"A terrible accident occured. It's nobody's fault, really. These things happen. We'll try to be more careful in the future. But, spaceflight is risky business, we can't make any guarantees."
Are there other reasons why the likelihood of a "Sobig" or an "ILUVYOU" would [be] lower for Linux than Windows?
Absolutely not! These are not viruses that exploit bugs in code. These are socially engineered programs designed to get the user to run them.
You can't make the argument that the "average intelligence of the linux user" is higher than joe-sixpack's because if we are talking about linux-in-the-mainstream, then the "average linux user" will be joe-sixpack! Also, you probably can't talk about the fact that it isn't as mind-numbingly easy to run a scipt in linux as it is in windows, since those arguments contribute to why linux isn't mainstream in the first place!
Why is it that we can post the directions for how to properly murder someone or build a bomb
Because nobody has yet brought a suit against someone for posting information on how to build a bomb. If someone actually goes to a site that tells them how to build a bomb, builds one, and then that person murders someone with the bomb, you can bet your ass that the person behind that web site will be held accountable. Then that "speech", just like yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, will be exempt from the first amendment.
Remember: a condition, or a law, needs to be challenged before it can be struck down. You cannot simply strike down a law just because [you feel] it is unconsitutional. The law must be used, and then the person who it is used against can bring suit against it.
- Are property and trade secrets rights a constitutional right?
NO.
Neither is there a consitutional right to privacy, although you may seem to think there is. Rather, the constitutional ammendments have been interpreted in such a manner as to imply a general right to privacy. The same is absolutely true for property rights and it may be true for trade secret rights as well.
I want to know where the actual artists and authors and writers who stand to *benefit* from open, broad dissemination of their works are putting it for download by people
Well, it would seem that it is a load of crap. Perhaps it is the case that authors and writers, creative minds and forward-thinking individuals do not benefit from giving away their trade for free. It seems when people put their stuff out for free, cheap bastards expect them to continue putting their stuff out for free.
An example are the fine folks making Divx. What a backlash they got from the slashdot community just at the mere mention that they would no longer be giving their codec away for free! My goodness! Bait and switch! Bait and switch! Get 'em hooked, them suck 'em dry! Let's change right now to Ogg Whatever!
Perhaps the authors and artists know better, even the starving ones!, not to let their perspective audience assume they are giving anything away for free.
Anonymity is something that I think is one of the things that makes the internet so valuable as a tool to help people fight oppressive governments and corporations.
Oh, really? Could you name even one government or corporation where the so-called anonymity that the internet brings to its users has helped in its downfall? The countries with the most oppressive governments on earth do not even have internet access. And, unless I'm very mistaken, the anonymity of the internet had absolutely nothing to do with bringing down Enron or MCI WorldCom.
it distresses me that the mindset is becoming more prevalent that the only reason to value the natural world is because of what the things we find there can do to enhance our lives...
[sarcasm] Silly me. I'd forgotten that it's unfashionable to appreciate a tree (flower, sponge, animal) for its own sake and nothing else. [/sarcasm]
Isn't the very act of appreciating a tree, flower, or anything else for that matter, enhancing your life?
I believe (and I happen to be an employee of the party in some capacity, so keep that in mind) that this was the wrong conclusion. The real reason is that the homeless don't like to be entangled, don't like to make agreements, and really just want to be left alone with no responsibility, no registration, no contractural obligations.) There is so much financial help that one can get in the form of welfare, food stamps, et cetera...and they choose not to do it, sometimes it is pride, but often it's this amazing resistance to being registered (and i should also think dependent on one entity.)
Are you out of your mind? Really, are you? Have ever even seen a homeless person in your entire life? If not, then I suggest that you get off your computer, go to the nearest city to you, and look around!
Homeless people are NOT hopeless romantics yearning to be free! Many of them are sick, either physically or mentally, and they need help. To say that their condition is somehow glamorous is just ignorant.
The major problem here is: How many people trust Microsoft not to do "other things" whilst they're installing your patches?
Sure the tech savvy users like those who frequent slashdot (and we're ignoring the rabid fascist anti-MS zealots here) will not like the idea - but the problem that Microsoft is having is that even the general public are starting to mistrust them.
I don't believe the general public has any sort of misplaced paranoia about windows updates. If Microsoft turns on autmatic updates, and installs the patches automatically, the general user will probably not even know, never mind start thinking about some duplicitous intention on Microsoft's part.
A case in point is the abysmal failure of Passport. Sure it has hundreds of users, but nearly all of them were forced into getting it because they wanted a hotmail account. Very few people actually store all their personal details on there.
