I would think a prosthesis would be a robotic hand, rather than a bionic. Bionic implies a combination of machine and human parts. Which is what it looks like to me.
Yeah, but that in of itself is no excuse for the article he wrote. There are people who find the term "ambiguous" ambiguous. Its a cheap trick. Define the terms for my correctness to be very easy to achieve, thus covering every rambling thing I say in the cloak of correctness.
Why does that matter? And is it actually true? If I live in a large city the clerk doesn't know who I am, I pay with cash. No electronic record tying my name to the at transaction. Any security cameras will be grainy and difficult to identify me, and they aren't kept that long. If I buy something online, most likely it will be tied to a payment method that can be traced back to me even if done through any number of proxies. To actually record it as me doing the transaction in store there would need to be a physical person looking for me. That's expensive. Much more expensive per person spied upon, then doing it electronically over the net.
Yeah, its really sad when people have been through grad school and been declared Doctors of philosophy react to new information in the same manor as those who have not completed high school. We really need to do a better job teaching people how to think critically. I think Math and science does a pretty good job (well at least the physical sciences), but people are turned off by the science and/or compartmentalize the skill as only pertaining to science.
Given enough time and money, I'd say anyone can be tracked. And the techniques you mentioned will certainly raise the amount of time and money required. I don't think any combination of techniques make it impossible. Even encrypting your data stream is not a guarantee that some one hasn't already broken the algorithm, or has access to the keys used, or the source or destination computer being used.
Security isn't magic fairy dust you sprinkle on your computer.
I don't think you understood my previous post. If you believe in a higher power, then you really aren't an atheist. So believing in a higher power really doesn't work for atheists. If you find one that it worked for, you can no longer call that person an atheist.
Also, the "higher power" thing dosen't work for atheists.
Sure it does, but then they have to stop calling themselves atheists. Its like saying fire doesn't work for gasoline, just because if it works there isn't any gasoline left.
That's just stupid. My ability to reason is not the same as your ability to reason. Just as my gun and my ability to use my gun may not be the same as your gun and your ability to use your gun. If my ability to reason is greater than yours, I'll try that as i have the greatest advantage in that scenario. If I'm better than you at using my gun, then I'll use that. A 75 year old woman with a small pistol does not negate an aka 47 in the hands of a trained killer. Even if they were equally armed, it still wouldn't be a fair fight. Even if it is an even match skill and weapon wise, the participants might try to use strategies that create an advantage, such as, Oh I don't know, a drive by shooting. There are places where people are equally armed and equipped in the areas of urban gangs, those happen to also be the places of the greatest gun violence. Arming everyone is just stupid.
Its not really what you say that makes you a troll( in this case), but how you say it, in this case. That comment isn't wrong, but its not using appropriate language for the forum. If he had just said something like "Verisign has repeatedly acted to maximize its short term profits at the expense, and against the interests of the general internet community. Therefore I feel it would be unwise to give them this additional responsibility."
Then prepare for litigation! I patented the Idea of patenting this. As well as patenting the process of responding to patent lawsuits in the English, French, Spanish, German, Japanese, and Chinese languages. Prepare to study Dutch!
Oh, there's always a need for conspiracy theories. Always. It makes life more fun.
Now why would anyone try to discourage us from looking at a relatively minor conspiracy theory? Hesoid, must be working for them. By discouraging us from looking into this one he's really hoping that we will focus all of our energies into figuring this one out, thus diverting our eyes from the larger conspiracy. We're on to something big here. Really Big!
They will probably work for what he's trying to do. I always worry about running virtual machines in tests when the timing of the action is critical. If you have more virtual machines than cores, there are a lot of scenarios that I don't feel comfortable simulating in that environment. But maybe the graveyard pc's would help alleviate the situation for those scenarios as long as they can boot Linux and live on the network.
Yeah, but that's not what they were claiming in the original suite against IBM. They were citing low level code that was in UNIX since the beginning as well as parts of AIX that IBM had developed. I think there was also some issue over a specific contract related to doing unix on x86, and that issue might still be on the table. But as far as I know, IBM never had any source code from Unixware that is not in Unix. So they probably didn't copy any of it over. Even if SCO did have the copyrights to UNIX, I don't think they would have won as the code copying was never really demonstrated to be anything significant.
Yeah, its obviously been faked. But why would they do such a bad job? Unless, they want us to think that is representative of their photoshopping skills. So later when they really need a fake photo to pass for real, people will think its real because its not an obvious fake like this one. Or at lest, it will cause enough people to suspend disbelief just long enough for it to matter.
The raw performance of the chips wasn't very good either. They were low power and low performance in a ratio that didn't provide any benefits over Intel's solutions.
Plus working with small companies for such a vital part, wasn't in apple's interest. I think Apple learned its lesson working with Motorola. As big as it was, Motorola couldn't fulfill apple's meager request for power pc chips, nor could it fund development of faster chips.
Well, I guess Microosft was going for the same thing with zune. Haven't seen it in action, so I don't know if it works as easily. That takes me to the second part of my original post. I think they have to be open from end to end to really provide competition.
Yes. This may surprise you but, That's too complicated for some people to figure out. There is a class of people that are computer application literate, but not computer literate. In other words they can email ( just open up previously configured outlook) and web browse (open up browser, type 'google' in msn's search bar, hit search, type name of website desired in google, hit search, click on link) but not manipulate windows explorer to move files around. Crazy, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think a prosthesis would be a robotic hand, rather than a bionic. Bionic implies a combination of machine and human parts. Which is what it looks like to me.
Yeah, but that in of itself is no excuse for the article he wrote. There are people who find the term "ambiguous" ambiguous. Its a cheap trick. Define the terms for my correctness to be very easy to achieve, thus covering every rambling thing I say in the cloak of correctness.
