I'm no radio expert, but isn't it still possible that you could simply use some other kind of transmission, rather than cell phones? Say, ham radio, police frequencies, citizen band, or whatever?
Blocking cell phones seems to me to be what's called "security theater." It's all show to make people think they're safe, and (more especially) that the government is "hard at work ensuring the nation's security." (Blah, blah, blah.)
This is good theater, too, because it is something that affects almost everybody at an event, so they're sure not to miss noticing the "hard work." Why, it'll be the talk of the town!
At most, this is 10% security, 90% public relations.
When J. Edgar Hoover was running the FBI (as his own private, little fiefdom), he had a chip on his shoulder regarding Martin Luther King Jr. He had his agents tail him, and when they put together enough photographs of King with his mistress, they delivered it in a package to his front door, knowing King's wife would receive it.
King's "crime" certainly wasn't infidelity; it was being suspected (according to J.E.H.) of being a communist sympathizer. But, hey, if they could put the squeeze on the "perp" -- or whatever colorful language they were using to describe MLK -- I guess they figured it was okay.
This is what people in government do. Believing that they are the ones fighting the good fight (or as these simpletons like to put it: catching the "bad guys"), they hold themselves above the law in an "end justifies the means" mentality.
The whole point of putting restraints on law enforcement is to check the human beings in law enforcement from acting as if they hold some kind of heavenly mandated impunity separating them from the common folk.
Even if you have "nothing to hide," it's your right to be free from wanton, arbitrary government snooping.
<sarcasm>
Great! Now, the first thing these guys should do is apply for a patent. Something broad, say: "A cure for AIDS." That'll stop anybody from muscling in on their breakthrough.
</sarcasm>
Okay, I suppose I could read the legalese; but I figured I'd take a crack at you already knowing the answer.
Can anybody implement the spec, and is that right perpetual. What I mean is: if Sun decided, could they invalidate the license for non-Sun implementations? Could they sell their rights to another company that could then either pull the rights, or effectively stifle any innovation, allowing the language to grow obsolete?
You see, as long as Sun can't get people "hooked on their crack" -- giving it away at first, and then charging a bundle -- I don't see the problem with Java as it is. What's the deal?
Name, age, and national ID number?! Unless they have some kind of picture ID with a magnetic strip on the back which has to be inserted into a computer, after the photo has been checked by an official, how are they going to keep people who have somehow gotten hold of someone else's name, age, and ID number, from using that information when they log on?
Pity the poor bastard who has to explain to the chinese authorities that it wasn't he who was reading Slashdot at the local cafe, but an impostor.
For all the snide comments the original iMac got when it came out ("gumdrop," "Volkswagen Beetle") there is no denying the thought that went behind its design when it came to cooling. It worked entirely on convection, and, having no fan, was silent (but for the occassional whir of the hard drive).
The top of the case (where the heat vented) was hot as hell, but if you felt down on the bottom by the motherboard, it was cool to the touch.
No doubt this wasn't possible with the G4 (the iMac was a G3 chip), as it runs much hotter. If Apple gets some cooler running chips from IBM, we may see fanless Macs again.
My new iMac (G4) runs very quiet. The fan does not run constantly, nor at one speed only.
I think there's plenty to be done to reduce noise; but the manufacturers who ship out PC "commodity boxes" couldn't be bothered.
The Nazis didn't go running around screaming "you can't do that, it's not your right" when British intelligence cracked Enigma. Instead, they responded with a stronger cypher.
If your encryption can be cracked, it's not a matter of rights or privileges. It's matter of technology. Your encryption is weak and you need to make it stronger. Then you don't need social laws to prevent people from cracking it.
So, when a burglar breaks into my house, I don't go running and screaming that it's not their right, I just install a more secure lock? With secure locks we don't need laws?
Seriously, I can't stand the idea that information is going to be locked away with some proprietary format, that will then be "improved upon," requiring me to "upgrade" to the next piece of hardware or lose my property. There is however a legitimate argument to be made about intellectual property being stolen -- unless you don't buy into the notion of intellectual property at all.