This is just a ridiculous conjecture. Here is a slightly less ridiculous conjecture: Very few people used Passport because it turned out not to be very useful. Or how about this one: Very few people used Passport because it was obscure and very un-user-friendly? Or: there was always another way of conducting an online transaction, and when someone just NEEDS to order their rabbit leash, they just want it done with as soon as possible and don't want to be bother signing up for anything more than is absolutely necessary?
When people "pirate" the MPAA's latest, no one cares, but when people "pirate" anime, people here get upset. Why?
Because, when people pirate MPAA's latest, it is for personal use. The type of pirating done with anime that gets people angry is when it is resold as original merchandise.
They of course fail to mention that if the technology were available, a judge
could easily grant a warrant to allow authorities to observe your
movements without notifying you.
sigh...why is it that the RIAA ought to embrace filesharing as a technological inevitability, yet we should somehow stem the tide of technological innovation in other areas? Just get used to it: technology will move forward, always, in directions you may like, in directions you may dislike, and in directions you could never imagine.
if you don't like the fact that it is possible for your cellphone location to be tracked, then don't use one!
Your post is dangerous hype. Don't be so literal. When they say it is "hack proof" they are simply saying (in a trendy way) that there is no interface to somewhere on the ground controlling the airplane. Thus, there is no way to "hack" into the airplane's navigation system to mess with its trajectory. The only way to mess with it is to jam the navigational signals being pinged to it, and that scenario has been discussed in the article.
Which is why, if you read the article, the architects of such a system envision many different ways of tracking the airplane's position and velocity. The easiest way to prevent radar mishaps is to use GPS. Someone jamming the GPS? Try radar. Radar not working? You could even install an onboard vision system, and use that to detect large buildings, etc.
I am sure the Russians, Chinese, and the EU will step in to fill the gap if the US gives up on manned spaceflight.
Plus there will probably be a few private companies doing the same thing over the next decade or two.
The Russian space program is broke. They can barely afford to launch what they have, nevermind research new and better spacecraft. The EU and the Chinese have no manned space programs. The Chinese don't even have an aerospace industry, for God's sake! Wake up!
As for private industry: they have been belly-aching for YEARS about how expensive and inefficient NASA is. Yet, they can't seem to get a craft into the upper atmosphere for less than $100 mil, nevermind into orbit!
Face it: space travel is difficult, it is expensive, and it is risky. The US is in no way going to give up on manned spaceflight. But if they did, I have severe reservations that the bodies you mentioned would pick up the slack.
"Thanks to a good job done by the tech staff and filtering software, office workers in the US are not bothered by spam mail and the value of email communications has not eroded."
The article never says spam is not received, spam just never reaches the end user.
Re:Is this UWB? Are they confusing light with all
on
Optical Cellphones
·
· Score: 1
The technique is called "spread spectrum" and helps enormously in reducing noise (and intentional jamming). Also, I don't think the author is confusing anything: I think the researchers are trying to adapt the techniques used in RF CDMA to optical wavelenghts (400nm-700nm). Hence the reference the author makes to "optical CDMA"
Optics refers to the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can visibly process (400-700nm wavelength). All other wavelengths are not classified as "optical"
I disagree. Beautiful people were in these things, "", called quotes or quotation marks, not because it was some idiom that wasn't to be taken literally, but because one person's view of physical, primal, literal, skin-deap beauty, may not be another's. With that said, I still think CowboyNeal got it wrong: most people would probably not think BS was beautiful, but she sure is famous.
I don't know how CowboyNeal could even infer that from the article, but its wrong anyway! Beautiful people do not have any influence with the mass media. Famous people, on the other hand, might. I would not include Barbra Streisand, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in my list of beautiful people, but when they say something, the media listens. And the media listens, because, like it or not, the mass population wants to hear what they say. If people didn't want to know, the media would stop broadcasting it.
The reason spam is so prolific is because it is CHEAP. It costs next to nothing to send a message out. But it got me thinking: is this the right solution?
What if we were charged for the emails that we sent? I don't know anyone that sends out more than 1,000 emails a month, so what if ISPs charged a LOT for sending out more than 1,000 emails per month? Would this work in eliminating spam? Would it be helpful?
I'm not really sure what your question is, but if its, "why did nature choose fractals?" then I think you answered your own question. a fractal pattern is created by building on simpler processes. This seems to be the exact way nature evolves: take a known good solution to a problem (a lifeform) and add to it a little something to make it better. It seems a match made in heaven (hmmm...)