But, wouldn't it be cool if it didn't?
I might need to invent that.
Haven't you ever played mash before? It happens all the time.
Feel free to mod me into oblivion, but come on, who didn't play that game in the fifth grade?
Why does that matter? And is it actually true? If I live in a large city the clerk doesn't know who I am, I pay with cash. No electronic record tying my name to the at transaction. Any security cameras will be grainy and difficult to identify me, and they aren't kept that long. If I buy something online, most likely it will be tied to a payment method that can be traced back to me even if done through any number of proxies. To actually record it as me doing the transaction in store there would need to be a physical person looking for me. That's expensive. Much more expensive per person spied upon, then doing it electronically over the net.
You mean drizzle?
Yeah, its really sad when people have been through grad school and been declared Doctors of philosophy react to new information in the same manor as those who have not completed high school. We really need to do a better job teaching people how to think critically. I think Math and science does a pretty good job (well at least the physical sciences), but people are turned off by the science and/or compartmentalize the skill as only pertaining to science.
Given enough time and money, I'd say anyone can be tracked. And the techniques you mentioned will certainly raise the amount of time and money required. I don't think any combination of techniques make it impossible. Even encrypting your data stream is not a guarantee that some one hasn't already broken the algorithm, or has access to the keys used, or the source or destination computer being used.
Security isn't magic fairy dust you sprinkle on your computer.
He said "steak guzzling alcoholic" So I'm guessing its a steak-tini. With A1 spread around the rim.
Yeah, its that important.
Usability is king. Accessibility is duke. Over all your points do make some sense, but only after your follow ups to obvious criticisms.
I don't think you understood my previous post. If you believe in a higher power, then you really aren't an atheist. So believing in a higher power really doesn't work for atheists. If you find one that it worked for, you can no longer call that person an atheist.
Sure it does, but then they have to stop calling themselves atheists. Its like saying fire doesn't work for gasoline, just because if it works there isn't any gasoline left.
That's just stupid. My ability to reason is not the same as your ability to reason. Just as my gun and my ability to use my gun may not be the same as your gun and your ability to use your gun. If my ability to reason is greater than yours, I'll try that as i have the greatest advantage in that scenario. If I'm better than you at using my gun, then I'll use that. A 75 year old woman with a small pistol does not negate an aka 47 in the hands of a trained killer. Even if they were equally armed, it still wouldn't be a fair fight. Even if it is an even match skill and weapon wise, the participants might try to use strategies that create an advantage, such as, Oh I don't know, a drive by shooting. There are places where people are equally armed and equipped in the areas of urban gangs, those happen to also be the places of the greatest gun violence. Arming everyone is just stupid.
Its not really what you say that makes you a troll( in this case), but how you say it, in this case. That comment isn't wrong, but its not using appropriate language for the forum. If he had just said something like "Verisign has repeatedly acted to maximize its short term profits at the expense, and against the interests of the general internet community. Therefore I feel it would be unwise to give them this additional responsibility."
No, but you need the *ahem* herbs that are only legally available in the Netherlands in order to understand the logic contained in the patents.
Then prepare for litigation! I patented the Idea of patenting this. As well as patenting the process of responding to patent lawsuits in the English, French, Spanish, German, Japanese, and Chinese languages. Prepare to study Dutch!
Oh, there's always a need for conspiracy theories. Always. It makes life more fun.
Now why would anyone try to discourage us from looking at a relatively minor conspiracy theory? Hesoid, must be working for them. By discouraging us from looking into this one he's really hoping that we will focus all of our energies into figuring this one out, thus diverting our eyes from the larger conspiracy. We're on to something big here. Really Big!
They will probably work for what he's trying to do. I always worry about running virtual machines in tests when the timing of the action is critical. If you have more virtual machines than cores, there are a lot of scenarios that I don't feel comfortable simulating in that environment. But maybe the graveyard pc's would help alleviate the situation for those scenarios as long as they can boot Linux and live on the network.
Yeah, but that's not what they were claiming in the original suite against IBM. They were citing low level code that was in UNIX since the beginning as well as parts of AIX that IBM had developed. I think there was also some issue over a specific contract related to doing unix on x86, and that issue might still be on the table. But as far as I know, IBM never had any source code from Unixware that is not in Unix. So they probably didn't copy any of it over. Even if SCO did have the copyrights to UNIX, I don't think they would have won as the code copying was never really demonstrated to be anything significant.
Yeah, its obviously been faked. But why would they do such a bad job? Unless, they want us to think that is representative of their photoshopping skills. So later when they really need a fake photo to pass for real, people will think its real because its not an obvious fake like this one. Or at lest, it will cause enough people to suspend disbelief just long enough for it to matter.
The raw performance of the chips wasn't very good either. They were low power and low performance in a ratio that didn't provide any benefits over Intel's solutions.
Plus working with small companies for such a vital part, wasn't in apple's interest. I think Apple learned its lesson working with Motorola. As big as it was, Motorola couldn't fulfill apple's meager request for power pc chips, nor could it fund development of faster chips.
Well, I guess Microosft was going for the same thing with zune. Haven't seen it in action, so I don't know if it works as easily. That takes me to the second part of my original post. I think they have to be open from end to end to really provide competition.
This isn't about me helping one person, its about what the experience would have to be like out of the box to challenge apple's dominance.
Yes. This may surprise you but, That's too complicated for some people to figure out. There is a class of people that are computer application literate, but not computer literate. In other words they can email ( just open up previously configured outlook) and web browse (open up browser, type 'google' in msn's search bar, hit search, type name of website desired in google, hit search, click on link) but not manipulate windows explorer to move files around. Crazy, I know.