My question is, what about these "dark networks" where you could end up with anybody's data on your computer because you're just a link in the chain, like everybody else involved? You can't send somebody to jail for being unable to decode something that they never encoded in the first place, and don't have the key for, and never DID have the key for. I hope.
I suppose it might make for good public health screening
This is a point heavily in the system's favour! I think you'd save more lives by randomly diagnosing people with hypertension in the airport than by preventing terrorist attacks. Perhaps we should judge the system based on these merits instead? Free blood pressure test with every flight!
Did you not see the original Revolution teaser nearly a year ago, where the guy is clearly doing dental surgery with his remote? Listen for that sickeningly familiar drilling sound.
Next attack attempt: The pilot turns out to be a terrorist.
Response: Non-military air flight in and around the United States is grounded completely for fifteen years.
1. Fuel prices rise.
2. Plane and SUV use decreases dramamtically.
3. Fuel demand decreases.
4. America pulls out of the Middle East...
5....Terrorism ceases?
Why are planes and airports apparently such an appealing target for terrorism?
1) The potential death count is in the hundreds, even if you don't manage to get control of the aircraft before setting off your bomb.
2) There is VERY little possibility for people to escape the crashing aircraft once the bomb has been set off. In a stadium, people can just run like hell, all you get is the 25 or so people sitting within immediate range of your bomb.
3) People are ALREADY scared of airplanes even without the threat of terrorism.
4) Planes crash and explode in a very scary and noisy fashion, unlike stadiums, which, if you're lucky, burn slowly.
5) A threat against one plane is a threat against all planes, everywhere.
But another answer, in light of today's operation is: they aren't anymore. There are other targets which are almost as good from a terrorist's point of view. Bridges, tunnels, stadiums, movie theaters, underground clubs, ferries, trains, whatever. This is why massively upping airplane security is worse than doing nothing - the potential targets shift unpredictably elsewhere, the threat of terrorism doesn't diminish, but your rights and liberties end up restricted.
The thing about terrorists targeting aeroplanes is that the potential death counts are large, the possibilities for people escaping are slim, and it puts the fear of flying into people. But these aren't especially unique qualities. What if they target, say, a ferry? Or a cruise ship with thousands of people on it? Or a bus (see last year) or movie theater full of people. They aren't as good targets but still real possibilities. All that's happening, then, by making it near-impossible to sneak ANYTHING, let alone a bomb, onto a plane, is that planes no longer become preferred targets, and other places become more at risk instead.
Which means it's the root of the matter - the MOTIVATIONS for terrorism - which really need attacking if terrorism is to be stopped.
This conspiracy theory is easily disproven by observing that the popularity of Blair's and Bush's administrations have been going down continuously for several years, but there has not been a continuous stream of terrorist attacks.
You're right. Only one person in a hundred thousand would give money to somebody like that. You'd have to send, oooh... three million emails per day to make a reasonable kind of profit from it.
Luckily, a "computer" is an electronic device capable of performing mindless repetitive tasks for very long periods of time at very high speed.
What I find hilarious is that people point accusatory fingers at Blizzard saying "They made it too addictive, on purpose!" Do they really think that if it was possible to make an amazingly addictive videogame any time they wanted, developers WOULDN'T make EVERY single game like that? Do they really think that other games companies intentionally make less absorbing games so as not to addict too many people?
I can vouch for that. Having temp'd for the local county Probation Service more than once, and seen their two, no, three, no, FOUR completely separate and incompatible databases I can safely say that the chances of a universal, omniscient UK database - even one which is limited to data that is already routinely collected without infringement of privacy - will probably never come about. Not, at least, unless a stunning amount of money is thrown at the problem - more money than the public or the politicians will stand for.
In theory, this could be the end of privacy as we know it in the UK. In practice, my real concern is that this will go ahead despite not receiving the budget it needs, and it'll not work at ALL, even for the potentially positive purposes like reducing crime etc., and that the money - taxpayers' money, MY money - will thus end up wasted.
Because one-hour shows in the USA these days tend to have six acts, not three? Of course, if you're suggesting cutting the show down to half an hour, I am bang alongside that idea. A simple change in formula could work wonders. Up the pace a little... yes, I like it.
Heavens, do I have to think of everything? Episode one: a gigantic spaceship laden with unbelievable technology comes backwards in time from the near-utopian distant future we are all familiar with. The timeline is irretrievably skewed off its expected tracks by this incursion and it rapidly becomes clear that the future remains still to be written. Was that so hard?
What I think this particular story means is that the Star Trek universe wants to stop moving forward. In time, I mean. The creators of Star Trek have - starting with Enterprise and continuing until now - lost the guts to do anything but cash in on past glories and old history. There's no drive to create NEW history. Old Star Trek is popular still - yeah, because it's old. New Old Star Trek will get nowhere. "Rebooting" the Star Trek universe from Kirk and Spock will get nowhere. They need to go forward. REALLY forward. Five hundred years beyond TNG. Build an absolutely perfect Federation and then hurl seriously gigantic threats at it. Go to the limits of current science fiction and use the cream. Transhumanism and stuff!