How can any asshole claim to have a patent restricting me what I can do with my DNA and how to process is?
what is patented is not, of course, DNA. It is also not, of course, what you can do with it. What is patented is the algorithm, the procedure, by which you extract certain information from the DNA.
This is just intelectual violence. We should find a different way to reward these scientists when and if their contributions to society are proven to be worthy.
This is exactly the way we reward scientists when and if their contributions to society are proven worthy. If they suck, then nobody will use the procedure and he will get no royalties. If, however, it is found useful, just as you say, then he will be rewarded with royalties. I don't really see your problem. If you think it is a useless patent on a useless idea, then don't use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my God! This global warming epidemic is contagious!
"A terrible accident occured. It's nobody's fault, really. These things happen. We'll try to be more careful in the future. But, spaceflight is risky business, we can't make any guarantees."
Absolutely not! These are not viruses that exploit bugs in code. These are socially engineered programs designed to get the user to run them.
You can't make the argument that the "average intelligence of the linux user" is higher than joe-sixpack's because if we are talking about linux-in-the-mainstream, then the "average linux user" will be joe-sixpack! Also, you probably can't talk about the fact that it isn't as mind-numbingly easy to run a scipt in linux as it is in windows, since those arguments contribute to why linux isn't mainstream in the first place!
Because nobody has yet brought a suit against someone for posting information on how to build a bomb. If someone actually goes to a site that tells them how to build a bomb, builds one, and then that person murders someone with the bomb, you can bet your ass that the person behind that web site will be held accountable. Then that "speech", just like yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, will be exempt from the first amendment.
Remember: a condition, or a law, needs to be challenged before it can be struck down. You cannot simply strike down a law just because [you feel] it is unconsitutional. The law must be used, and then the person who it is used against can bring suit against it.
NO.
Neither is there a consitutional right to privacy, although you may seem to think there is. Rather, the constitutional ammendments have been interpreted in such a manner as to imply a general right to privacy. The same is absolutely true for property rights and it may be true for trade secret rights as well.
Well, it would seem that it is a load of crap. Perhaps it is the case that authors and writers, creative minds and forward-thinking individuals do not benefit from giving away their trade for free. It seems when people put their stuff out for free, cheap bastards expect them to continue putting their stuff out for free.
An example are the fine folks making Divx. What a backlash they got from the slashdot community just at the mere mention that they would no longer be giving their codec away for free! My goodness! Bait and switch! Bait and switch! Get 'em hooked, them suck 'em dry! Let's change right now to Ogg Whatever!
Perhaps the authors and artists know better, even the starving ones!, not to let their perspective audience assume they are giving anything away for free.
Oh, really? Could you name even one government or corporation where the so-called anonymity that the internet brings to its users has helped in its downfall? The countries with the most oppressive governments on earth do not even have internet access. And, unless I'm very mistaken, the anonymity of the internet had absolutely nothing to do with bringing down Enron or MCI WorldCom.
[sarcasm] Silly me. I'd forgotten that it's unfashionable to appreciate a tree (flower, sponge, animal) for its own sake and nothing else. [/sarcasm]
Isn't the very act of appreciating a tree, flower, or anything else for that matter, enhancing your life?
Are you out of your mind? Really, are you? Have ever even seen a homeless person in your entire life? If not, then I suggest that you get off your computer, go to the nearest city to you, and look around!
Homeless people are NOT hopeless romantics yearning to be free! Many of them are sick, either physically or mentally, and they need help. To say that their condition is somehow glamorous is just ignorant.
thank you.
You should question the validity of your argument if you have to mock your opponent to make it.
you should really remember to update your sig before sticking your foot in your mouth!
Sure the tech savvy users like those who frequent slashdot (and we're ignoring the rabid fascist anti-MS zealots here) will not like the idea - but the problem that Microsoft is having is that even the general public are starting to mistrust them.
I don't believe the general public has any sort of misplaced paranoia about windows updates. If Microsoft turns on autmatic updates, and installs the patches automatically, the general user will probably not even know, never mind start thinking about some duplicitous intention on Microsoft's part.
A case in point is the abysmal failure of Passport. Sure it has hundreds of users, but nearly all of them were forced into getting it because they wanted a hotmail account. Very few people actually store all their personal details on there.This is just a ridiculous conjecture. Here is a slightly less ridiculous conjecture: Very few people used Passport because it turned out not to be very useful. Or how about this one: Very few people used Passport because it was obscure and very un-user-friendly? Or: there was always another way of conducting an online transaction, and when someone just NEEDS to order their rabbit leash, they just want it done with as soon as possible and don't want to be bother signing up for anything more than is absolutely necessary?