I think the real issue isn't about encryption; it's about illegal copying. What encryption and these damn laws do is prevent people from honest use of their property, in an effort (largely unsuccessful) to hinder the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.
Would you care to elaborate? Someone might just dismiss your comment as the knee-jerk reaction of an "anti-Amercian, tree-hugging environmentalist" upset over being reminded that his cause celebre (the Kyoto treaty) was shot down in this country over these very same concerns of sovereignty.
There's "loonies" on every side of the political spectrum, you know.
You're absolutely right, but I think the understanding of the proper scope of treaties was much more limited until at least we were well into the 20th century. That's what I have a problem with: the increase in scope.
Right, the Senate passes treaties -- my whole point exactly.
The Senate is designed to be somewhat insulated from the vagaries of popular opinion: they are up for election only once every six years. Moreover, as a body of only 100 members, they are supposed to be able to act more decisively.
The House, by contrast, is made up of many more members, each of which is up for election every two years. By design, the House is supposed to be more representative.
Together, the House is supposed to represent popular opinion, and the Senate is supposed to cool the passions of the masses; together, along with the President, laws are passed -- in theory, at least, balanced laws.
Treaties, by contrast, are ratified by the Senate after being presented by the President. The House is left totally out of the loop. As treaties enjoy the full force of law, this creates a tendency for more elitist, less populist laws.
Now, because you had to start with your "who modded this idiot up" nonsense, I have had to give you a lesson in U.S. government -- so much so that I myself would be tempted to mod this whole thread down as a "troll."
Think before you shoot that idiot mouth of yours off, next time.
It seems that this whole notion of using treaties for anything other than marking out jurisdiction over the lands and seas, or codifying who gets what at the end of a war is a huge threat to a nation's sovereignty, and, in a democratic country, the ultimate sovereignty of a country's citizenry.
The Kyoto treaty, NAFTA, and all other economic treaties are ways of sneaking in through the back door (in the United States) laws that would never be passed through legitimate means. The House of Representatives is totally left out of the loop, bypassing our most democratically representative body.
Now, apart from economic treaties, the U.S. will play handmaiden to the enforcement of foreign criminal statutes (while other countries do likewise).
This is bullshit!
Politicians are at a loss to know what to do in the face of a world rapidly being transformed by technology, and international communication and commerce; but, in an effort at being seen as "doing something about the problems of today's world" are rushing to pass laws, the consequences of which can neither be foreseen nor easily undone.
And we're the ones who are going to have to live with it.
Here's an article on a new type of jet engine being developed, a pulse detonation engine or PDE. It promises to boost thrust considerably, while at the same time dramatically reducing fuel consumption.
It's most likely anticipation of PDE that's driving the innovation in reducing noise from supersonic flight. Supersonic flight will be commonplace when PDE gets off the ground.
[I]f the "journalist" ran a real test, say of a DOZEN differnt sound cards, across a DOZEN different distributions, and identified which distributions worked with which sound cards...
Then that would take valuable time away from thinking up snazzy titles and working soundbites into an article -- and how can you expect a thing like that from most modern journalists?
To design a good mouse, you have to investigate the principles of good design. In the world of sports, one item has remained unchanged in its basic design since the birth of the sport. We should base the mouse on this.
Yours is a good idea, undermined by the conservative-minded technophobes in education. As Apple was losing the education market, the most common rationale coming from school boards and administrators for purchasing Microsoft products was that they would be training the students to use the technology they would be using in "the real world."
There's no meaningful innovation in schools. People are scared to death to spend money on anything unless it is the industry standard. It's the old bit of wisdom: "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Many teachers don't know anything about computers, beyond running Microsoft products. Even the "tech" teachers or those running the "business" classes no little more than the few programs for which they've received "training."
A teacher who is technically inclined can probably spearhead a wonderful program, provided it doesn't cost too much; but don't look to the average teacher, or even slightly above average teacher, to do anything except reinforce the status quo.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no radio expert, but isn't it still possible that you could simply use some other kind of transmission, rather than cell phones? Say, ham radio, police frequencies, citizen band, or whatever?
Blocking cell phones seems to me to be what's called "security theater." It's all show to make people think they're safe, and (more especially) that the government is "hard at work ensuring the nation's security." (Blah, blah, blah.)