This is like the famous "interesting numbers" problem. If you stretch your interest far enough, you can't get away from them at this time of the millennium. Personally, I was a big fan of 8:02pm on February 20th, 2002 (20:02 20/02/2002), which is a pattern which won't repeat for another 106 years - and after that, not until CE 3003. Rarity is a good thing.
Global warming is NOT a doomsday scenario. It might be a "things are really going to suck" scenario
I'm a big fan of emphasising the threat of global warming as a "this is going to be really expensive" scenario. Seems to me it might be the best way to stop it happening.
In a situation like that, in addition to anything else you do, my advice is to get the licence plate. Jot it down on your hand or something. It might be nothing, but it might be everything. You can put it on a scrap of paper in your wallet and throw it away in a month when you find it again.
I'm always wary of poorly-stated awards things like "best games ever". What does that even mean? What are we basing this on? How much we like them now? How well they were originally received? Sales? Impact? This is why I am an admirer of EGM's Greatest 200 Videogames Of Their Time. A much better-stated question, to be sure.
Ideas? No. I dare say there are literally thousands, tens of thousands of people in California, exploding with creative genius, who would love to make seriously challenging, interesting, unusual, original movies. What Hollywood lacks is guts. It is safer, financially, to put out a movie which is a lot like lots of previous movies. A movie which is based on a franchise which people are already familiar with. A movie which appeals to well-established movie-going demographics. Hollywood cares too much about money to take enough risks. So the movie corps go for safer and safer options. And we get bored.
There's a thought experiment. You have a long, straight beach, and at each end of the beach is an ice cream van. The ice cream vans are in competition. Reasoning that beachgoers will usually choose the nearer van, the first van moves a bit down the beach, the better to gain customers from its competitor. Of course, the second van reasons the same and moves closer too. Gradually they get closer and closer until you have two vans sitting next to each other right at the middle of the beach, neither of them getting much business from the beachgoers at the ends of the beach.
This is what's happening in the movie industry at the moment. The music industry too, in fact.
Slashdot Mirror
But it should be.
My question is, what about these "dark networks" where you could end up with anybody's data on your computer because you're just a link in the chain, like everybody else involved? You can't send somebody to jail for being unable to decode something that they never encoded in the first place, and don't have the key for, and never DID have the key for. I hope.
The average person has an IQ of 100. Roughly fifty percent of people are below that mark. Think about THAT.
This is a point heavily in the system's favour! I think you'd save more lives by randomly diagnosing people with hypertension in the airport than by preventing terrorist attacks. Perhaps we should judge the system based on these merits instead? Free blood pressure test with every flight!
Did you not see the original Revolution teaser nearly a year ago, where the guy is clearly doing dental surgery with his remote? Listen for that sickeningly familiar drilling sound.
Next attack attempt: The pilot turns out to be a terrorist. Response: Non-military air flight in and around the United States is grounded completely for fifteen years.
1. Fuel prices rise. ...Terrorism ceases?
2. Plane and SUV use decreases dramamtically.
3. Fuel demand decreases.
4. America pulls out of the Middle East...
5.
Um, everything in the universe is held together, to some extent, by gravity. There's no threshold mass before gravity starts affecting things.
1) The potential death count is in the hundreds, even if you don't manage to get control of the aircraft before setting off your bomb.
2) There is VERY little possibility for people to escape the crashing aircraft once the bomb has been set off. In a stadium, people can just run like hell, all you get is the 25 or so people sitting within immediate range of your bomb.
3) People are ALREADY scared of airplanes even without the threat of terrorism.
4) Planes crash and explode in a very scary and noisy fashion, unlike stadiums, which, if you're lucky, burn slowly.
5) A threat against one plane is a threat against all planes, everywhere.
But another answer, in light of today's operation is: they aren't anymore. There are other targets which are almost as good from a terrorist's point of view. Bridges, tunnels, stadiums, movie theaters, underground clubs, ferries, trains, whatever. This is why massively upping airplane security is worse than doing nothing - the potential targets shift unpredictably elsewhere, the threat of terrorism doesn't diminish, but your rights and liberties end up restricted.
The thing about terrorists targeting aeroplanes is that the potential death counts are large, the possibilities for people escaping are slim, and it puts the fear of flying into people. But these aren't especially unique qualities. What if they target, say, a ferry? Or a cruise ship with thousands of people on it? Or a bus (see last year) or movie theater full of people. They aren't as good targets but still real possibilities. All that's happening, then, by making it near-impossible to sneak ANYTHING, let alone a bomb, onto a plane, is that planes no longer become preferred targets, and other places become more at risk instead.