When people "pirate" the MPAA's latest, no one cares, but when people "pirate" anime, people here get upset. Why?
Because, when people pirate MPAA's latest, it is for personal use. The type of pirating done with anime that gets people angry is when it is resold as original merchandise.
sigh...why is it that the RIAA ought to embrace filesharing as a technological inevitability, yet we should somehow stem the tide of technological innovation in other areas? Just get used to it: technology will move forward, always, in directions you may like, in directions you may dislike, and in directions you could never imagine.
if you don't like the fact that it is possible for your cellphone location to be tracked, then don't use one!
Your post is dangerous hype. Don't be so literal. When they say it is "hack proof" they are simply saying (in a trendy way) that there is no interface to somewhere on the ground controlling the airplane. Thus, there is no way to "hack" into the airplane's navigation system to mess with its trajectory. The only way to mess with it is to jam the navigational signals being pinged to it, and that scenario has been discussed in the article.
Which is why, if you read the article, the architects of such a system envision many different ways of tracking the airplane's position and velocity. The easiest way to prevent radar mishaps is to use GPS. Someone jamming the GPS? Try radar. Radar not working? You could even install an onboard vision system, and use that to detect large buildings, etc.
I am sure the Russians, Chinese, and the EU will step in to fill the gap if the US gives up on manned spaceflight. Plus there will probably be a few private companies doing the same thing over the next decade or two.
The Russian space program is broke. They can barely afford to launch what they have, nevermind research new and better spacecraft. The EU and the Chinese have no manned space programs. The Chinese don't even have an aerospace industry, for God's sake! Wake up!
As for private industry: they have been belly-aching for YEARS about how expensive and inefficient NASA is. Yet, they can't seem to get a craft into the upper atmosphere for less than $100 mil, nevermind into orbit!
Face it: space travel is difficult, it is expensive, and it is risky. The US is in no way going to give up on manned spaceflight. But if they did, I have severe reservations that the bodies you mentioned would pick up the slack.
Well, when you spend 60 euros PER HOUR on system administrators, spending 60 euros on a memory chip seems cheap to me!
The summary of the article itself states,
"Thanks to a good job done by the tech staff and filtering software, office workers in the US are not bothered by spam mail and the value of email communications has not eroded."
The article never says spam is not received, spam just never reaches the end user.
The technique is called "spread spectrum" and helps enormously in reducing noise (and intentional jamming). Also, I don't think the author is confusing anything: I think the researchers are trying to adapt the techniques used in RF CDMA to optical wavelenghts (400nm-700nm). Hence the reference the author makes to "optical CDMA"
Optics refers to the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can visibly process (400-700nm wavelength). All other wavelengths are not classified as "optical"
I disagree. Beautiful people were in these things, "", called quotes or quotation marks, not because it was some idiom that wasn't to be taken literally, but because one person's view of physical, primal, literal, skin-deap beauty, may not be another's. With that said, I still think CowboyNeal got it wrong: most people would probably not think BS was beautiful, but she sure is famous.
I don't know how CowboyNeal could even infer that from the article, but its wrong anyway! Beautiful people do not have any influence with the mass media. Famous people, on the other hand, might. I would not include Barbra Streisand, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in my list of beautiful people, but when they say something, the media listens. And the media listens, because, like it or not, the mass population wants to hear what they say. If people didn't want to know, the media would stop broadcasting it.
The reason spam is so prolific is because it is CHEAP. It costs next to nothing to send a message out. But it got me thinking: is this the right solution?
What if we were charged for the emails that we sent? I don't know anyone that sends out more than 1,000 emails a month, so what if ISPs charged a LOT for sending out more than 1,000 emails per month? Would this work in eliminating spam? Would it be helpful?
I'm not really sure what your question is, but if its, "why did nature choose fractals?" then I think you answered your own question. a fractal pattern is created by building on simpler processes. This seems to be the exact way nature evolves: take a known good solution to a problem (a lifeform) and add to it a little something to make it better. It seems a match made in heaven (hmmm...)
what is patented is not, of course, DNA. It is also not, of course, what you can do with it. What is patented is the algorithm, the procedure, by which you extract certain information from the DNA.
This is just intelectual violence. We should find a different way to reward these scientists when and if their contributions to society are proven to be worthy.This is exactly the way we reward scientists when and if their contributions to society are proven worthy. If they suck, then nobody will use the procedure and he will get no royalties. If, however, it is found useful, just as you say, then he will be rewarded with royalties. I don't really see your problem. If you think it is a useless patent on a useless idea, then don't use it.