This is good theater, too, because it is something that affects almost everybody at an event, so they're sure not to miss noticing the "hard work." Why, it'll be the talk of the town!
At most, this is 10% security, 90% public relations.
Those of us among the "educated masses" know that "alot" [sic] is actually two words: a lot.
When J. Edgar Hoover was running the FBI (as his own private, little fiefdom), he had a chip on his shoulder regarding Martin Luther King Jr. He had his agents tail him, and when they put together enough photographs of King with his mistress, they delivered it in a package to his front door, knowing King's wife would receive it.
King's "crime" certainly wasn't infidelity; it was being suspected (according to J.E.H.) of being a communist sympathizer. But, hey, if they could put the squeeze on the "perp" -- or whatever colorful language they were using to describe MLK -- I guess they figured it was okay.
This is what people in government do. Believing that they are the ones fighting the good fight (or as these simpletons like to put it: catching the "bad guys"), they hold themselves above the law in an "end justifies the means" mentality.
The whole point of putting restraints on law enforcement is to check the human beings in law enforcement from acting as if they hold some kind of heavenly mandated impunity separating them from the common folk.
Even if you have "nothing to hide," it's your right to be free from wanton, arbitrary government snooping.
<sarcasm>
Great! Now, the first thing these guys should do is apply for a patent. Something broad, say: "A cure for AIDS." That'll stop anybody from muscling in on their breakthrough.
</sarcasm>
That's one of the wittiest things I've read on here in a while, Alaa. So, if you need a Slashdot signature, I would recommend that ;-)
Thanks for taking the time for the thoughtful answers to our questions.
Okay, I suppose I could read the legalese; but I figured I'd take a crack at you already knowing the answer.
Can anybody implement the spec, and is that right perpetual. What I mean is: if Sun decided, could they invalidate the license for non-Sun implementations? Could they sell their rights to another company that could then either pull the rights, or effectively stifle any innovation, allowing the language to grow obsolete?
You see, as long as Sun can't get people "hooked on their crack" -- giving it away at first, and then charging a bundle -- I don't see the problem with Java as it is. What's the deal?
Believe me, I do get it -- and as to your second paragraph, it does scare me.
Son of a gun!
I used to own a Summer 2000 Ruby iMac. I was totally unaware that earlier ones had a fan.
Good call!
Exactly!
Name, age, and national ID number?! Unless they have some kind of picture ID with a magnetic strip on the back which has to be inserted into a computer, after the photo has been checked by an official, how are they going to keep people who have somehow gotten hold of someone else's name, age, and ID number, from using that information when they log on?
Pity the poor bastard who has to explain to the chinese authorities that it wasn't he who was reading Slashdot at the local cafe, but an impostor.
For all the snide comments the original iMac got when it came out ("gumdrop," "Volkswagen Beetle") there is no denying the thought that went behind its design when it came to cooling. It worked entirely on convection, and, having no fan, was silent (but for the occassional whir of the hard drive).
The top of the case (where the heat vented) was hot as hell, but if you felt down on the bottom by the motherboard, it was cool to the touch.
No doubt this wasn't possible with the G4 (the iMac was a G3 chip), as it runs much hotter. If Apple gets some cooler running chips from IBM, we may see fanless Macs again.
My new iMac (G4) runs very quiet. The fan does not run constantly, nor at one speed only.
I think there's plenty to be done to reduce noise; but the manufacturers who ship out PC "commodity boxes" couldn't be bothered.
So, when a burglar breaks into my house, I don't go running and screaming that it's not their right, I just install a more secure lock? With secure locks we don't need laws?
Seriously, I can't stand the idea that information is going to be locked away with some proprietary format, that will then be "improved upon," requiring me to "upgrade" to the next piece of hardware or lose my property. There is however a legitimate argument to be made about intellectual property being stolen -- unless you don't buy into the notion of intellectual property at all.
I think the real issue isn't about encryption; it's about illegal copying. What encryption and these damn laws do is prevent people from honest use of their property, in an effort (largely unsuccessful) to hinder the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.