Which means it's the root of the matter - the MOTIVATIONS for terrorism - which really need attacking if terrorism is to be stopped.
This conspiracy theory is easily disproven by observing that the popularity of Blair's and Bush's administrations have been going down continuously for several years, but there has not been a continuous stream of terrorist attacks.
You're right. Only one person in a hundred thousand would give money to somebody like that. You'd have to send, oooh... three million emails per day to make a reasonable kind of profit from it.
Luckily, a "computer" is an electronic device capable of performing mindless repetitive tasks for very long periods of time at very high speed.
If there was a formula for this stuff, don't you think every single videogame ever made would be designed to be addictive?
What I find hilarious is that people point accusatory fingers at Blizzard saying "They made it too addictive, on purpose!" Do they really think that if it was possible to make an amazingly addictive videogame any time they wanted, developers WOULDN'T make EVERY single game like that? Do they really think that other games companies intentionally make less absorbing games so as not to addict too many people?
I can vouch for that. Having temp'd for the local county Probation Service more than once, and seen their two, no, three, no, FOUR completely separate and incompatible databases I can safely say that the chances of a universal, omniscient UK database - even one which is limited to data that is already routinely collected without infringement of privacy - will probably never come about. Not, at least, unless a stunning amount of money is thrown at the problem - more money than the public or the politicians will stand for.
In theory, this could be the end of privacy as we know it in the UK. In practice, my real concern is that this will go ahead despite not receiving the budget it needs, and it'll not work at ALL, even for the potentially positive purposes like reducing crime etc., and that the money - taxpayers' money, MY money - will thus end up wasted.
I'm British. And I, for one, am not scared of terrorists.
Whoever they are.
Because one-hour shows in the USA these days tend to have six acts, not three? Of course, if you're suggesting cutting the show down to half an hour, I am bang alongside that idea. A simple change in formula could work wonders. Up the pace a little... yes, I like it.
Heavens, do I have to think of everything? Episode one: a gigantic spaceship laden with unbelievable technology comes backwards in time from the near-utopian distant future we are all familiar with. The timeline is irretrievably skewed off its expected tracks by this incursion and it rapidly becomes clear that the future remains still to be written. Was that so hard?
What I think this particular story means is that the Star Trek universe wants to stop moving forward. In time, I mean. The creators of Star Trek have - starting with Enterprise and continuing until now - lost the guts to do anything but cash in on past glories and old history. There's no drive to create NEW history. Old Star Trek is popular still - yeah, because it's old. New Old Star Trek will get nowhere. "Rebooting" the Star Trek universe from Kirk and Spock will get nowhere. They need to go forward. REALLY forward. Five hundred years beyond TNG. Build an absolutely perfect Federation and then hurl seriously gigantic threats at it. Go to the limits of current science fiction and use the cream. Transhumanism and stuff!
This is like the famous "interesting numbers" problem. If you stretch your interest far enough, you can't get away from them at this time of the millennium. Personally, I was a big fan of 8:02pm on February 20th, 2002 (20:02 20/02/2002), which is a pattern which won't repeat for another 106 years - and after that, not until CE 3003. Rarity is a good thing.
I'm a big fan of emphasising the threat of global warming as a "this is going to be really expensive" scenario. Seems to me it might be the best way to stop it happening.
In a situation like that, in addition to anything else you do, my advice is to get the licence plate. Jot it down on your hand or something. It might be nothing, but it might be everything. You can put it on a scrap of paper in your wallet and throw it away in a month when you find it again.
I'm always wary of poorly-stated awards things like "best games ever". What does that even mean? What are we basing this on? How much we like them now? How well they were originally received? Sales? Impact? This is why I am an admirer of EGM's Greatest 200 Videogames Of Their Time. A much better-stated question, to be sure.
At risk of stating the obvious, YRO means "Your Rights, discussed here, online". Slashdot is more than just technology, dig?
Ideas? No. I dare say there are literally thousands, tens of thousands of people in California, exploding with creative genius, who would love to make seriously challenging, interesting, unusual, original movies. What Hollywood lacks is guts. It is safer, financially, to put out a movie which is a lot like lots of previous movies. A movie which is based on a franchise which people are already familiar with. A movie which appeals to well-established movie-going demographics. Hollywood cares too much about money to take enough risks. So the movie corps go for safer and safer options. And we get bored.
There's a thought experiment. You have a long, straight beach, and at each end of the beach is an ice cream van. The ice cream vans are in competition. Reasoning that beachgoers will usually choose the nearer van, the first van moves a bit down the beach, the better to gain customers from its competitor. Of course, the second van reasons the same and moves closer too. Gradually they get closer and closer until you have two vans sitting next to each other right at the middle of the beach, neither of them getting much business from the beachgoers at the ends of the beach.
This is what's happening in the movie industry at the moment. The music industry too, in fact.