don't see the difference in a perfect "RIA" and applications running on X, forwarded through an ssh tunnel. Or a nomachine NX (for the efficiency) server or whatever.
HTML/HTTP/the web was once just a platform for hypertext. Somehow, everything nowadays must go through HTTP in an XML format.
This is not meant as a flamebait, really. But it seems that there are a lot of parallels and unneccessary(?) reinventions.
People work in safer jobs now and are a lot less likely to get killed at work. Due to all of these things combined, it is now possible for someone who would have previously been a "Darwin award winner" to live a long life. Perhaps this explains why we seem to have more stupid people in society now, since there are fewer ways for them to accidentally kill themselves.
Well - this is, in other words, describing what I was trying to say: Do you think returning to such conditions would be a good thing?
I don't think that even stupid people deserve to 'accidentally kill themselves'.
...if humanity does not want to end in a very harsh social darwinistic society.
More and more it is accepted to let the individual suffer for 'the gene pool'.
Alot of this can be attributed to the only crude methods which are available. Either reproduction is prevented (the lesser evil) or even individuals are exterminated (god beware -but the end of the slippery slope).
Although I don't think that a 'better' but more narrow gene pool is good at all, this seems to be what the population in the western world wants.
Instead of cruelty, it would be better to have the methods available to save the individuals from harm.
After all, what is the point of inventing the perfect homo sapiens? Is it good to narrow the gene pool that much with this increased, additional pressure?
Looks interesting, thanks for the link! :)
is a P2P layer on top of this complete with efficient, distributed and secure search. A good P2P search engine is still missing and (IMHO) one of the more important things needed, last but not least for political reasons (privacy, censorship etc.).
:-)
That would make it possible to give back control of every aspect of the 'web experience' to the user.
Ok, I'm dreaming
Ok, maybe you do not belong to this group (I don't know), but I'd like to know the opinion of those people who don't trust 'the government to do it right' yet still are pro death penalty. Without doubt, this is the most influence the government has on an individual's life.
Really, this simply does not fit into my mind. Anyone here to explain it for me?
Thank you! It seems that even on /., people are blindly led by such phrases as 'IWTBF'. It is somewhat sad, but at least the mods care about rationality today :-)