Half-literate bibliophobes no longer shun the library. How wonderful.
Would you care to elaborate? Someone might just dismiss your comment as the knee-jerk reaction of an "anti-Amercian, tree-hugging environmentalist" upset over being reminded that his cause celebre (the Kyoto treaty) was shot down in this country over these very same concerns of sovereignty.
There's "loonies" on every side of the political spectrum, you know.
You're absolutely right, but I think the understanding of the proper scope of treaties was much more limited until at least we were well into the 20th century. That's what I have a problem with: the increase in scope.
Right, the Senate passes treaties -- my whole point exactly.
The Senate is designed to be somewhat insulated from the vagaries of popular opinion: they are up for election only once every six years. Moreover, as a body of only 100 members, they are supposed to be able to act more decisively.
The House, by contrast, is made up of many more members, each of which is up for election every two years. By design, the House is supposed to be more representative.
Together, the House is supposed to represent popular opinion, and the Senate is supposed to cool the passions of the masses; together, along with the President, laws are passed -- in theory, at least, balanced laws.
Treaties, by contrast, are ratified by the Senate after being presented by the President. The House is left totally out of the loop. As treaties enjoy the full force of law, this creates a tendency for more elitist, less populist laws.
Now, because you had to start with your "who modded this idiot up" nonsense, I have had to give you a lesson in U.S. government -- so much so that I myself would be tempted to mod this whole thread down as a "troll."
Think before you shoot that idiot mouth of yours off, next time.
It seems that this whole notion of using treaties for anything other than marking out jurisdiction over the lands and seas, or codifying who gets what at the end of a war is a huge threat to a nation's sovereignty, and, in a democratic country, the ultimate sovereignty of a country's citizenry.
The Kyoto treaty, NAFTA, and all other economic treaties are ways of sneaking in through the back door (in the United States) laws that would never be passed through legitimate means. The House of Representatives is totally left out of the loop, bypassing our most democratically representative body.
Now, apart from economic treaties, the U.S. will play handmaiden to the enforcement of foreign criminal statutes (while other countries do likewise).
This is bullshit!
Politicians are at a loss to know what to do in the face of a world rapidly being transformed by technology, and international communication and commerce; but, in an effort at being seen as "doing something about the problems of today's world" are rushing to pass laws, the consequences of which can neither be foreseen nor easily undone.
And we're the ones who are going to have to live with it.
Well, now that you mention it, I seem to remember that from the article.
I read it a couple of weeks ago. So much for retention!
Here's an article on a new type of jet engine being developed, a pulse detonation engine or PDE. It promises to boost thrust considerably, while at the same time dramatically reducing fuel consumption.
It's most likely anticipation of PDE that's driving the innovation in reducing noise from supersonic flight. Supersonic flight will be commonplace when PDE gets off the ground.
Then that would take valuable time away from thinking up snazzy titles and working soundbites into an article -- and how can you expect a thing like that from most modern journalists?
To design a good mouse, you have to investigate the principles of good design. In the world of sports, one item has remained unchanged in its basic design since the birth of the sport. We should base the mouse on this.
Of course, I'm talking about the hockey puck.
Of course I meant "know."
I don't know what it is about this "Submit" button that tempts me so! If I were king, the next version of Slash would have a "Proofread" button.
Yours is a good idea, undermined by the conservative-minded technophobes in education. As Apple was losing the education market, the most common rationale coming from school boards and administrators for purchasing Microsoft products was that they would be training the students to use the technology they would be using in "the real world."
There's no meaningful innovation in schools. People are scared to death to spend money on anything unless it is the industry standard. It's the old bit of wisdom: "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Many teachers don't know anything about computers, beyond running Microsoft products. Even the "tech" teachers or those running the "business" classes no little more than the few programs for which they've received "training."
A teacher who is technically inclined can probably spearhead a wonderful program, provided it doesn't cost too much; but don't look to the average teacher, or even slightly above average teacher, to do anything except reinforce the status quo.
Why wish that on anybody?
Really! At 22 episodes a season, they're just 21 paychecks away from being the "working stiffs" Jack Valenti is always talking about.